o
AND NOW TO something completely different. A comment criticizing Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung from the occult perspective caught my eye the other day, contrasting it with the modern transpersonal school of psychology which was considered to be far more superior. Especially there was some critique against equating “archetypes” with angels, etc. It made me ponder somewhat regarding the nature of archetypes, as well as the purpose of psychotherapy in the context of initiation. So here I will exhibit yet some more of my mental mastrubation.
The reader should also be aware (or warned) that I have the personal ambition of trying to construct a Esoteric Psychology that also works from a strictly clinical sense, fusing elements from both Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung, as two representatives of the psychoanalytic tradition (and taking the benefit of their system of pathology), with that of the Hermetic and Qabalistic traditions, into a workable format in the psychoterapeutic context. In my own research I have found that as much as C.G. Jung can be attached to the Hermetic / Achemical tradition, S. Freud may be corresponded to that of the Holy Qabalah.
Perhaps this will come as a surprise to some, but probably not to regular followers of my blog (in particular if they can read Swedish). In my opinion the initiate of a hermetic initiatic school has much more to gain from taking regular traditional psychotherapy or psychoanalysis than he or she does from transpersonal therapy, such as psychosyntheis. Why? Because (and not counting the fact that the former kind of therapists often have a more solid education and clinical training) we need to access that dark, unconscious and repressed aspects of ourselves – the complexes to use the terminology of Jung and Freud.
Thus, as initiates we shouldn’t write off either Freud or Jung as important in the understanding of the human soul to quickly. I agree that they are limiting (especially Freud) when it comes to transpersonal experiences. But no school of therapy is better than psychoanalysis or analytical psychology, or modern psychodynamic therapy, in probing and giving initiates keys to unravel their subconscious strata, and create psychological healing at that.
Perhaps this will come as a surprise to some, but probably not to regular followers of my blog (in particular if they can read Swedish). In my opinion the initiate of a hermetic initiatic school has much more to gain from taking regular traditional psychotherapy or psychoanalysis than he or she does from transpersonal therapy, such as psychosyntheis. Why? Because (and not counting the fact that the former kind of therapists often have a more solid education and clinical training) we need to access that dark, unconscious and repressed aspects of ourselves – the complexes to use the terminology of Jung and Freud.
Thus, as initiates we shouldn’t write off either Freud or Jung as important in the understanding of the human soul to quickly. I agree that they are limiting (especially Freud) when it comes to transpersonal experiences. But no school of therapy is better than psychoanalysis or analytical psychology, or modern psychodynamic therapy, in probing and giving initiates keys to unravel their subconscious strata, and create psychological healing at that.
Sigmund FreudI happen to have experience of psychosynthesis, both in training and my own therapy as part of that course (although quite limited). I have all the more experience and solid study of psychoanalysis / psychodynamic therapy both in training and in self-therapy. Based on that I must inform you that I have been given a lot more tools and assistance in my search for self-knowledge through my traditional psychotherapeutic training and therapy, compared to what I managed to gather through my psychosynthesis (transpersonal therapy) course.
What the Hermetic schools lack in training and theory is that part of the psyche or aspect of the work in gaining self-knowledge of what in esoteric psychology is referred to as the subconscious; it does however provide us with a map to experience the terrains of the superconscious. Thus while being in an initiatic school I would say that a psychotherapy that lays its emphasis on the subconscious / unconscious is very beneficient in this respect, as it complements the traditional training of an initiate in a most optimal way.
Now, some of you will either think or say that regular meditation and mindfulness techiques, such as found in Eastern traditions, is much more efficient than regular Western psychotherapy. I beg to differ; in my opinion you need the significant other (that is the therapist or initiator) to gain self-knowledge. Regardie understood this very well, especially when it came to dealing with transferential and projective issues, which I find wholly lacking in the transpersonal schools in the way of tools and theory.
Simple guided meditations will not lead you to that as it involves the conscious mind and will-power to a greater extent; you need to evoke those infantile drives to become conscious of them through the transferential relation. However, spontaneous visualization techiques, such as Jungs active imagination or Katathym imaginative psychotherapy more recently developed by Hanscarl Leuner (while starting off with a guided meditation soon developes into spontaneous imaginary), have their value. But even these techniques presupposes the therapist as an active ingredient, that is the relation between two humans.
Carl Gustav Jung
In that same comment Regardie met some critique for attributing Angelic forces to the archetypes. But in my opinion Angels may in fact be referred to “archetypes” of a sorts when referring to the microcosm, in the same manner as demons can be attributed to our repressed complexes. We have them both inside of us, as well as they both do exist in the macrocosm as independent entities. The Divine Genius is that Angel that is most close to out heart and our Sphere, but there are also others beyond that. I am sure that Jung had a thorough understanding of Plato and thus borrowed the idea of archetypes from him, which in the context of the latter refer to eternal ideas which transcends the mundane world that but reflects them in a shadowy format. Remember that we as Man (microcosm) are made into the image of God (macrocosm).
However I also believe that Jung in a way simplified truth in several instances. In his system there seems to be nothing beyond our Divnie Genius of the Hermetic school, which should be the equivalent of the Self in Jungian terms, our personal God (spark) so to speak. Here I beg to differ with him. How I see it today the Jungian Self (which I equate with the Higher and Divine Genius) is but an emissary of the true God beyond. Jung also make the archetypes, as I interpret him, almost as aspects of the individual Self (the archetype of the archetypes). Thus, using his model the other archetypes, such as the Mother and Father archetypes, attach to the Self. This aspect of the analytical psychology of Jung may also be understood in light of the Holy Qabalah. May I propose the following cross-reference:
The strictly Jungian archetypes compose the Sephiroth of the Assiatic Tree of Life in 10 aspects. Here the Jungian Self corresponds to Kether, or Yechidah of Man. The other archetypes are represented by the other 8 Sephiroth which follows, the 10th sphere representing our personal psyche and the “personal unconscious”. The Holy Qabalah teaches us that all the other 9 Sephiroth are contained in a latent and united form in Kether, that they emanate and thus are hanging as pendants from Kether. This clearly is reminicent of how Jung explains the Self in relation to the archetypes, although he uses a more circular model to explain it.
The anatomical model of the psyche according to C.G. Jung These archetypes that belong to Assiah are actually the reflection of the True Archetypes of Atziluth (the Archetypal World of the Qabalah). Thus the Higher Self in Assiah (the human world of action) is a reflection of Kether in Atziluth, the true Yechidah of the Greater World. However the Kether of Assiah has gone through lots of stages of descent and involution to reach its final destination which originated in Kether of Atziluth. In fact it emanates or grows out from Malkuth of Yetzirah (the world of formation and of angelical choirs), the feet of that mighty angel which overshadows each man. Thus, man’s Yechidah (that is Kether in Assiah) is but an incarnated emanation of the Yetziratic Angel (our Microcosmic Angel).
The orginal archetypes, that is the 10 Sephiroth of the World of Atziluth, are both macrocosmic and microcosmic, or in other words, there is no division between Man and God at this point. The same may be said of Briah as well, at least to a certain extent, the creative world in which the archetypes becomes embodied in the form of Macrocosmic Archangels and the Archangel of Man. In the latter case each Archangelic name represents an aspect of our Mighty Archangel. Thus an Archangel from Briah may interact with us through the medium of the World as well as we may invoke it from inside of ourself, through our own Microcosmic Archangel, in that realm which reaches beyond Assiah. But the lower (and I believe Jungian) archetypes belongs to the personal and solely microcosmic sphere of Assiah. Thus I interpret Jungs psychology as dealing with the anatomy of Assiah and perhaps the lowest statum (i.e. Malkuth) of Yetzirah.
The World of the Qlippoth Theurgy goes way beyond this. So in this respect the school of analytical psychology don’t give you the keys to everything, but nevertheless it is a good starter to gain self-knowledge about your Assiatic self, that is the 10 Sephiroth of Assiah, while Freud’s theories limits itself even further down to Malkuth of Assiah, or even the infernal Qlippotic regions below, the dwelling place of the Red Dragon. But traditional Freudian teachiques, or schools that are based on his theories, are very good at gaining knowledge of that Mighty Dragon, I must add.
Note: This short essay has been duly amended in 2014-01-16.
S∴R∴
Inlägg
20 kommentarer:
Hi Gyllene, thanks for sharing the interesting post. I guess we should talk more on this - I am working on a similar project, yet have come to slightly different conclusions so far...
1) Did you ever look into Gestalt Therapy as a third option next to traditional therapy according to Jung/Freud and transpersonal? To me this third option has helped me a lot to broaden my perspective.
2) Personally I had to learn that as a magician it might be the best training to learn how to laugh and enjoy the little things in life first - before you jump into the abyss. :-) Thus I would disagree with your initial statement that for a magician it is important to dive into the subconscious. Diving into your consciousness can be an adventure of equal danger...
3) I also think there is room for a view that allows both external spiritual entities (demons / angels) to exist in an independent manner from ourselves AND takes our own internal traumas and blocked energies for real - without trying to identify one with the other?
4) From my personal practical experience I would disagree that any elements of our Higher Self reach up to the heights of Atzilut...?
Lot's to discuss - we should open a forum just dedicated to these questions. :-) Thanks again.
LVX, Acher
Care Frater Acher,
You don't seem to agree with much of what I proposed ;-) But that's ok.
1) No, I have almost no experience of Gestalt Therapy. we supposedly did some of that during my psychosynthesis course, but honestly I cannot tell you exactly what that was. It was linked somehow to the work with sub-personalities. However, I have understood that Gestalt Therapy is based on the psychodynamic / psychoanalytic world view, albeit using a different terapuetic approach. And I did say that all forms of therapy that uses the concept of the unconscious is workable for the initiate. I don't doubt that there is real value to it.
2) Well, I don't know from which tradition you come with this suggestion, but in my experience working the initatic process of the Golden Dawn (or Rosicrucian path) stirrs up lots of unconscious / subconcious content anyway. If it doesn't it isn't working properly. Initiation by its very nature is a pathway of darkness in its initial stages. So, as I see it, it is better to deal with that content in a professional and safe manner with a therapist trained in working with the unconsious. I would say that it may become hazardous not to deal with it properly. I have seen it happening before my own eyes.
3) Well as a hermeticist I do believe very much in the macrocosm-microcosm paradigm. Thus whatever exist in the Greater Word must also exist in the Lesser. Being trained in psychology and the Freudian worldview, I cannot help seeing many parallells between psychology and the occult. That said microcosmic angels cannot simply be reduced to archetyps of the "collective unconscious". That is only one linguistic way of understanding them. There are other ways as well. However I believe there is lots of fruit to harvest combining these two paradigms (the occult and psychoanalytic).
4) I didn't say that our "Higher Self reach up to the heights of Atzilut" did I? What I said was that our Higher Self is Kether of Assiah but that it is a reflection of Kether in Atziluth, which is the Macrocosmic Self, i.e. God. Surely, you must believe that your Higher Self is an image of God?
Anyway, thank's for sharing your thoughts and let's continue the discussion, here if you prefer.
In Licht, Leben und Liebe,
S:.R:.
Hi S.:.R.:.,
please don't get me wrong - your post is truly thought provoking and it sparks many new insights.
I just arrived home from a long flight and shouldn't be online anymore as my brain is probably much slower than I assume right now... but this is just too interesting to wait. :-)
1) I am not an expert on either analysis nor transpersonal psychology; I have some knowledge and experience in Gestalt, Magic and Meditation. It seems like a classic case where we all only hold pieces of the puzzle... Let me dig out a few quotes on Gestalt that sprang to my mind when reading your post. I think there is a slight difference in that Gestalt doesn't focus on the subconscious so much as on the body and the here and now. I'll be back with some quotes that give a better idea of what I mean...
2) Your points about initiation are very true. Initiation is a process of passing through darkness, of letting go - a rite of passage - that requires facing one's own fears as well as in most cases support from someone who has been through it before. However, what I think is an overlooked aspect of initiation is that the initiate in the Ancient rites would have gone through the actual process completely in isolation and on their own. The role of the supporter / teacher / therapist is to prepare the initiate beforehand and then to help him afterwards in finding his 'new life'.
Having been through a couple of these experiences I found the most helpful support the one that did NOT focus on the dark aspects. Passing through darkness is the work I do on my own. Where I need help is to re-integrate what emerges from this into life, into laughter. Often after initiations I found it hard to have meaningful interactions at a bus-shelter, in a grocery store, etc. Once you have looked into the abyss (or a mirror!), there is a risk that everything else seems without depths.... So for me initiation bears the risk of getting lost from everyday life - and not returning to your social circle as you had been taken too far away from it...
This might be a significant difference between therapy and occultism? I am just realizing this now, to be honest. Thus thanks again for your post. But I never needed someone who showed me the stairs leading downwards into dark. It was on my way up again where I need(ed) help... - For me analytical therapists aren't really experts in climbing the stars up again, but leading the initiate downwards - which for some reason I know many occultists being great on their own at? What do you think?
3) Oh dear - really running out of brain power now - there is something really interesting here as well. I like your comment, it looks at the topic from a perspective I would not have chosen yet it seems completely obvious. I need to sleep over it I am afraid... :-)
4) I am actually not sure my HGA is an image of God - not anymore than a stone, a cloud or the computer I am typing on. My HGA is a being with independent consciousness from mine, yet a specific function (like many angels) that is intrinsically connected to my current existence (yet not limited to it). If we think of "god" as this thing beyond Kether than I would say that my HGA is as remote from it like Tiphareth is remote from Kether. There is a whole dark abyss in between...
What a wonderful conversation. Thanks for being open to disagree and have a great chat. None of the above is clearly fixed in my mind and I am learning a lot as we are going through this...
LVX, Acher
Care Frater Acher,
1) I was told that Gestalt Therapy is usable in interpreting dreams, in that different people in the room play out the roles of the dream drama, or if one person, that he or she plays out the different characters one by on. I suppose this to be a quite powerful techique.
2) Interesting perspective on intiation. Be there as it may, in the tradition that I am working, the initiations are performed in the collective. Yes, lots of support is needed afterwars. The initiate receives personal tutoring to guide him afterwards.
Regarding psychoanalysis, yes there is a descent in the beginning, but remember, not being alone but toghether with the therapist. But there is also a following ascent, the natural outcome of hitting rock bottom.
The key-word is "Gnothi Seauton" or "know thyself". That can only be made if looking into yourself, also the sub-strata, not only the super-strata. And there is lots of joy and feast as well, even though there is lots of sorrow and pain simultaneously.
3. O.k.
4. Yes, there is an abyss in between the Genius / Higher Self / HGA and God. But nevertheless, the HGA is a reflection of God, in the same manner as the ego is a reflection of the Higher Self. "Angel" means "messenger" (of God). So his or her primary role is to act as an intermediary between God and your pesonal ego.
In Licht, Leben und Liebe,
S:.R:.
Care,
Interesting points you make, interesting points indeed.
If you don't mind I would like to share my two cents (having been trained in transpersonal psychology and teaching an integration of cognitive, humanistic and transpersonal (psycho)therapy):
1. Jung was indeed quite into the transpersonal, a daring move for his time, I might add. Freud, well, ummm, I like to call him a greenhorn from the Victorian Vienna where ladies wore uptight dresses from neck to their heels and where society was almost as uptight (one of the roots of his obsession with sex?), have in fact come up with some brilliant ideas, I have to admit. The defense mechanisms were his jackpot, in my humble opinion.
And here my praise of the man terminates. I am not a fan of his, obviously (will get into that momentarily).
2. Angles and Archangels being presented as archetypes – yes, and why not. Of course, here we hit the age old discussion whether Angels/Gods/Archangels are purely subjective creation of human (transpersonal) psyche or do they exist objectively.
What is your take on this, care Frater, please?
Me, I can live in both camps. It is, however, a grey area we enter here. Do we need to make them up (colors, statues etc…) or just call upon them and wait how they present themselves etc. It is subjective and conditioned by initiation attainment (i.e. transpersonal awareness attained and sustained in daily life), in my honest opinion.
3. Yes, psychoanalyses can be a great tool…..in unraveling and exploring disharmonies in human psyche. But that’s all there is to it (sorry for being so direct; I know nothing is so black/white, but bear with me, please). I have had numerous clients (in psychotherapy sessions) who understood ALL there is to understand about their inner dynamics, defense mechanisms, child abuse traumas (having concluded 3-5 years marathon (!) with psychoanalyst) and that was it. No real and lasting advances in life, no progress whatsoever (in terms of lighter life, more authentic feelings etc…). All they accomplished, according to majority of them, is broader awareness of their own dark side, that’s all. They just understood, they haven’t cleared out any of the negative emotions or non-constructive mental representations.
I always wondered what on earth psychoanalysts expect. :)
They help their clients to become aware of their shadow (as per Jung) and then what? They tell their clients what is wrong with them, basically, and then hope and pray that somehow, in some magical way all that negativity will just be over shined and resolved by what exactly? Freud denied the existence of transpersonal, so what exactly is he relying on?
4. I disagree that transpersonal psychotherapy is superior to old schools of Freud and Jung, yes. It all depends on what level of personal growth the client is. Mental ego is all psychoanalysis. But what if client has already gone beyond that level?
I would love to go into details here, but suffice it to say that Wilber has done a superb job in integrating wisdom from the East and modern psychology. The so called Wilber map (or Rowan’s one, more to my own heart; briefly outlined on my Blog: http://silentium-est-aureum.blogspot.com/p/transpersonal.html) clearly describes (yes, it describes, it does not label or diagnose; Wilber did not make this up, as Freud did for the most part) transformation (I wanted to use the term 'development' but I feel it is not really appropriate) of human psyche from prenatal awareness to purely transpersonal ones. I believe you could find his work enlightening for your project. Or not. :)
5. Interesting project you have. I wish you sincerely good luck. My area is integration of cognitive, humanistic and transpersonal psychotherapy elements……and I did not heed the hint my professor gave me: “You don’t seem to realize how orthodox modern psychology establishment really is.” So, I guess I will conclude this brief post with siding with you on the subject of “Adepts vs Scholars”.
Care Frater O.c.D.O.,
I have to post this in two parts as it contains to many characters. Part I then:
Thank's for sharing your thoughts. It was reading your blog that sparket it in the first place :-)
2. Like I have said in both by post and comments, I believe that they (the archetypes) both exist in the objective outside World (macrocosm) and in the Lesser World/Man (microcosm). It is through merging the Greater and Lesser we can get unified with the ALL. We call them angels in our Western and Christened culture, or gods or goddesses if being pagan. We do project our own image of them. But in doing this we may find ouselfs meeting the achetypal forces in this effort, and the merging of our microcosm with the macrocosm.
3. Psychoanalysis leads to Self-Knowledge. It is up to the subject/patient to use that knowledge (as any other) to create more quality in their life. But with the help of the therapist they may find themselves guided in doing that. Yes, some (or many) patients don't go further than self-knowledge, but many do.
You've mentioned the defence mechanisms. There are many and they have been quite well mapped by both Freud and Jung. Well, a person seeking therapy often has deveoped to much of one or a few defence mechanisms. Through therapy they get access to a more broad variety of defenses. This makes them less rigid, less sypmtomatic, more liberated and flexible. That is the goal of classical psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy. I have seen this happen before my own eyes working as a therapist. The tools as presented by Freud and his modern followers who has developed the psychodynamic school shouldn't be underestimated. In my opinion (and this is proved with modern research) it is still the most effective tool to heal mental sickness and pathology.
Why on earth do I recommend it for initiates if it is so limiting to creating but more defense mechanisms? Because you receive other tools through your magical and alchemical training for reaching more healing qualities than that. But if you don't deal with your "shadow" (to use Jung's term, which more or less is equivalent of all that Freud regarded to be the unconscioius) it will become isolated and encapsulated. Just because you reach to transpersonal regions and invoke more L.V.X. into your soul and Sphere of Sensation, doesn't mean that you will overcome your shadow; it is sneaky as hell in surviving. You have to, eventually, deal with it directly. If not sooner, you have to do it later. That is one (but not all) of the objectives with Magical Evocation. Here i find psychoanalysis as particularly beneficient tool for the initiate to in a safe way start to dealing with the Shadow early in his magical and initiatory career.
In Licht, Leben und Liebe,
S:.R:.
Part II of my response to Frater O.c.D.O.,
4. I haven't read any of Wilber's stuff, yet. Honestly, I don't know if I will. I have access to the tradition which gives me ample of stuff to use. I'm sure that transpersonal therapy can be very useful as a initiatory tool for non-initiates (that is not initiated into hermetica). But, as I said, I still believe there is much value in combining traditional initiation and training with traditional psychotherapy.
When I finally will work out my own model of psychotherapy, I certainly will be more categorized as a transpersonal therpist, however with my feets (and roots) firmly placed on (in) the psychoanalytical soil
BTW, Freud didn "make everything up" himself. He bases his theories on older German philosophical tradition, and upon the classics of ancient Greece. He didn't even invent the concept of the unconscious. In fact, Goethe is a earlier source, a Master that Freud himself referred to.
This is what I like with psyhoanalysis (Freud) and analytical psychology (Jung). They are founded upon philosophy. Other more modern psycholgical schools, such as the now very popular cognitive school, is more based upon natural sciences, such as behaviourism, which regards man to be a machine as any other (only more intricate). For example, you cannot find a workable analysis of such human phenomena as art or religion in the coginitve school. The latter is way to limiting to explaing human nature. Humanistic psychology, well, that is an entierly different matter.
God luck with your own endeavours!
In Licht, Leben und Liebe,
S:.R:.
1st part:
Care Frater,
thank you for your time, sir.
Yes, I got the feeling you were referring to my Blog. Thank you for visiting it.
:)
You did slightly misinterpret my words, I think, but then again I did not express myself thoroughly in that post.
2. Well, here I tend to lean on the »objective« interpretation (although I can accept both, if I really try hard LOL ). It is all subjective (i.e. we project), yes, but they (Gods/Archangels/Angels/Demons etc.) also exist independently of our projections. If that had not been the case, and if they had really been only our projections (or as Regardie said: “…they are build up by the human imagination.”), then none of them would have existed for others when we were in deep sleep or deep Samadhi (i.e. no projections, mind is shut down).
Pragmatically speaking, what that means (for me at least), is that I never visualize or make up their forms, colors etc. in rituals and meditations.
3. Yes. If by Self-Knowledge you mean understanding personal (and pre-personal) inner psychological dynamics. I am, however, fairly reluctant to embrace the notion that psychoanalysis (or any other psychotherapy) leads to self-realization. Only self-realization leads to self-realization, i.e. only direct transpersonal experiences will do; and they are the Grace from God (not from a therapist/tutor or book), in my opinion and indeed experience.
Yes, if one treads a path of initiation (either of the East (me, for example) or West (you, it seems)), than tools you mention are welcome and readily employed, of course.
You already seem to be a transpersonal therapist, as far as I can tell, even if you employ traditional, or as I call them, old schools. That makes your approach more effective, in my opinion.
But, truth be told, psychoanalysts in general, the hard core ones (and I am sure you can think of one or two right now) haven’t got a slightest clue that anything exists beyond what they call personal or pre-personal (my previous “rhetorical questions” were aimed at them, not you, please). They couldn't follow our thread of thoughts, I think, let alone understand it.
Bomford, for example, remaining true to Freud of course, proclaimed God and unconsciousness as the same (!).
One just can’t tackle transpersonal (non-material) with personal/pre-personal (material) psychotherapy terms/tools. Yes?
Yes, psychoanalysis seems to me a safe start in the early stages of spiritual development. But when aspirant climbs up the latter of transpersonal realizations, personal and pre-personal tools seldom apply, in my opinion. When aspirant is more equipped (not just invoking a few Archangels and LVX and balancing astral/mental body with LBRP/H etc.) to face his own shadow, but actually strong enough to really face his true demons like childhood abuses, sex/authority/finances and relationships issues, current and old ones (and realizing therein lays the Shadow for the most part), then just analyzing inner dynamics falls short, IMHO. That’s my experience with quite a high number of ex-Freud-club-members in professional psychotherapy setting. You might have different experiences, true.
After all, why integrate Kabbalah (arguably transpersonal method) into psychoanalysis/analytic psychology if the latter is so effective on its own, yes?
continued in Part 2 :)
Part 2:
4. Well, I encountered many ordinarily people, who haven’t even heard of any kind of initiation, and were indeed much in a need of a direct and deep psychotherapy. So, I maintain transpersonal psychotherapy can be employed to anyone not only to initiates.
:)
Freud did not make stuff up by himself?
Oh, I did not know that Goethe was also into blaming sex (or the lack there off) for all human problems and calling religion massive obsessive neurosis.
Ummm, did he also used to interpret dreams based on awful generalization?
(teasing you now :) ).
:)
:)
Seriously, though, yes I am aware that Freud was a great man (for his time), standing on the shoulders of even greater men from the past.
Well, regarding cognitive psychology, it is a bit more complex than you make it seem, if you don’t mind me saying.
True, cognitive psychologists deny existence of Soul or anything beyond brain matter (but so did Sigmund Freud, MD, yes?), but there is really a huge body of research done in the field of cognitive neuroscience which we may as well treat as basic scientific interpretation of everything, even art and religion, from the solid scientific stand point, of course. This is kindda my area, we can talk for hours LOL, although I admit there is much more to explore beyond brain matter (non-locality of human consciousness, for example, which cannot be explained away by cognitive neuroscientists).
Humanistic psychology is entirely different matter?! Oh, I beg to differ, sir. It is central to all we are talking about, in my opinion.
Let me put it like this:
you surely know that when behaviorism fell in the 60ies of the previous century, humanistic psychology was born. Rogers, Maslow and Co.
The same great men, Rogers, Maslow, plus Wilber and Grof sat down a few years later and said (paraphrasing): “OK, cool, humanistic psychology is great (we got rid of Freud and Skinner and Co.), it puts positive human being in the center of his life, helping him assume full responsibility for his life, but there is something missing: a spiritual component.”
And that’s how transpersonal psychology was born. :)
You cannot really do transpersonal psychotherapy without elements of humanistic psychology (unless you do it unaware), according to modern psychotherapy theorem/practice. Even psychiatry is starting to employ humanistic components, go figure.
Ok, my kind sir, I think we both have bored your usual readers enough with these non-magical topics.
I thank you for the opportunity for this mental exercise/exchange of opinions. I too wish you all the best with your new method, sir. Let us know when you are done. :)
F. OcDO
Care Frater,
this was a great article, as always.
Speaking from experience i can only say that psychoanalysis and Magic complement each other perfectly.
And in fact iam quite happy that my therapist does not express any spiritual standpoint or idea.
I would jump right off the couch would he try to teach me something about my spiritual Self or Karma!
These and other "transpersonal" answers i better work out for myself.
In L.V.X.,
Fr. L.e.N.e.
Frater O.c.D.O.,
You said: "Well, regarding cognitive psychology, it is a bit more complex than you make it seem, if you don’t mind me saying."
I was referring to Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. I know quite well what that does to people and its working model.
"True, cognitive psychologists deny existence of Soul or anything beyond brain matter (but so did Sigmund Freud, MD, yes?)"
Not exactly true (about Freud). He preferred to talk about the Soul (Seele), even though he had hopes to find neurological explanations of his psychology, although he confessed that he never could find any satisfactory neurological model.
"but there is really a huge body of research done in the field of cognitive neuroscience which we may as well treat as basic scientific interpretation of everything"
We also have today neuro-psychoanalysis, wich gives neurological explanations of Freuds old psychological models.
"...even art and religion, from the solid scientific stand point, of course."
Really?
"Humanistic psychology is entirely different matter?!"
With this I meant that it was an entirely different matter compared to Cognitive psychology; i.e. that it had lots of more value for us. So I basically agree with you when you say:
"It is central to all we are talking about, in my opinion."
So, calm down please.
"I think we both have bored your usual readers enough with these non-magical topics."
I hope not. This blog i also dedicated to psychology, although from the occult perspective.
"I thank you for the opportunity for this mental exercise/exchange of opinions."
Likewise.
In Licht, Leben und Liebe,
S:.R:.
Care Fra. L.e.N.e.,
Thank you for you kind words! And thank you also for sharing with your experience of both intiation and psychoanalysis. I know for sure what you are talking about.
Another thing often overlooked in this discussion, is that we as magicians often need a second opinion from the materialistic point of view, for our experiences. This helps us with grounding and keeping our feets firmly planted in the soil. To many occultists get way to "air-headed" through their magical exercises. Sometimes with dire consequences.
As magicians we must stay levelheaded. God admonishes us to. Why would he give us our ability to reason if not?
In Licht, Leben und Liebe,
S:.R:.
Care Fra. O.c.D.O.,
You said: "You did slightly misinterpret my words"
This is easy to do with only words to read and the whole spectrum of non-verbal communication lacking. I feel that you have misinterpreted some of my words as well.
"It is all subjective (i.e. we project), yes, but they (Gods/Archangels/Angels/Demons etc.) also exist independently of our projections."
I didn't say that all is subjective, not even in the microcosm. The archetypes themselves are objective, even in the Jungian sense. However the particular god-forms we build are based not on our intuition but on us reading books and mythology. Mythology is of course partly inspired by the archetypes but takes different forms in different cultures. This difference is subjective and the common elements are archetypal.
"I never visualize or make up their forms, colors etc. in rituals and meditations."
Yes you do, because you base it on the tradition you are following and use your active will and imagination. Hopefully this astral shell will be infused by the reasl archetypal forces, both macrocosmic and microcosmic.
"Yes. If by Self-Knowledge you mean understanding personal (and pre-personal) inner psychological dynamics."
That is exactly what I meant. I didn't say that you will get a full level of self-knowledge; only the subconscious parts - not the transpersonal. But my case is that most occult schools don't deal sufficiently with the subconscious part and mostly only with the superconscious (transpersonal). That's why I advocate a combination of them two schools.
"You already seem to be a transpersonal therapist, as far as I can tell, even if you employ traditional, or as I call them, old schools. That makes your approach more effective, in my opinion."
Thank's :-)
"psychoanalysts in general, the hard core ones...haven’t got a slightest clue that anything exists beyond what they call personal or pre-personal"
I agree.
"Bomford, for example, remaining true to Freud of course, proclaimed God and unconsciousness as the same (!)."
But I can understand this reasoning. For most people the superconscious (transpersonal) is quite unconscious (that is latently conscious). Some psychoanalyts say that the unconscious is bottomless. That for me at least gives me hope of some level of opendmindness on behalf of some of them.
"One just can’t tackle transpersonal (non-material) with personal/pre-personal (material) psychotherapy terms/tools. Yes?"
I agree. However it is hard to experience the transpersonal/superconscious, and especially integrate it into your everyday life, if you continually use infantile defense mechanisms, such as projections, repressions, rationalizations, etc. You can deal with these latter quite effectively with traditional psychotherapy.
"psychoanalysis seems to me a safe start in the early stages of spiritual development. But when aspirant climbs up the latter of transpersonal realizations, personal and pre-personal tools seldom apply, in my opinion."
I agree.
"why integrate Kabbalah (arguably transpersonal method) into psychoanalysis/analytic psychology if the latter is so effective on its own, yes?"
I didn't say that psychoanalysis is a general formula of knowing the ALL. But it is a good starter to deal with your most infantile behaviour which truly can hold you back on your spiritual path and seriously hamper your spiritual/magical/alchemical progress.
In Licht, Leben und Liebe,
S:.R:.
Care Frater,
long post again, I am afraid.
It will probably be a bit confusing to read, I have tried to make some sense in the format of my replies.
S.R.: »I was referring to Cognitive Behavior Therapy. I know quite well what that does to people and its working model.«
Agreed. CBT simply isn’t what I would offer anyone in distress.
The same goes for orthodox psychoanalysis.
Integrating it with moderns approaches, well, kudos.
Me: "True, cognitive psychologists deny existence of Soul or anything beyond brain matter (but so did Sigmund Freud, MD, yes?)"
S.R.: “Not exactly true (about Freud). He preferred to talk about the Soul (Seele), even though he had hopes to find neurological explanations of his psychology, although he confessed that he never could find any satisfactory neurological model.«
Well, that's news to me. I have always thought (and read in books, articles etc.) that Freud was against spiritual (transpersonal), very much so, actually.
Well, tnx for clearing that up, sir.
Me: "...even art and religion, from the solid scientific stand point, of course."
S.R.: “Really?”
As far as neuroscience is concerned, everything is happening in the brain (neuro nets, neurotransmitters etc.), mental interpretations of life, art etc. all is within, governed bya top-down perceptual structure; even »spiritual« experiences are looked at as byproducts of a newly found chemical in the brain. If you want, I can look it up, can’t recall the research details off hand.
I am not siding with modern neuroscience, mind you, as it is what it is: a science, inherently limited to physical proofs. The non-locality of consciousness is a huge problem for neuroscientists, especially when Dr. Ian Stevenson proved the existence of reincarnation in his life-long work. His work is worth looking into, IMHO.
S.R.: »With this I meant that it was an entirely different matter compared to Cognitive psychology; i.e. that it had lots of more value for us. So I basically agree with you when you say
So, calm down please.«
:)
Second part:
S.R.: »This blog i also dedicated to psychology, although from the occult perspective.«
Oh, OK, no problem then.
Snipped from another post:
S.R.: »Another thing often overlooked in this discussion, is that we as magicians often need a second opinion from the materialistic point of view, for our experiences. This helps us with grounding and keeping our feets firmly planted in the soil. To many occultists get way to "air-headed" through their magical exercises. Sometimes with dire consequences.«
So very true.
And this applies to all people on any spiritual path, in my opinion. Some mystical paths are even steeper and hence more dangerous.
S.R.: »This is easy to do with only words to read and the whole spectrum of non-verbal communication lacking. I feel that you have misinterpreted some of my words as well.«
Of course, it happens a lot; but we are on the same page nevertheless, I have a feeling.
Me: "I never visualize or make up their forms, colors etc. in rituals and meditations."
S.R.: »Yes you do, because you base it on the tradition you are following and use your active will and imagination. Hopefully this astral shell will be infused by the reasl archetypal forces, both macrocosmic and microcosmic.«
Well, I can’t say that I understand what you just said, but what I meant was that I don’t project willingly and intentionally images and colors (you know, as per instructions in the manuals). I just open up and wait. And what happens is in accordance with what I have in my subconscious, for the most part, true. I certainly don’t “…build them up by human imagination…” Why would I. They exist independently from me, so why even bother?
It would be like me imaging you if you came to visit me. No need. You exist.
Me: "Yes. If by Self-Knowledge you mean understanding personal (and pre-personal) inner psychological dynamics."
S.R.: »That is exactly what I meant. I didn't say that you will get a full level of self-knowledge; only the subconscious parts - not the transpersonal. But my case is that most occult schools don't deal sufficiently with the subconscious part and mostly only with the superconscious (transpersonal). That's why I advocate a combination of them two schools."
I see.
I agree with you.
Me: "Bomford, for example, remaining true to Freud of course, proclaimed God and unconsciousness as the same (!)."
S.R.: “But I can understand this reasoning. For most people the superconscious (transpersonal) is quite unconscious (that is latently conscious). Some psychoanalyts say that the unconscious is bottomless. That for me at least gives me hope of some level of opendmindness on behalf of some of them.«
When you put it like this, yes, I agree.
Thank you for your time.
In LVX
F. OcDO
Care Fr. L.e.N.e.
You have said:
»And in fact iam quite happy that my therapist does not express any spiritual standpoint or idea.
I would jump right off the couch would he try to teach me something about my spiritual Self or Karma!
Well, that would never happen in proper humanistic and/or transpersonal psychotherapy session. Therapist doesn't impart his thoughts upon the client as to what is wrong with him but helps him to discover that for himself. Huge difference from older schools or CBT, for example.
In older schools therapists would diagnose, project what he thought was wrong with a client and then treat that »mental disorder« according to his training. Humanistic psychology (and transpersonal) changed all that. That's why it is more effective, according to modern research results worldwide.
With respect,
F. OcDO
Care Frater O.c.D.O.,
you wrote: "Freud, well, ummm, I like to call him a greenhorn from the Victorian Vienna where ladies wore uptight dresses from neck to their heels and where society was almost as uptight (one of the roots of his obsession with sex?), have in fact come up with some brilliant ideas, I have to admit. The defense mechanisms were his jackpot, in my humble opinion.
And here my praise of the man terminates. I am not a fan of his, obviously (will get into that momentarily)."
Well, with you being the well educated person you are, you should be able to understand that Freud -even though we see him as the "Über-father" of psychotherapy as a whole- never actually had the chance to claim therapy for himself. Since he was the founder /inventor of psychotherapy (in the form of psychoanalysis) there was not a single therapist before him. Which attributes to the fact that Freud never had a therapy or analysis, and therefore might at certain instances still be trappped in his own unresolved conflicts and neuroses. It is so simple. Yes that makes him a "greenhorn". But not a greenhorn that one is allowed to talk down upon ;-)
I suggest to adopt a respectful attitude towards his enormous efforts to lay the roots to what is Psychology now; and we all should be able to understand his writings in the context of its time. Even if that means one has to tolerate the fashion of the 19th century (which, btw, was not Freud´s invention).
And: the social climate of that epoch (in terms of the social and political role of women at that time) created "hysteric" women -- which in turn made Freud aware of the neuroses stemming from repressed sexuality. Not a bad thing altogether. I wonder if it weren´t for his sensitivity if these complexes would have been discovered (much less treated) by any other person.
One last word:
Even if nowadays we have a different attitude towards sex and, concurrently, very different fashion, the neuroses and complexes stemming from repressed sexuality can be very much alike to those of Freud´s days. But the symptoms may be others than "hysteria".
Just my two cents.
in L.V.X.,
Sibuna
Frater O.c.D.O.,
you wrote:
"Freud, well, ummm, I like to call him a greenhorn from the Victorian Vienna where ladies wore uptight dresses from neck to their heels and where society was almost as uptight (one of the roots of his obsession with sex?)..."
To me it seems you are mixing certain things: you make the horse the horseman, and vice versa, as it were.
First, please understand that Freud since he was the first to found psychotherapy (in the form of psychoanalysis) he was, at the same time, ever able to claim a couch for himself.
There simply was no therapist for Freud.
Does that make him a greenhorn? Maybe.
But we should not look down upon Freud unless we did the same (for any field of science) ourselves-- laying the foundation of a new science...
Once we accept the fact that Freud never had the chance to experience the full powers of psychotherapy himself, we can easily see that Freud may -at certain points- still be trapped in his own unconscious complexes. (It is held a a tenet nowadays that effective self-therapy is as impossible as self-initiation into the Golden Dawn-- therefore, even if Freud was well aware about what went on in his own mind he still couldn´t overcome some of his complexes).
Secondly we should understand his writings in the context of the time. The social climate of the 19th century created "hysteric" women. (That may be due to the clothes they wore, or not...).
Since they suffered from repressed sexuality complexes, Freud became aware of these mechanisms (of course, they were also men suffering from these sexuality complexes. I warn against a sexistic point of view here!).
But I would rather adopt a respectful view of his works and the tremendous efforts in laying the basic building-blocks of Psychology and the manifold forms of psychotherapy we see today.
Understand me correctly: I´m not a Freudian psychotherapist. But I do respect what Freud has done. Without S. Freud, there would not be a C.G. Jung as we understand him today.
One last word: We may have a different view and approach to sexuality today (and a much different fashion, too). But the powers of complexes of repressed sexuality are very much alike to those of the 19th century. Even though the symptoms may vary ;-)
Just my two cents,
Fr. Sibuna
Dear Frater OCDO,
worldwide research results are not of interest for me here.
I know several people who came out of a 3 year analysis with the feeling that it was wasted time, and i know several others who told me things from their more modern therapies that simply made me cringe ("Oh, you have a problem with this friend- well, that may be karmic...").
But what is of interest for me here is that i feel comfortable with my process, and that i have trust in the competence of my therapist (who is trained in at least three different forms of therapy) and have the feeling that i move forward, which i do.
Early stage of development or not, at least development, LOL!
Summa Scientia Nihil Scire,
L.e.N.e.
Care Frater Sibuna,
thank you for your thoughts.
You have said:
"But we should not look down upon Freud unless we did the same (for any field of science) ourselves-- laying the foundation of a new science...",
and also:
"But I would rather adopt a respectful view of his works and the tremendous efforts in laying the basic building-blocks of Psychology and the manifold forms of psychotherapy we see today."
Well, actually, Freud hardly laid the basic for psychology in general or psychotherapy in particular, if I may say so. Both in Europe (France, Britain, and Germany) and in The States there already have been strong currents of both (experimental) psychology and psychiatry/psychotherapy decades before Freud.
He was very vociferous, however.
Well, I do not feel I am looking down on him, I am certainly expressing my point of view, however, (which happens to be, let’s be honest, fairly common in the modern psychological establishment) and maybe using a bit too strong a term at that. I apologize to all Freud enthusiasts and psychoanalysts here.
Also, I do not take myself too seriously (I laugh a lot etc.), so you might be hearing similar expressions for me in the future. :)
Truth be told: Freud indeed was a great man, for his time. No doubts there.
But the fact remains that he was criticized for his work (on dream interpretation, for example) even during his life (by APA etc.).
Every rose has it thorns, I guess.
In my opinion, a very important moment in the overall situation about psychology/psychotherapy is what it is offering to a person in a need of help. If it helps, that’s a positive thing obviously.
And the Freud approach does provide help to a certain segment of population. And the same goes for humanistic, cognitive and/or transpersonal approaches. There is no simple answer to the complex question of human psyche.
And that is a good thing, IMHO.
In
LVX
Fr. OcDO
Skicka en kommentar