Is there a differen...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Is there a difference between magical initiation and psychotherapy?  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/01/2015 11:59 am  
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
I have been following this thread still and have yet to concretize my thoughts.

The title expressly says psychotherapy.

A phrase that has come to my mind is

- where psychotherapy ends, magic/k continues.

This is the sort of self satisfying Ace statement played by those who no matter how devastatingly obvious the evidence to the contrary,  will always seek to, defend their no doubt much needed mental crutches.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
23/01/2015 1:24 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
No, they would not be classed as Initiates.

Crowley had issues unresolved whilst he advanced and became initiated so you are incorrect.  I recommend you get a copy of Regardie's Eye in the triangle for a fuller explanation.  Some say that lovely Mr Hitler was an initiate of the OTO or the like.  Like I thought we established ; mystical/magickal initiation is "on a different plane" to mental /emotional health.  Which "plane"?  Well I don't attribute philosophical validity to this "plane" idea but for purposes of discourse I would have to say "the spiritual plane" where pure orgone resides.  It's a model.

   

"Tao" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
You assume that I have no experience.  That's curious.

In these two areas, yes I do. This is gleaned from your writing in which you have acknowledged that you have never undergone formal initiation (and have shown a general aversion to group magical work) but qualified it with the suggestion that you might be open to joining the O.T.O. or A.'.A.'. sometime in the future. You have also acknowledged taking the part of the analysed in a psychotheraputic relationship but not the trained analyst. Have I misread you?

So you thought I was just someone  with a mere passing intellectual interest in reading books on magick and talking on forums?  I am a practitioner and have been for a long time.  In terms of "grade" (initiation)  I know where I am "on the TOL" as it were.  I don't want to be drawn into the exact details as I don't want my ego or your ego to get involved.  Initiation can be attained outside of group-work.  You do know that?  We could argue that that's all there is anyway; self-initiation.  I have had help from one on one correspondence with Adept(s) so I wasn't totally solo.  I have a friend who has never been part of an official group but who has taken the oath of the Abyss (I assume they're still my friend anyway.)  This issue is  a whole  'nother thread though.    Counselling?  Yeah I had counselling for mild OCD symptoms.

"Tao" wrote:

Those are both descriptors of healing. Why psychotherapy specifically?

"comforting terror"?  Well yeah.

"Tao" wrote:
You're suggesting that Jesus healed the epileptic with psychotherapy?

No but that Christ an initiate as it were (closely associated with Mercury by the way) had a "demonically possessed man" brought before him.  Similarly Freud had a hysterical woman brought to him and from that we get the birth of psychiatry.  I'm just showing the analogy not exact equivocation. 

"Tao" wrote:
Nor was he a psychotherapist. He was a poet, mountain climber, chess master, philanderer, and general bon vivant. From my limited exposure, it's clear that Crowley wrote about much more than the mind/psyche. If you are interpreting his writings as only describing the mind/psyche... well then that's a whole other discussion about the man AC that has little to do with the timeless Path of Initiation that long preceded him and will continue long after he is forgotten.

Well it's all about mind specifically isn't it?  You do visualizations in your mind and you want to control thought-inhibition which is of course mental.  Obviously the body comes into it with asana and gestures but it's all gearing to mental work.

"Tao" wrote:
Repressed emotions are one class of things that can block orgone/LVX but they are not exclusive in that regard. To extend the Regardie angle introduced earlier, it is the surfacing and healing of these repressed emotions that constitutes the psychotheraphy which he saw as essential prior to Initiation; getting rid of the blocks that standard means can get rid of. That way, one is freed up to pursue the actual Work of Initiation without mundane restrictions.

Yes thoughts are the primary trigger of emotions but ultimately repressed emotions are exclusive to the blocking of orgone as there is a chain; all thoughts influence desires which influence emotions (e-motion) which have a final physical gesture always.  (as in YHVH the four worlds.) We use our muscles to contain repressed emotions and subsequently "chi" "prana" "orgone" deadens which leads us to seek out transitory gratifications as a substitute for vital feelings.  This includes psycho-social dysfunctional relationships.  Yeah it's a fear-factory out there.

I don't fully get your last paragraph here do you understand that someone with dysfunctional orgone flow can still bring on L.V.X.?  Orgone engineering can be achieved by emotionally unhealthy people which is why someone with issues and addictions can ascend the TOL grade-system as it were.  That lovely Mr Himmler used to work on breath- control for example.


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 287
23/01/2015 1:51 pm  
"Baal" wrote:
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
I have been following this thread still and have yet to concretize my thoughts.

The title expressly says psychotherapy.

A phrase that has come to my mind is

- where psychotherapy ends, magic/k continues.

This is the sort of self satisfying Ace statement played by those who no matter how devastatingly obvious the evidence to the contrary,  will always seek to, defend their no doubt much needed mental crutches.

sorry, you are wrong. Read my earlier post.

Most impolite. No excuse for bad manners.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
23/01/2015 3:45 pm  
"Tao" wrote:

I'm researching and providing cogent points and ideas and quotes from AC to back my claims up and you're walking over them and instead bemoaning troll memes.

This has nothing to do with memes, this has to do with the tactics described above.

Re trolling, I’m not sure david is a troll but he has apparently admitted (or at least, not denied) my assertion he is an agitator in our midst in our cheerful conversation about The Graduate, in which I compared that description made by the grumpy and suspicious codger who was the landlord of Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman)’s digs!

Reply #2 by Jamie barter on The Graduate” thread on the Thelema board: April 28, 2014, 12:53:27 pm:

[…] David - you wouldn’t be some kinda agitator now, would you??

"Tao" wrote:
Quote: Weren't you the one who said Los was a troll?  If so this is an issue you need to address. 

I was not. I think that Los has some incorrect premises from which he's basing his arguments but, beyond that, he generally provides very well reasoned and defended positions. Nor have I yet run across a thread that was started by him. I've only interacted with him as a responder to others' questions.

Haven’t you?  There are just a few!  On the "Thelema" board, try “Thelemic Practice”, “Thelema and Scepticism” and “The Soldier and the Hunchback”, and if you want a good laugh as well, “AC and the Argument from Design” (I think that’s the one where he compared doing Resh with worshipping a sofa [!], but I’m not certain without checking which I don't have time for)…

Talking of Los, where is he when you need him, david?!

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
But they are not the same.  Initiation is more than that.  Yes, you are right inasmuch as it (initiation) involved dealing with the complexes that ‘assail’ the initiate, but that is a side-effect rather than an equals sign.  You were right in mentioning “the Light” earlier – but were you inferring that this Light does or does not originate from the same place (the individual’s subconscious)?

I don't know.  I was referring to traditional occult ideas about "the Light" I wasn't espousing my own views because what is "the Light"?  Visualization of  light infusing our imagined subtle body?  An inhalation of weed-smoke?  Mysterious "mobilization" that appears to take place in consciousness when we hold our breath for unnaturally long periods?  Reich's "orgone"?  LSD?  Leary's aim (before he was famous) was to use LSD to cure alcoholism I believe.  This is an example of an ill person being healed using initiatory techniques is it not?

It is not.

"david" wrote:
We know what consciousness is

Do we?  Like A.C. commented about chess and electricity, I’d be glad if you would explain it to me, anyway!

"david" wrote:
Quote from: jamie barter on January 21, 2015, 12:56:46 pm
But they are not the same.  Initiation is more than that.  Yes, you are right inasmuch as it (initiation) involved dealing with the complexes that ‘assail’ the initiate, but that is a side-effect rather than an equals sign.

So as a person approaches "initiation" the contents of his subconscious garbage-can assail him?  Read that sentence again only replace the word "initiation" with the phrase  "sub-conscious confrontation."  It makes sense eh?  They do the same thing.

But it is more than that.  This is what you don’t get.  They’re not the same thing.

"david" wrote:
In fact Regardie sort of uses your and Tao's viewpoint in his Crowley bio but he contradicts himself throughout by constantly talking about AC's character and his complexes (from a Reichean perspective) when he discusses AC's initiation.

He was trying to write his bio for his readers maybe not so familiar and cognisant with magickal ideas from a psychological perspective – which didn’t exclude a magickal perspective at all.

"david" wrote:
But Reich never claimed to be an initiator did he?  He was a doctor and scientist.

Reich didn't, but Regardie did & I am sure he initiated people in his version of the G.D. (didn’t he do Cicero for one?  Again I would have to check)

"david" wrote:
What about Jung?  Surely he wanted "individuation" for his patients?  He espoused a type of astral projection technique for them.

And what then?  Astral projection is “mundane” and “not mystical?”

"david" wrote:
Quote from: jamie barter on January 21, 2015, 12:56:46 pm:
You were right in mentioning “the Light” earlier – but were you inferring that this Light does or does not originate from the same place (the individual’s subconscious)?

Good question and I tried to address this above/earlier.

You said “I don’t know” above/earlier.  Which at least is the most straightforward and honest thing you’ve written here so far!

"david" wrote:
Quote from: jamie barter on January 21, 2015, 12:56:46 pm
And while you’re at it, the following bit from your Reply #5 to Tao didn’t make much sense either – could you rephrase what you meant, please?
quote Reply #5 by david on: January 17, 2015, 01:28:51 am:
"Encourage evolution? I'm not with you.  When you say "evolution" you mean human progression as a counteractive strategy against any arrested development in the psyche?  Self-induced arrested development that is.  The occult is supposed to be about lifting the shutters / the screen that we use to fudge and distort reality, but most "occultists" seem to be adept at screening and hiding reality more fully from themselves and more often than not  terms like "initiation" or "evolution" or (your capitalized "S" version of) "Self knowledge" just become  buzzwords that encourage such self-entanglement in delusion."

Which bit?  Stages of development?  Buzzwords?

No, the bit I highlighted in bold for you, which you have failed to dupliacte properly and which I do for you again.

"david" wrote:
Quote from: jamie barter on January 21, 2015, 12:56:46 pm:
And talking of sources, where does it say "Crowley's statement that the Great Work is "the raising of the whole man to the power of infinity" which imo is, in turn, echoed in Dr Leary's "set, setting and dosage," "However Crowley boasted about healing Norman Mudd's depression at Cefalu and he insisted that his yoga could calm the nerves."

It was Bennett not Mudd I apologised for that.  Yoga calming the nerves?  Answer ;The flyer-ad  for 8 lectures. The Leary echoing is my opinion but as I said Leary was initially interested in healing alcoholics with LSD.

OK, but where did he “boast” about healing Bennett’s “depression” then?

"david" wrote:
Quote from: jamie barter on Yesterday at 01:10:04 pm:
Also, regarding: "There you have it.  There's nothing mystical about initiation according to Crowley it's an entirely mundane process of overcoming timidity (maladjustment), anger tantrums, depression (described as "sorrow") and stress(described as "slavery" and "discomfort"/"imperfection.")"
This is off the mark – to turn it around and say there’s nothing “mundane” about initiation and it’s entirely “mystical” would be more correct!  (I think you are trying to find pat answers to equivalences between things where there aren’t any.)

But Horus in that poem destroys the timid, the poor, the weak, the weary, the imperfect, the angry and the discomforted as he initiates as he "roots out the weeds" and "ends the sickness of earth."

In what poem are you purportedly quoting from?  It can’t be Liber AL can it (as your quotes don’t match)?

"david" wrote:
Quote from: jamie barter on January 21, 2015, 12:56:46 pm:
Further to that, Hubbard agreed with this and thought that the blocked energy represented by “engrams” in the reactive mind could be monitored and psychoanalyzed further (or back) courtesy of his E-meter device with dianetics “auditing”.  Apart from the questionable ‘scientific’ validity of his procedure, that was one of his better conceptions – or possibly his best.

I don't discuss Hubbard as having anything useful to contribute to..well...anything really.

I wasn’t asking you specifically to discuss it there, david.  I wss just throwing the remark out generally.  Hubbard is a bit of an ass, generally speaking – but he comes up with the odd remark every now and then which is worth consideration, particularly in Dianetics itself.  One should not necessarily evacuate the infant together with all of his ablutionary H20.

"david" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
Would you be so kind as to show me where in that list your view has changed as those with experience have shared with you their knowledge?

I said something akin to "good point Jamie" as he began to sway my view.  I also openly accepted the notion that "the Light" that initiates is a completely neutral "force" that the afflicted can invoke.  As the thread progressed though I analysed those notions and couldn't convince myself beyond reasonable doubt that such a "force" is actually divorced from the psyche.  I would posit that initiation is an advanced form of "sub-conscious garbage-can confrontation" (otherwise known as psychotherapy.)  A continuation.

But now this contradicts your “I don’t know” …

"david" wrote:
However if someone afflicted tries to do advanced therapy without preliminary work then I guesse they are still classified as initiates aren't they?

Not at all.  Why would they be?

"david" wrote:
I see your point about there being a difference but I am simply discussing the similarities as an exercise in an attempt to define both terms.

No you’re not – the (rhetorical) thread title has inferred, and you have been attempting throughout, to say that there is no real, tangible difference except maybe in degree.

"david" wrote:
I believe that Regardie attributed L.V.X. to orgone itself.  Repressed emotions block orgone but it may be that orgone can be mobilized by breath work so in that case what you are saying is the initiating force of  L.V.X. exists on a different plane to the subconscious garbage can?  I appreciate that and am beginning to understand your model where there is a dichotomy between initiation and psychotherapy. [...]

At last!  “A gleam of light” at the end of the tunnel!?

'и Joy


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
23/01/2015 10:11 pm  

A bit of house cleaning:

"david" wrote:
Didn't Crowley insist that the student finds a guru of sorts?

Crowley might have, but as you yourself say (below) all Initiation is Self-Initiation. A guru can guide your way through the beginning steps. Only your Self can take you up the Path of Initiation.

"david" wrote:
Psychotherapy can't be performed alone?  Patients (for want of a better term) are meant to complete the course of "treatment" then it's up to them to go away and apply the lessons learnt therein by themselves for themselves.

No, psychotherapy can't be performed alone. The course of analysis and treatment requires a therapist. There are other methods of discovering and treating mental health problems, by psychotherapy necessitates a therapist/client relationship.

"david" wrote:
Encourage evolution? I'm not with you.  When you say "evolution" you mean human progression as a counteractive strategy against any arrested development in the psyche?  Self-induced arrested development that is.

No, I do not. Restricting it only to what you understand "psyche" to mean is much too limiting. I did provide a definition that pretty clearly lays out my usage, but I'm sure it's too full of "buzzwords" for you to take seriously. Nevertheless, I'll leave it here for any good it might do to those who have studied a bit of Hermetic Alchemy and can glean what these words mean:

The process of evolution — both material and spiritual evolution — is leading each and every human being toward the world of the soul and the Spiritual Hierarchy. All people are unfolding their spiritual nature or will eventually do so, and the end result will be entrance into the fifth kingdom of nature and the revelation of all the capacity and potentiality of the soul. The transition from the fourth kingdom of humanity to the fifth kingdom of souls is the path of initiation and of spiritual unfoldment.
http://www.esotericpublishing.com/world_soul/world-of-the-soul-10.html

"david" wrote:
The occult is supposed to be about lifting the shutters / the screen that we use to fudge and distort reality, but most "occultists" seem to be adept at screening and hiding reality more fully from themselves and more often than not  terms like "initiation" or "evolution" or (your capitalized "S" version of) "Self knowledge" just become  buzzwords that encourage such self-entanglement in delusion.

"Most 'occultists'", huh? I'm going to have to side with Jamie on this one. A bit wooly, indeed. I would however agree that the words you highlight can become nothing more than empty buzzwords in the hands of those who don't understand what they actually mean. Part of the Path of Initiation is realising through experience what they actually mean.

"david" wrote:
Occult just means "hidden" i.e. hidden from conscious-ness as repressed feelings are.

I would not agree with this etymology.

"david" wrote:
Brilliant.  Thanks. It does come as a revelation for those kids who realize that magick  is in fact "“the art of causing changes in consciousness in conformity with the Will".

I assume here you're bastardising Crowley's definition? It seems then we should probably allow the old man to speak for himself in order to highlight your convenient alterations. From Magick in Theory and Practice:

Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

"david" wrote:
So as a person approaches "initiation" the contents of his subconscious garbage-can assail him?  Read that sentence again only replace the word "initiation" with the phrase  "sub-conscious confrontation."  It makes sense eh?  They do the same thing.

Replace it with the word "wedding". Or "first day of kindergarten". Or "speech in front of the board of directors". It makes sense, eh? Does that mean they are the same thing? Of course not. The approaching of any sort of liminal experience tends to bring to the surface unresolved emotional issues. It is the resolving of those that sends any number of non-aspirants to their shrink every day of the year. Or little kids to their parents. Or adults to the arms of their spouse. If one chooses not to face and heal those relevant issues prior to crossing their threshold, one will survive the event with their emotional issues intact just as one can survive Initiation with them intact. And one will likely find oneself facing a divorce or couples' counseling within a few years, or playing alone with blocks in the corner, or failing to advance in their career. Regardie recommends addressing these concerns specifically in relation to magical Initiation because he is writing books on magical Initiation and because he witnessed the heightened detrimental effects wrought on individuals at that specific threshold. Initiation is not a wedding (in the mundane sense). It isn't the advancement from living room playtime to kindergarten. It is much much more, and unresolved psychological issues tend to wreak havoc on it.

"david" wrote:
What about Jung?  Surely he wanted "individuation" for his patients?  He espoused a type of astral projection technique for them.

As I believe I said somewhere back in the mix, individuals from both sides of this dichotomy have experimented with techniques from the other. Oftentimes, fishermen will grill up a few fish on the boat. Does that make them master chefs? Of course not. But it will give them some insight into which of their current catch has the best flavour and will likely sell best back on shore.

"david" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
No, they would not be classed as Initiates.

Crowley had issues unresolved whilst he advanced and became initiated so you are incorrect.

The question that prompted my reply was: "However if someone afflicted tries to do advanced therapy without preliminary work then I guesse they are still classified as initiates aren't they?" Doing "advanced therapy work" has nothing to do with Initiation so whether a poor afflicted soul tried to do said ATW or not has nothing to do with their classification on the "Initiation Scale". Crowley might be an infallible Authority for your understanding of reality, david, but his personal issues have nothing to do with basic English usage.

- If an Initiate attempted to do ATW without preliminary therapy then yes, she would "still be classified" as an Initiate.
- If a non-Initiate attempted to do ATW without preliminary therapy then no, she would not "still be classified" as an Initiate.

I believe that's about as simple as I can make it.

I recommend you get a copy of Regardie's Eye in the triangle for a fuller explanation.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness but as I'm currently working my way through the doorstop that is The Confessions... and still anxiously awaiting direction towards this Alan Watts bio you so tantalisingly dangled a few posts back, I can't imagine that I'll be delving into yet another biography of Ye Olde Beast anytime soon. Why don't you do what you do best and block quote some relevant portions for the general enlightenment of all?

Some say that lovely Mr Hitler was an initiate of the OTO or the like.

Some say that if you rub an Arabian oil lamp, Father Christmas will emerge and smite the Asiatics. I'm fairly sure that holds just as much relevance, Your Honour.

Like I thought we established ; mystical/magickal initiation is "on a different plane" to mental /emotional health.  Which "plane"?  Well I don't attribute philosophical validity to this "plane" idea but for purposes of discourse I would have to say "the spiritual plane" where pure orgone resides.  It's a model.

We've "established" something to which you attribute no philosophical validity? And you accuse me of introducing duality into the conversation? Nevertheless, if we have indeed "established" this then your position no longer has a foundation. If "mystical/magickal initiation is 'on a different plane' to mental /emotional health," then psychotherapy (the healing of mental/emotional issues or the restoration of mental/emotional health) is acting on a different plane than Initiation. Again, simple if/then logic here. Nothing fancy.

So you thought I was just someone  with a mere passing intellectual interest in reading books on magick and talking on forums?

I don't believe I said that.

I am a practitioner and have been for a long time.  In terms of "grade" (initiation)  I know where I am "on the TOL" as it were.  I don't want to be drawn into the exact details as I don't want my ego or your ego to get involved.

Thank you for the clarification.

Initiation can be attained outside of group-work.  You do know that?

Of course.

We could argue that that's all there is anyway; self-initiation.

I would capitalise the "s": Self-initiation; but you've shown no interest in that dichotomy so I won't press the issue here.

I have had help from one on one correspondence with Adept(s) so I wasn't totally solo.  I have a friend who has never been part of an official group but who has taken the oath of the Abyss (I assume they're still my friend anyway.)

Neat.

Counselling?  Yeah I had counselling for mild OCD symptoms.

Hmmm... that's not how you described it at the time. And, within that thread from approximately a year ago, there were likewise unsubstantiated quotations by yourself and trolling tactics noticed by others. While I am not one to attempt any sort of psychotherapy myself, if I were in your position, I might take the time to look over that thread to see where I was a year ago and how I seem to be rehashing the same behaviours. Perhaps there is something cyclical in the stars that causes January to bring this out.

But, then again, you are as free to ignore that bit of advice as I am in re: Regardie's biography. Do what thou wilt, is it not?

"Tao" wrote:
Those are both descriptors of healing. Why psychotherapy specifically?

"comforting terror"?  Well yeah.

Something my mother did for me and that I do for mine, neither of us psychotherapists. Simply mothers, with two arms that create a protective embrace.

"Tao" wrote:
You're suggesting that Jesus healed the epileptic with psychotherapy?

No but that Christ an initiate as it were (closely associated with Mercury by the way)

Closely associated with Sol and secondarily with Mercury, but go on...

had a "demonically possessed man" brought before him.  Similarly Freud had a hysterical woman brought to him and from that we get the birth of psychiatry.  I'm just showing the analogy not exact equivocation. 

If you're just showing the analogy, then your analogy is a mess. First off, are we discussing the epileptic boy or the demonaic Gerasene? In one case, it's the action of a magician, the other an action of a faith healer. How you equate either of those to Freud's analysis of an hysterical woman is beyond me. How that somehow then analogises the birth of psychiatry to the acts of Jesus is ... what's the kind way of saying it? Unsubstantiated?

Well it's all about mind specifically isn't it?

 
No, it's not. Though, if that's what you're basing your whole argument on, it starts to make a bit more sense. If you are only looking at the personal mind aspect of magic then it is in many ways akin to psychotherapy. But the personal mind aspect of magic is only a part of the process of Initiation. It's the easy part, as I see it, being the part that is mostly contained within your own personality sphere. The real work of Initiation is connecting that aspect to the other parts.

You do visualizations in your mind and you want to control thought-inhibition which is of course mental.  Obviously the body comes into it with asana and gestures but it's all gearing to mental work.

Yes, indeed... you begin to make much more sense. You are only playing with one suit. There are three others that go into a game of Bridge.

Yes thoughts are the primary trigger of emotions but ultimately repressed emotions are exclusive to the blocking of orgone as there is a chain; all thoughts influence desires which influence emotions (e-motion) which have a final physical gesture always.  (as in YHVH the four worlds.) We use our muscles to contain repressed emotions and subsequently "chi" "prana" "orgone" deadens which leads us to seek out transitory gratifications as a substitute for vital feelings.  This includes psycho-social dysfunctional relationships.  Yeah it's a fear-factory out there.

Nice summary of psychotherapy. Within the realm of uninitiated mind, this is all most likely true.

I don't fully get your last paragraph here do you understand that someone with dysfunctional orgone flow can still bring on L.V.X.?  Orgone engineering can be achieved by emotionally unhealthy people which is why someone with issues and addictions can ascend the TOL grade-system as it were.

And you've lost me again.

That lovely Mr Himmler used to work on breath- control for example.

How nice for him. Apparently Mr. Hitler used to work in paints as well. They must've had a lovely time when weekending together.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
23/01/2015 10:12 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Haven’t you?  There are just a few!  On the "Thelema" board, try “Thelemic Practice”, “Thelema and Scepticism” and “The Soldier and the Hunchback”, and if you want a good laugh as well, “AC and the Argument from Design” (I think that’s the one where he compared doing Resh with worshipping a sofa [!], but I’m not certain without checking which I don't have time for)…

Worshipping a sofa??? Well that does sound worth the dig.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
23/01/2015 11:43 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Haven’t you?  There are just a few!  On the "Thelema" board, try “Thelemic Practice”, “Thelema and Scepticism” and “The Soldier and the Hunchback”, and if you want a good laugh as well, “AC and the Argument from Design” (I think that’s the one where he compared doing Resh with worshipping a sofa [!], but I’m not certain without checking which I don't have time for)…

Worshipping a sofa??? Well that does sound worth the dig.

It's not as glamorous as it sounds, Tao.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2015 1:46 am  

Tao you were digging up a lot of points I made there earlier in the thread before my last reply which is a conclusion that, for purposes of discussion there is (so the model goes) "a spiritual plane" where pure orgone resides.  Therefore when we talk about initiation we are recognizing that that takes place on "a plane" other than the mental or emotional one.    This is why people with issues can "raise magickal energy" and initiate themselves.  Think of Mcmurtry.  If the rumours are true he was an alcoholic yoga teacher.  I don't criticize the man for it as I am in no position to judge a Major who served America on foreign battle fields during WW2.,

Also, Tao you asked ; I don't fully get your last paragraph here do you understand that someone with dysfunctional orgone flow can still bring on L.V.X.?  Orgone engineering can be achieved by emotionally unhealthy people which is why someone with issues and addictions can ascend the TOL grade-system as it were.

Crowley, the man, for example he had issues.  His initiations did not resolve those issues.  Like I said, Regardie puts a good case forward for this in his Eye in the triangle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2015 12:57 pm  

Actually the question does not make sense as it stands. there is obviously a difference. What I suspect the question means to ask is " Is there any difference in the results of the methods". And this depends upon what you wish to accomplish. But also upon which method your desired result best respond to. If someone had asked me many years ago if I was doing Magick to sort out my own personal Psychological problems, to make myself in some way "better" I would possibly have been slightly mystified at the question. But looking back I can see that it was all really just a psychological game I played with my own mind, a game at times I allowed to be directed by others, whom I trusted with my welfare, what we call teachers, gurus etc. The difference in the methods for such soul searching activities, is that with one you become for many years lost in a mighty sea of fantasy self deception from which many never really emerge. With the other method, as bare and clinical as it might seem to the artistic mind, you will at least emerge with nothing, having avoided all the dead ends and deceptions that plague the other.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/01/2015 10:10 am  

Here are remnants from a magical initiation. It's interesting that it's "mimicking" an actual astral projection (and probably structures of the brains physiology) and that it has the symbol of Malkuth at the bottom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCulacxG9cU

"Like attracts (invokes) like"


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/01/2015 12:29 pm  
"david" wrote:
Tao you were digging up a lot of points I made there earlier in the thread before my last reply which is a conclusion that, for purposes of discussion there is (so the model goes) "a spiritual plane" where pure orgone resides. Therefore when we talk about initiation we are recognizing that that takes place on "a plane" other than the mental or emotional one. This is why people with issues can "raise magickal energy" and initiate themselves. Think of Mcmurtry. If the rumours are true he was an alcoholic yoga teacher.

There is initiation and there is pseudo-initiation. Orgone theory is a crude 21st century western concept created by "adepts" like Wilhelm Reich who are products of the psychoanalyst school of thought. Orgone theory being natural continuation of theories like 'animal magnetism' proposed by Mesmer or the 'Odic force' of Carl Reichenbach. All of these pertain loosely to the hermetic idea of chokmah, mercury, azoth etc. 

Reich based most of the concepts around orgone on the Freudian views and understanding of the libido;

While Freud had focused on a solipsistic conception of mind in which unconscious and inherently selfish primal drives (primarily the sexual drive, or libido) were suppressed or sublimated by internal representations (cathexes) of parental figures (the superego)

The Hermetic theory, or as I have understood it, does not simply stop here. This is just a preliminary phase upon entering the path leading from Malkuth to Yesod (and beyond). The traditional western magical powers and mystical states attributed to this mention the works of malediction and death; and travels on the astral plane. The astral plane being inversion of the day-to-day material activities of the individual where the purely 'emotional' and Nephesh -type of consciousness (The Animal Soul, which can only perceive and feel) produces impressions or illusions to the receptive mind. Psychotherapy and Hermetic schools clash because the former views 'human' as "just another animal" so to speak and the Hermetic school maintains that Man is in fact Sphinx

"AL II,73: The New Comment" wrote:
The fatigue of the day's toil creates the toxins whose accumulation is the 'will to Die'. All mystic attainment is of this type, as all Magick is of the 'Will to Live'. At times we all want Nibbana, to withdraw into the Silence, and so on. The Art of it is to dip deeply into 'Death', but to emerge immediately, a giant refreshed. This plan is also possible on the larger scale, all Life being Magick, all Death Mysticism.

Note also that the Greek word psyche, ψυχή/psūchê, is the closest equivalent to the Hebrew word Nephesh. Psychotherapy remains solely concentrated on this plane, but in terms of Qabalah; Nephesh is only regarded as the third or the final division of the "Aman Kadmon" - Neshemah; which is also referred as "the animal soul unredeemed".

"david" wrote:
Crowley, the man, for example he had issues.

Crowley, the adept, also claimed grades of certain initiations. Using the A∴A∴initiatory structure as an example; the Ipsissimus is "Beyond the comprehension of the lower degrees", so who exactly is to be taken as an authority to decide that uncle Al had some latent issues if we take his claims of attaining these grades serious?

"david" wrote:
His initiations did not resolve those issues.  Like I said, Regardie puts a good case forward for this in his Eye in the triangle.

Issues defined by adepts of what school of thought? True Magus could not simply care less about any 'diagnoses' or 'labels' what may be given or granted to him. Crowley probably was too busy with "to create a new Universe in accordance with his Will". There is a strong element of Nietzschean concept of 'new philosopher', but in a much more spiritual rather than moral sense of the affair.

Even though I own several works by Regardie, In terms of adepthood, I am more impressed by the work of Crowley and would not take Regardie as an authority to write anything intelligble about his superiors whose actions might actually be wholly "beyond the comprehension of the lower degrees".

I recall one incident between G. I. Gurdjieff and one of his students;

One of his disciples, Nicoll, remembers traveling with him on a train in America, when Gurdjieff started behaving as if he was a drunkard.

Nicoll knew that he had not touched any drink for years - he had been with him - but he started behaving like a drunkard.shouting, throwing things, disturbing the whole train.

Finally the conductor came, the guard came, and Nicoll was very embarrassed. He was trying to prevent Gurdjieff - “What are you doing?” - but Gurdjieff wouldn't listen.

He was making a fool of himself and making a fool of Nicoll.

Nicoll was even more embarrassed.because at least people thought Gurdjieff was drunk: “But you should take care of your master, and if he is drunk then you should not

travel in the middle of the night. He has awakened the whole train!

“And he is not only throwing out his things, he is throwing out other people’s things. You stop him; otherwise we will have to call the police at the next station.”

Nicoll was trying to persuade Gurdjieff, and said, “Stop this game! Why are you unnecessarily.. I know perfectly well you are not drunk.”

And Gurdjieff said into Nicoll’s ear, “I know it too - don’t be worried! I have my own ways of working. You have to learn not to be embarrassed - whatever the

situation. If you are to be with me, you have to learn one thing: not to be embarrassed. It is a teaching for you; I made this whole train a teaching class for you.

Why does one feel embarrassed?”

And people gathered and started listening. Suddenly Gurdjieff was not drunk, and he was talking on embarrassment and its implications. If you can drop embarrassment,

there is a certain spiritual growth in you. Why is one embarrassed? - because one wants respectability, deep down one wants everybody to think of one in nice ways, good respectable ways.

This kind of spontaneous, unpredictable activity and breaking of taboos is a very common theme in all Master-Student type of relationship stories found all over the world, where the student is left unconvinced and even bewildered by the actions of his superior or guru. But this is inherent in Chokmah's polar nature by itself. Also consider the nature of mercury in the folklore as the trickster. The ape of Thoth is also a good analogy among many others, or as Crowley puts it;

"I. THE JUGGLER Book of Thoth" wrote:
The Hindu conception of Mercury, Hanuman, the monkey god, is abominably degraded. None of the higher aspects of the symbol are found in his cult. The aim of his adepts seems principally to have been the production of a temporary incarnation of the god by sending the women of the tribe every year into the jungle. Nor do we find any legend of any depth or spirituality. Hanuman is certainly little more than the Ape of Thoth

Even though the cult of Hanuman at the time of Crowley's presence in India may have gave him the impression that most of the Vedic cults and rites have been long forgotten and the rites of the current being a degration to a mere fetishism without very few and rare exceptions.

The vedic astrology on the other hand has preserved the universal or primordial tradition quite well as evident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budha
Budha being sanskrit word for the (planet) Mercury; among sharing other common attributes and correspondences with those mythologies of the West.

Crowley probably didn't dig that deeply into the Hindu system because his main interests and Crowleyana as whole tends to lean more towards to the magickal practices similar to those of western hermetic tradition.

Both western astrology and vedic astrology agree that Mercury is considered a beneficial planet, unless joined with a malefic planet or intention, but astrology as method remains unsatisfactory for the "Magician makes the future, and does not seek to divine it. All true prediction was therefore necessarily catastrophe." -Liber LI

Crowley also notes in 'De Arte Magica' that "Magick is an hiatus comparable to that which exists in the theory of Astrology".
For astrology does no more than provide the basic theory.

This is the best theory the psychoanalyst school has come up with concerning the kundalini or the snake of wisdom/chokmah;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29#Sexual_sublimation

But this is also thus the lowest and preliminary stage for the alchemist and qabalist with higher aspirations; for this energy pertains to the sphere of Yesod taking the appearance of sexual energy or lust as Crowley describes it. The doctrine is also clearly evident in the path leading from Chesed to Geburah and the tarot attributes thereof. Also note that Mercury rules over the sign of Gemini, one of the paths were the original marriage and the separation or polarity takes place to manifest below the abyss. Magnetism is thus actualized below the Supernals and appears under different forms or polarities depending on the craftiness of the juggler to recognize them.

This is also indirectly the reason why the pscyhoanalyst school shares almost an obsession for explaining the actions of every human in terms of subconscious sexual intent, subject to taboos and even to some obscure (genetical) ancestral memory. The whole theory behind Oedipus complex being a good example of this train of thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex
Crowley also notes this same observation in the New Comment to Liber Al;

"AL I,51 The New Comment" wrote:
"It is to be observed that Politeness has forbidden any direct reference to the subject of sex to secure no happier result than to allow Sigmund Freud and others to prove that our every thought, speech, and gesture, conscious or unconscious, is an indirect reference!"

Politeness being no more than synonymous for taboo and sharing roots in the same problem.

Psychoanalyst school fails to recognize any element outside the realm of Nephesh, their school and methods remain as undeveloped and unsatisfactory as does fetishism and mere 'sorcery' found in those lowest and primitive types of magick; especially those beliefs rooted in spirit and ancestor worship apparent in traditions like Voodoo. This is also the basic theory behind the art of talisman concentration.

Where concepts such 'ancestral fetishism' might not be as apparent in the theories of the psychoanalyst school; they indirectly echo the same theme with their theories regarding the concepts like Oepidus complex, libido, parental figures (the superego) etc.

I still maintain the statement I made in my first post in this thread;
The only link between magick and psychotherapy is that the latter explores the symbols that could be considered malefic, illusory and equated with sorcery in the light of hermetic/magickal tradition.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
26/01/2015 5:29 pm  

Doing a 'house clean' on this myself!

"ayino" wrote:
[...] I recall one incident between G. I. Gurdjieff and one of his students;

[...] He has awakened the whole train!

“And he is not only throwing out his things, he is throwing out other people’s things. [...]"

Very inconsiderate of Gurjieff to have attempted to have awakened the whole train.  Someone, feeling unwell, might have been in particular need of rest and relaxation at the time – what right would he have had to have disturbed their recovery? 

What about the poor sods whose luggage he threw out of the train in the course of imparting this lesson? Suppose there was some life-saving medicine in there a passenger might very well need within the next hour or so or before becoming fatally ill?  What about the value in G’s lesson then?

His words are true about embarrassment though.  In such terms it is the first driver of what Reich called “the emotional plague”, which I have described elsewhere as the externalisation of black magic.

"ayino" wrote:
I still maintain the statement I made in my first post in this thread;
The only link between magick and psychotherapy is that the latter explores the symbols that could be considered malefic, illusory and equated with sorcery in the light of hermetic/magickal tradition.

This does not compute, as I have pointed out before the first time.  There is no exclusivity here with the latter (psychotherapy) since the former (magick and work in the hermetic/ magickal tradition) explores as well symbols which could be considered by some “malefic” (e.g. dealing with the Qlipoth); ; “illusory” (e.g. almost any work involving the astral) and “equate with sorcery” (e.g. the goetia, for example).  Where would just psychotherapy deal with the exploration of these areas?

"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Occult just means "hidden" i.e. hidden from conscious-ness as repressed feelings are.

I would not agree with this etymology.

The main meaning of “occult” is hidden, though, isn't it?

"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Brilliant.  Thanks. It does come as a revelation for those kids who realize that magick  is in fact "“the art of causing changes in consciousness in conformity with the Will".

I assume here you're bastardising Crowley's definition? It seems then we should probably allow the old man to speak for himself in order to highlight your convenient alterations. From Magick in Theory and Practice:

Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

I’ve seen this deviation before, but cannot place where – possibly it may even have come from R.A. Wilson rather than A.C. himself.  However A.C. has given more than one definition with regard to magick (e.g., the Theorem that ‘every intentional act is a magic(k)al act’; the statement that the ‘the laws of Magick are the laws of Nature’ (Chap 9, MiT&P) etc.)  But might it be too much to hope for that you will provide your specific source here too, david?

"jamie barter" wrote:
Re trolling, I’m not sure david is a troll but he has apparently admitted (or at least, not denied) my assertion he is an agitator in our midst in our cheerful conversation about The Graduate, in which I compared that description made by the grumpy and suspicious codger who was the landlord of Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman)’s digs!

Reply #2 by Jamie barter on The Graduate” thread on the Thelema board: April 28, 2014, 12:53:27 pm:

[…] David - you wouldn’t be some kinda agitator now, would you??

I just thought that I would add that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being an agitator of course.  I agitate myself, on occasion!  But it can be a question of correct approach and the proper degree of Force, and an appropriate end to the means involved as well, so that while it can be useful it’s also expedient to try not to piss too many people off at the same time in the process. 

"Tao" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Haven’t you?  There are just a few!  On the "Thelema" board, try “Thelemic Practice”, “Thelema and Scepticism” and “The Soldier and the Hunchback”, and if you want a good laugh as well, “AC and the Argument from Design” (I think that’s the one where he compared doing Resh with worshipping a sofa [!], but I’m not certain without checking which I don't have time for)…

Worshipping a sofa??? Well that does sound worth the dig.

Not glamorous, but astonishing.  Astounding, even!  And Los has still never explained it (nor the reason for the choice behind his avatar name).  Unfortunately I can’t link directly to the reference here but it is actually as Reply #82 on the “Thelemic Practice” thread, currently 8th down the list on the first page of the ‘Thelema’ board:

Reply #82 by jamie barter on: October 02, 2013, 12:09:49 pm:

Quote from: Los on October 02, 2013, 05:47:09 am:
[…] Why then [...] adore the Sun four times daily[?]
Because (1) the sun is a convenient symbol of the True Self (always shining on the other side of the world just as the True Self is always "speaking" beneath our thoughts) and (2) since the sun moves at regular cycles, focusing on it makes the mind more attention to the natural world and encourages the mind to continually look outside of it.
Those are the reasons for adoring the sun specifically. I still think it would work just as well with a couch, a book, or a coffee table.

A “couch” could be just as effective?  You have got to be kidding!!  Say, are you puttin' me on??
[See also Reply #84 for my placing it in context, etc.]

- maybe someone could do it for me for the enlightenment & satisfaction of those others unfamiliar with it but curious about the reference?

- In the Name of the LVX that came from NOX (and vice versa) & the Life that abideth in Light, yeah!, the Life that Abideth in Light.
'и Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5028
26/01/2015 8:31 pm  

It might be interesting to point out that Jung considered his psychological work to be the same as the so-called spiritual path.

But then, other psycho-dudes rarely make that comparison. It really depends on who's system one is engaging, and who is specifically doing the "guiding."


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
26/01/2015 8:37 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Occult just means "hidden" i.e. hidden from conscious-ness as repressed feelings are.

I would not agree with this etymology.

The main meaning of “occult” is hidden, though, isn't it?

Yes, but etymologically it derives from the Latin occulare or occultare which are active verbs meaning to conceal or to secrete. A subject must intentionally occlude an object in order for it to become occult. In that, it carries the meaning of something that has been actively hidden rather than something which is unconsciously hidden. I'm not seeing a defensible link between the term "Occult" as used in the context of this thread, and the hiding of repressed emotions except in a wide stretch of modern English syntactical laziness.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
26/01/2015 8:39 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
It might be interesting to point out that Jung considered his psychological work to be the same as the so-called spiritual path.

But then, other psycho-dudes rarely make that comparison. It really depends on who's system one is engaging, and who is specifically doing the "guiding."

Out of curiosity, Shiva, as I don't have a deep knowledge of Jung and his work: Was this in regards to his clinical work with others? Or regarding his work on his own psyche? Or both?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
26/01/2015 11:03 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
.....................
There is initiation and there is pseudo-initiation. Orgone theory is a crude 21st century western concept created by "adepts" like Wilhelm Reich who are products of the psychoanalyst school of thought. Orgone theory being natural continuation of theories like 'animal magnetism' proposed by Mesmer or the 'Odic force' of Carl Reichenbach. All of these pertain loosely to the hermetic idea of chokmah, mercury, azoth etc. 

Reich based most of the concepts around orgone on the Freudian views and understanding of the libido;
]

Yes, initially Reich set out to literally measure libido as an actual force of Nature.  Reich's orgone is completely indistinguishable from prana or chi or Sufi baraka.  He wouldn't accept that as he was a materialist-sceptic.  He probably didn't even bother investigating Oriental spirituality-mysticism as mysticism for him was a form of sublimation as it were; an armouring.  He watched the NSDAP rise to power and recognized their "blood mysticism" as appealing to the average "armoured" person.

By the way would I be right in saying that you think McMurty was not a real initiate?     

"ayino" wrote:
. Psychotherapy and Hermetic schools clash because the former views 'human' as "just another animal" so to speak and the Hermetic school maintains that Man is in fact Sphinx

"Sphinx"?  What is that?

"ayino" wrote:
"AL II,73: The New Comment" wrote:
The fatigue of the day's toil creates the toxins whose accumulation is the 'will to Die'. All mystic attainment is of this type, as all Magick is of the 'Will to Live'. At times we all want Nibbana, to withdraw into the Silence, and so on. The Art of it is to dip deeply into 'Death', but to emerge immediately, a giant refreshed. This plan is also possible on the larger scale, all Life being Magick, all Death Mysticism.

I guesse Crowley's daily toils were academic pursuits. Does this toxins concept relates to Freud's Thanatos drive?  For the adolescent his first job is certainly like a death of the previous personality.

"ayino" wrote:
I recall one incident between G. I. Gurdjieff and one of his students;

One of his disciples, Nicoll, remembers traveling with him on a train in America, when Gurdjieff started behaving as if he was a drunkard......................

I doubt that Gurdjieff would've done this on a train full of English football fans returning home on  a Saturday as he would've been buried which is pertinent as such cults ("seekers") are full of muddled middle class types whose shockability levels are pretty thin.    Colin Wilson summed up Gurdjiefff's seekers as people with big egos.  This is relevant to this thread as that's why shrinks are known as "shrinks."  They shrink big egos and big zeppelin egos are produced in families where daddy doesn't know how to discipline the kids properly.  Such folk usually become spiritual "seekers."  Aldous Huxley described them in the foreword to Brave New World as "square pegs in round holes" ie misfits or outsiders; neurotic outsiders.

     

"ayino" wrote:
Psychoanalyst school fails to recognize any element outside the realm of Nephesh, their school and methods remain as undeveloped and unsatisfactory as does fetishism and mere 'sorcery' found in those lowest and primitive types of magick; especially those beliefs rooted in spirit and ancestor worship apparent in traditions like Voodoo. This is also the basic theory behind the art of talisman concentration.

Where concepts such 'ancestral fetishism' might not be as apparent in the theories of the psychoanalyst school; they indirectly echo the same theme with their theories regarding the concepts like Oepidus complex, libido, parental figures (the superego) etc.

I still maintain the statement I made in my first post in this thread;
The only link between magick and psychotherapy is that the latter explores the symbols that could be considered malefic, illusory and equated with sorcery in the light of hermetic/magickal tradition.

Psycho-analysis or psycho-therapy is not exclusive to patient-doctor relationship.  We can self-analyse and this is the same process.  Simply put it is to confront and to be aware which emotional expressions we are hiding in the garbage-can of the unconscious; in occult language the yesodic nephesh.

We all at one time or another feel the following emotions naturally;  sadness, affection, need for affection, anger, cruelty, courage, jealousy, sex and anxiety.  I don't think there are any emotions I have missed out there.  The problem is sometimes (and/or habitually) we resist the expression of these various  psycho-social motions (e-motions) and the problem is even one repression will affect the entire management of the whole gamut.  (Psycho)-therapy is becoming aware of that.  That's all a therapist does but I'd say that the average person could do it for themselves and this, if you like appears to be the exact same process as connecting with our Neshamah which is a silent observer of all mental and emotional satellite-activity.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5028
27/01/2015 12:19 am  
"Tao" wrote:
Was this in regards to his clinical work with others? Or regarding his work on his own psyche? Or both?

I would say in his clinical work as he made a straight-out statement to that effect - although I cannot remember his exact words or where he said/wrote it. He used the same methods in his own work, so I guess the answer should be "both."

He didn't get very far until he started studying Alchemy and its symbolism. Then, when he applied those symbols to dreams and visions, he started to develop his own "school of thought," which, frankly, still remains far superior to many (most?) other schools - imho.

One day Freud confronted Jung. He said, "This occult business has to stop!"  Jung got angry, but he kept his mouth shut. Instead, all the books in Freud's bookcases started flying off the shelves. A frightened Freud said, "I don't know what you're doing, but just stop it right now." This sounds like a faury tale, but it's a well-known, documented scenario.

Jung eventually split from Freud - due to this "occult" business. Freud's problem was he though ALL subconscious problems arose from the Oedipus complex (which of course was his problem). Jung said, "Yes, but there are also many other archetypes that can cause problems."


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
27/01/2015 12:56 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Occult just means "hidden" i.e. hidden from conscious-ness as repressed feelings are.

I would not agree with this etymology.

The main meaning of “occult” is hidden, though, isn't it?

Yes, but etymologically it derives from the Latin occulare or occultare which are active verbs meaning to conceal or to secrete. A subject must intentionally occlude an object in order for it to become occult. In that, it carries the meaning of something that has been actively hidden rather than something which is unconsciously hidden. I'm not seeing a defensible link between the term "Occult" as used in the context of this thread, and the hiding of repressed emotions except in a wide stretch of modern English syntactical laziness.

That’s interesting Tao, I wasn’t aware of that fine distinction before. I just thought I would mention the common meaning as david did not raise the issue of etymology.

Incidentally david, do you intend answering mine and Tao’s points any further from Replies #53 and #54? (You wouldn't have been trying to PM Los for some advice on how to play it, hopefully?  He'll steer you wrong!) 

So, what's new then doc?

"david" wrote:
I doubt that Gurdjieff would've done this on a train full of English football fans returning home on a Saturday as he would've been buried

Precisely so!

"david" wrote:
[...] Simply put it is to confront and to be aware which emotional expressions we are hiding in the garbage-can of the unconscious [...]

Do you just regard the unconscious as a “garbage can”, david?  You seem to have used this reference several times now, and the language comes across as having rather negative connotations.

"david" wrote:
We all at one time or another feel the following emotions naturally;  sadness, affection, need for affection, anger, cruelty, courage, jealousy, sex and anxiety.  I don't think there are any emotions I have missed out there.

There are quite a few.  Love and hatred, fear and humour to begin with.  Hubbard lists quite a number of emotions in his discussion of their relative position to affect things in his “range” of them in Dianetics; there are over forty there, I think.  (Some analysts might suggest your particular choice to be revealing, like with a rorschach or word-association test!)

"david" wrote:
[...] if you like appears to be the exact same process as connecting with our Neshamah which is a silent observer of all mental and emotional satellite-activity.

You mean, like our “Silent Self” in other words?  Which Crowley described in many places as residing way above the plane of Reason and as beyond the duality of the mind, didn’t he - can you see where that’s coming from?

"Shiva" wrote:
One day Freud confronted Jung. He said, "This occult business has to stop!"  Jung got angry, but he kept his mouth shut. Instead, all the books in Freud's bookcases started flying off the shelves. A frightened Freud said, "I don't know what you're doing, but just stop it right now." This sounds like a faury tale, but it's a well-known, documented scenario.

Reminds me of “Carrie” (especially the first film, starring Sissy Spacek) … Spooky, supernatural shit!

NJoy.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
27/01/2015 6:32 pm  

I don't think it was "books flying off shelves" I think it was one book fell off the shelf.  This happens to everyone of course at some time.  In fact wasn't it a "bang" noise in a cupboard that Jung predicted? 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5028
27/01/2015 7:50 pm  
"david" wrote:
I don't think it was "books flying off shelves" I think it was one book fell off the shelf.

It is my understanding, based on my feeble memory, that it was one book after another, until it approached an avalanche. The only way to be sure is for someone (you, me, him, her?) to start reading or googling. Since I started this, I try to do some research. I originally heard the tale in a lecture by Stehan Hoeller.

Wikipedia: "An author and scholar of Gnosticism and Jungian psychology, Hoeller is Regionary Bishop of Ecclesia Gnostica, and the senior holder of the English Gnostic transmission in America."

Hoeller is/was a specialist in historical Freud & Jung.

It is also reported, in writing somewhere, that Jung displayed a certain "unusual" talent in affecting psychometric phenomena when he got angry. At a certain point when he was a child, his mother was chewing him out and he became enraged himself. A large butcher knife on their kitchen table suddenly went "twang" as the blad snapped in two. I wasn't there, so don't put me under oath, 'cause I dunno. I just passing on hearsay.

My prelimary research gives this: "A different sign of conflict came when Jung asked Freud what he made of parapsychology. Sigmund was a complete sceptic: occult phenomena were to him a "black tide of mud". But as they were sitting talking, Jung's diaphragm began to feel hot. Suddenly, a bookcase in the room cracked loudly and they both jumped up. "There, that is an example of a so-called catalytic exteriorisation phenomenon," Jung retorted – referring to his theory that the uncanny could be projections of internal strife. "Bosh!" Freud retorted, before Jung predicted that there would be another crack, which there was."
- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/06/carl-jung-freud-nazis

and ...

"Jung's Explosive Visit to Freud
Did Jung cause Freud's bookcase to explode by mental force
?"

"The incident happened in April 1909, when Jung was 33 and Freud was 52 years old. Here is Jung's own account, given to interviewer Aniela Jaffé fifty years later:
"It interested me to hear Freud's views on precognition and parapsychology in general. When I visited him in Vienna in 1909 I asked him what he thought of these matters. Because of his materialistic prejudice, he rejected this entire complex of questions as nonsensical ... ...

While Freud was going on in this way, I had a curious sensation. It was as if my diaphragm were made of iron and was becoming red-hot - a glowing vault. And at that moment there was such a loud report in the bookcase, which stood right next to us, that we both started up in alarm, fearing the thing was going to topple over on us. I said to Freud: "There is an example of a so-called catalytic exteriorisation phenomenon."

"Oh come," he exclaimed. "That is sheer bosh."

"It is not," I replied. "You are mistaken, Herr Professor. And to prove my point I now predict that there will be another loud report!" Sure enough, no sooner had I said the words than the same detonation went off in the bookcase.

To this day I do not know what gave me this certainty."

Freud was certainly impressed with the effect, although did not share Jung's certainty about the explanation. In a letter to Jung dated April 16th, 1909, he wrote:

"I do not deny that your comments and your experiment made a powerful impression upon me. After your departure I determined to make some observations, and here are the results. In my front room there are continual creaking noises, from where the two heavy Egyptian steles rest on the oak boards of the bookcase, so that's obvious. In the second room, where we heard the crash, such noises are very rare. At first I was inclined to ascribe some meaning to it if the noise we heard so frequently when you were here were never again heard after your departure. But since then it has happened over and over again, yet never in connection with my thoughts and never when I was considering you or your special problem. (Not now, either, I add by way of challenge). The phenomenon was soon deprived of all significance for me by something else. My credulity, or at least my readiness to believe, vanished along with the spell of your personal presence ... ... The furniture stands before me spiritless and dead, like nature silent and godless before the poet after the passing of the gods of Greece."

There are some differences in two descriptions, which may be accounted for by the fact that Freud's letter was written immediately after the event, while Jung gave his description in a much later interview when. Jung "remembered," for example, that the bookcase was right next to him, while Freud's letter places it in the next room.

Jung's memory is quite likely to have been at fault, since he admitted to Jaffé that "Only what is interior has proved to have substance and a determining value. As a result, all memory of outer events has faded ... An enormous part of these ‘outer' manifestations of my life has vanished from my memory ...".

How are we to account, though, for Jung's association between his inner feeling and the noise made by the bookcase?"
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/untangling-lifes-complexities/201109/jungs-explosive-visit-freud

So, the common myth is that the bookcase exploded. The truth seems to be more subtle, but still rather interesting.

Also ...

"Carl Jung on the Shattered Knife"

Jung tells us ...

"During the summer holidays, however, something happened that was destined to influence me profoundly. One day I was sitting in my room, studying my textbooks. In the adjoining room, the door to which stood ajar, my mother was knitting.

That was our dining room, where the round walnut dining table stood. The table had come from the dowry of my paternal grandmother, and was at this time about seventy years old. My mother was sitting by the window, about a yard away from the table.

My sister was at school and our maid in the kitchen. Suddenly there sounded a report like a pistol shot. I jumped up and rushed into the room from which the noise of the explosion had come. My mother was sitting flabbergasted in her armchair, the knitting fallen from her hands. She stammered out, "W-w-what's happened? It was right beside mel" and stared at the table.

Following her eyes, I saw what had happened. The table top had split from the rim to beyond the center, and not along any joint; the split ran right through the solid wood. I was thunderstruck.

How could such a thing happen? A table of solid walnut that had dried out for seventy years--how could it split on a summer day in the relatively high degree of humidity characteristic of our climate? If it had stood next to a heated stove on a cold, dry winter day, then it might have been conceivable.

What in the world could have caused such an explosion? "There certainly are curious accidents," I thought. My mother nodded darkly. "Yes, yes," she said in her No. 2 voice, "that means something." Against my will I was impressed and annoyed with myself for not finding anything to say.

Some two weeks later I came home at six o'clock in the evening and found the household--my mother, my fourteen-year--old sister, and the maid--in a great state of agitation. About an hour earlier there had been another deafening report.

This time it was not the already damaged table; the noise had come from the direction of the sideboard, a heavy piece of furniture dating from the early nineteenth century. They had already looked all over it, but had found no trace of a split. I immediately began examining the sideboard and the entire surrounding area, but just as fruitlessly.

Then I began on the interior of the sideboard. In the cupboard containing the bread basket I found a loaf of bread, and, beside it, the bread knife. The greater part of the blade had snapped off in several pieces. The handle lay in one corner of the rectangular basket, and in each of the other corners lay a piece of the blade.

The knife had been used shortly before, at four-o'clock tea, and afterward put away. Since then no one had gone to the sideboard. The next day I took the shattered knife to one of the best cutlers in the town. He examined the fractures with a magnifying glass, and shook his head. "This knife is perfectly sound," he said. "There is no fault in the steel. Someone must have deliberately broken it piece by piece.

It could be done, for instance, by sticking the blade into the crack of the drawer and - breaking off a piece at a time. Or else it might have been dropped on stone from a great height. But good steel can't explode. Someone has been pulling your leg." I have carefully kept the pieces of the knife to this day. My mother and my sister had been in the room when the sudden report made them jump.

My mother's No. 2 looked at me meaningfully, but I could find nothing to say. I was completely at a loss and could offer no explanation of what had happened, and this was all the more annoying as I had to admit that I was profoundly impressed. Why and how had the table split and the knife shattered?

The hypothesis that it was just a coincidence went much too far. It seemed highly improbable to me that the Rhine would flow backward just once, by mere chance--and all other possible explanations were automatically ruled out. So what was it?"
- http://carljungdepthpsychology.blogspot.com/2013/11/carl-jung-on-shattered-knife.html

Pardon the long post ::) where my version is a little different from the gleaned reports. But some folks might find the tales of "occult" interest. Please do not send me money via PayPal.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
27/01/2015 8:10 pm  

My credulity, or at least my readiness to believe, vanished along with the spell of your personal presence ... ... The furniture stands before me spiritless and dead, like nature silent and godless before the poet after the passing of the gods of Greece."

The Great God Pan is Dead!


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2015 12:09 am  
"jamie barter" wrote:
[

Incidentally david, do you intend answering mine and Tao’s points any further from Replies #53 and #54? (You wouldn't have been trying to PM Los for some advice on how to play it, hopefully?  He'll steer you wrong!) 

I got side tracked didn't I?  Yeah I notice I didn't really answer Tao's points there.  Los?  No I never pm'd Los on this.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Do you just regard the unconscious as a “garbage can”, david?  You seem to have used this reference several times now, and the language comes across as having rather negative connotations.

This is a very good point Jamie.  I subscribe wholly (pun intended) to Jung's model of Unconscious which is Archimedean i.e. what you push down gets pushed back up in equal amounts.  Crowley said this also when he led Bennett to his enlightenment and also in his writings on nightmares.  Basically, dreams are symbolic or camouflaged truths denied by the ego aren't they? In that sense Jung has hit upon  a psychical immune system.  This is literally revelation of what we have tried to shove down isn't it?  What is using the Unconscious?  That's the question. 

"jamie barter" wrote:
There are quite a few.  Love and hatred, fear and humour to begin with. 

I don't think so. Love is covered in the list by affection. Hatred is just a particular brand of anger.  Fear is covered in the list by anxiety but it has more than one meaning anyway.  Humour is not an emotion it's  a process like inventiveness or sarcasm or creativity.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Hubbard lists quite a number of emotions in his discussion of their relative position to affect things in his “range” of them in Dianetics; there are over forty there, I think.  (Some analysts might suggest your particular choice to be revealing, like with a rorschach or word-association test!)

Hubbard?  I don't do Hubbard.  Maybe I should analyse why I have such an aversion to Mr Xenu    Ka-ching!! 

http://www.cracked.com/article_16337_l.-ron-hubbards-5-most-impressive-lies-besides-scientology.html

Hey what do you make of that?

"jamie barter" wrote:
You mean, like our “Silent Self” in other words?  Which Crowley described in many places as residing way above the plane of Reason and as beyond the duality of the mind, didn’t he - can you see where that’s coming from?

Yes.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
28/01/2015 12:59 pm  
"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
There are quite a few.  Love and hatred, fear and humour to begin with. 

I don't think so. Love is covered in the list by affection. Hatred is just a particular brand of anger.  Fear is covered in the list by anxiety but it has more than one meaning anyway.  Humour is not an emotion it's  a process like inventiveness or sarcasm or creativity.

Some might construe your reaction there a defensive one! ( 😉 )

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Hubbard lists quite a number of emotions in his discussion of their relative position to affect things in his “range” of them in Dianetics; there are over forty there, I think.  (Some analysts might suggest your particular choice to be revealing, like with a rorschach or word-association test!)

Hubbard?  I don't do Hubbard.  Maybe I should analyse why I have such an aversion to Mr Xenu    Ka-ching!!

Yes – that was why I mentioned it!

I don't hold a particular candle for Elron, you know.  Neither do I see fit to condemn him 100%.

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
You mean, like our “Silent Self” in other words?  Which Crowley described in many places as residing way above the plane of Reason and as beyond the duality of the mind, didn’t he - can you see where that’s coming from?

Yes

Good, we seem to be gradually advancing somewhere.  You now accept at least that there is something beyond the duality of Mind – that is where you significantly part company with Los.  Elsewhere you seem to indicate that you accept the ineffable Light as being from the Supernals also.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2015 11:36 pm  

Ineffable "Light"?  If I said that I must've been referring to traditional Cabbalistic teaching.  I don't see how the principle of duality of mind challenges Los's writings.   


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/01/2015 12:32 pm  

Seems there are a lot more people interested in arguing, prolonging the conversation etc,  than answering the question, me included.
Like Harpies converged upon a rotting and decayed piece of meat, more concerned about the pecking order than the taste of the cadaver.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
29/01/2015 12:52 pm  
"david" wrote:
Ineffable "Light"?  If I said that I must've been referring to traditional Cabbalistic teaching.

I don’t think you did say that – Crow did in several places I’m fairly sure, but please don’t ask me to cite an example offhand. 

"david" wrote:
I don't see how the principle of duality of mind challenges Los's writings.

The principle of duality of mind doesn’t challenge Los’s writings.  I said what is “beyond” that would, and it does.  Pay close attention, david!  According to the world according to Los, everything stops at the mind.  In terms of basic cabbala, whenever he discusses the Khu, he actually seems to be placing that about Chesed or Daath on the Tree, ignoring the path of the Lightening Flash from further up.  (Where is Los these days, I wonder? – I suppose he must be going through one of his phases of Silence again, until startled into action.  A bit like a rabbit or cat, perhaps.)

"Baal" wrote:
Seems there are a lot more people interested in arguing, prolonging the conversation etc,  than answering the question, me included.
Like Harpies converged upon a rotting and decayed piece of meat, more concerned about the pecking order than the taste of the cadaver.

Most poetically put there, Baal.  Although like a lot of good poetry, I haven't a clue what you're on about!  (Might you be saying david's a corpse? :D)

‘иJoy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
29/01/2015 7:36 pm  
"Baal" wrote:
Seems there are a lot more people interested in arguing, prolonging the conversation etc,  than answering the question, me included.
Like Harpies converged upon a rotting and decayed piece of meat, more concerned about the pecking order than the taste of the cadaver.

Which questions?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
29/01/2015 8:31 pm  
"david" wrote:
"Baal" wrote:
Seems there are a lot more people interested in arguing, prolonging the conversation etc,  than answering the question, me included.
Like Harpies converged upon a rotting and decayed piece of meat, more concerned about the pecking order than the taste of the cadaver.

Which questions?

Shirley not the question which was asked at the beginning – viz. ‘Is there a difference between magickal initiation and psychotherapy?'  To which the answer was & is - yes !?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
30/01/2015 1:32 pm  

Yeah, I am doing that Meta speak thing, where some arrogant twat attempts to sound superior by stating the obvious towards the end of a debate, that they have obviously not read, clocked in half arsed bad English, that fools no one. But hell, is not the answer yes ?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5028
30/01/2015 3:16 pm  
"Baal" wrote:
... some arrogant twat  ... half arsed bad ... hell, is not the answer yes?

The answer is that you are losing control of yourmind and/or temper, and are resorting to gutter language, which is very naughty of you. Do thirty-three pranayamas and call me in the morning.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
30/01/2015 5:26 pm  
"Baal" wrote:
Yeah, I am doing that Meta speak thing, where some arrogant twat attempts to sound superior by stating the obvious towards the end of a debate, that they have obviously not read, clocked in half arsed bad English, that fools no one. But hell, is not the answer yes ?

You're right with the 'end of debate' comment... This thread is now locked.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
03/02/2015 8:56 pm  

Unlocked by request.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/02/2015 11:11 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
I am also interested in these questions.

If we take U.G Krishnamurti and his conidition as an example, we can clearly distinguish some differences in contrast to the 'average joe' and how their minds work.

We could take dreams and sleep in general as an example, since it is quite universal condition for humans.

Lack of seeing dreams could scream of (psycho-)pathological traits in general if understood in light of psychoanalysis, but even Crowley states that: The best sleep is dreamless.  Any true Mystic would probably agree with this statement.

And how does one differentiate (emotional) phantasms and dreams of Nephesh from those visions and influences that may originate from higher up the Tree?

Psychoanalysis as a method and their theories so far seem to make no such classifications or divisions found in traditions like those of Qabalah that ultimately guide the practicioner "to separate the wheat from the chaff"

Dr Shoemaker states that in the elemental grades the anima /animus takes the place of the HGA and communicates symbolically in dreams.  That said, when KACHGA occurs then the anima/animus doesn't have to appear in dreams?  The Unconscious takes what we have pushed away into the dark and it gets the chance to  push these things back up during sleep/dreams in symbols.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/02/2015 11:19 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Unlocked by request.

By the way thanks Paul.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/02/2015 11:49 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:

“Some have argued that he never completed the full initiation to Ipsissimus on all the planes in any case, as in “As a god goes, I go.”  (Let alone the debate about his Magus and Magister Templi).  Others (or some of the same) would also argue that he certainly seemed to still have work to do resolving negative behavioural aspects in his personality vehicle such as petty jealousy, paranoia, over- or under-emotional treatment of his (lady) friends, etc., many of which should have been levelled out even at the Adeptus level.  But that’s a whole other debating kettle-o’-fish, of course…”

My belief though is that some of the issues behind the incorrectly phrased question on the topic are valid & important and as I remarked it would be a shame if the conversation didn’t manage to do justice to it:

By “perfect shit” there, I was rather thinking of Leah Hirsig’s assessment that although the Beast may have been a Magus and the Logus of the Aeon, as a human being his personality was that of the “rottenest” type.  This does not appear to be an endorsement of the ability of magick to “iron out” such little kinks – but oughtn’t it to have done?  This suggestion was what I was querying that the work in the grades devoted to the Elements of the personality should have addressed and dealt with before anyone gets on to the further loftier spiritual heights of Adeptus and above.  Phobias, for instance, are fairly commonplace in westernised society for some reason – a lot of people have an adverse reaction when faced by creepy crawlies, rodents, dogs even.  Should a Master be similarly subject, for example?  Then there’s stuff like obsessive compulsive disorder and (psycho-)pathological traits in general.  All of these things come more under the remit of needing psychological work, but nevertheless shouldn’t they have been dealt with as part of the magick in advancing & ascending the Tree?

Some spiders can kill a man. Rodents brought the fleas that caused the Black Death.  Maybe it's an instinctive race-memory warning.  I don't know.

On the subject of unbalanced magicians as I said there is a practicing psychiatrist , Dr David Shoemaker who is also an initiate of the A A.  He does a lot of lectures on "Living Thelema" on youtube.  In this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbRrt2DbJa8 entitled "The ego and the Great Work" he says, (1m50s in) "in contrast to the ego we have what Jung called "the Self" ....through insight orientated work and through psychotherapy and via the magical/mystical path, when rightly pursued, we open up awareness of this Self."  If you want to ask David any questions he says he is open to answering via email. 

He also discusses in that lecture about imbalances and shadow-projections and how they affect the magician.  Franz Bardon also teaches about body,mind and soul should all advance together in tandem.
 
By the way did we agree that the "spiritual plane (spiritual Light)" is not the same plane as the one that deals with emotional issues?  Someone with agraphobia  could eventually sit for a tremorless hour in their apartment and eventually advance towards long pranayama sessions but would that help their problem?

Crowley described magick as the raising of the whole man to infinity but are you saying his girlfriend said he wasn't a whole personality?  The general consensus is he was an Adept but was, simultaneoulsy  "a flawed character."  Don't you think that Reich would've been appalled by him and would've said he was perverted and  "armoured"?  I'm not telling you I'm asking you. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5028
04/02/2015 12:55 am  
"david" wrote:
Crowley described magick as the raising of the whole man to infinity but are you saying his girlfriend said he wasn't a whole personality?  The general consensus is he was an Adept but was, simultaneoulsy "a flawed character."

"Raise the whole man [the holy man ;)]to infinity," but let's be realistic. This "raising" is just a temporary (or "non-temporal") phenomenon. After samadhi comes the return to the dual world. Anyone who is "raised" permanently is gone.

Gone ...
[/align:39zkddnf]

Also, let's remember: "An adept is only a adept when operating in his/her light body." At all other times, he or she is just a human being like all the rest of us who are not (immediately right now) operating in our light body.

It is obvious to many (most?) of us that AC was way up there (let's not quibble about the grades and the titles), and also that he seems to have had an abrasive, rotten personality. This is not uncommon in metaphysical biographies.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/02/2015 12:25 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Raise the whole man [the holy man ;)]to infinity," but let's be realistic. This "raising" is just a temporary (or "non-temporal") phenomenon. After samadhi comes the return to the dual world. Anyone who is "raised" permanently is gone.

Like "the well gone" of Buddhism or as they said in the 60s "he's a real well gone gasser."  Humorous interlude there.  Good point though that there is  always a come-down from expanded consciousness.

"Shiva" wrote:
Also, let's remember: "An adept is only a adept when operating in his/her light body." At all other times, he or she is just a human being like all the rest of us who are not (immediately right now) operating in our light body.

It is obvious to many (most?) of us that AC was way up there (let's not quibble about the grades and the titles), and also that he seems to have had an abrasive, rotten personality. This is not uncommon in metaphysical biographies.

Yes and Jamie can't seem to reconcile that fact.  Perhaps you could help him understand how that is so.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/02/2015 5:47 pm  
"david" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
Unlocked by request.

By the way thanks Paul.

Yes, thank you too Paul.

A good result for you there, david, particularly seeing as how ayino and myself put all the work into requesting it!  Now there’s no reason why you can’t address any outstanding ishoos (- I am sure tao will be delighted!)

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
“Some have argued that he never completed the full initiation to Ipsissimus on all the planes in any case, as in “As a god goes, I go.”  (Let alone the debate about his Magus and Magister Templi).  Others (or some of the same) would also argue that he certainly seemed to still have work to do resolving negative behavioural aspects in his personality vehicle such as petty jealousy, paranoia, over- or under-emotional treatment of his (lady) friends, etc., many of which should have been levelled out even at the Adeptus level.  But that’s a whole other debating kettle-o’-fish, of course…”
My belief though is that some of the issues behind the incorrectly phrased question on the topic are valid & important and as I remarked it would be a shame if the conversation didn’t manage to do justice to it:
By “perfect shit” there, I was rather thinking of Leah Hirsig’s assessment that although the Beast may have been a Magus and the Logus of the Aeon, as a human being his personality was that of the “rottenest” type.  This does not appear to be an endorsement of the ability of magick to “iron out” such little kinks – but oughtn’t it to have done?  This suggestion was what I was querying that the work in the grades devoted to the Elements of the personality should have addressed and dealt with before anyone gets on to the further loftier spiritual heights of Adeptus and above.  Phobias, for instance, are fairly commonplace in westernised society for some reason – a lot of people have an adverse reaction when faced by creepy crawlies, rodents, dogs even.  Should a Master be similarly subject, for example?  Then there’s stuff like obsessive compulsive disorder and (psycho-)pathological traits in general.  All of these things come more under the remit of needing psychological work, but nevertheless shouldn’t they have been dealt with as part of the magick in advancing & ascending the Tree?

Some spiders can kill a man. Rodents brought the fleas that caused the Black Death.  Maybe it's an instinctive race-memory warning.  I don't know.

Elron Hubbard of course said it was because we were invaded by spider aliens thousands of years ago which created a bad racial engram.  (I am sure you will love this reference too, david.)

"david" wrote:
On the subject of unbalanced magicians as I said there is a practicing psychiatrist , Dr David Shoemaker who is also an initiate of the A A.

I thought for a moment you were going to say Dr Shoemaker was an unbalanced magician there!

"david" wrote:
By the way did we agree that the "spiritual plane (spiritual Light)" is not the same plane as the one that deals with emotional issues?

I would imagine we did, as they are separate.

"david" wrote:
Someone with agraphobia  could eventually sit for a tremorless hour in their apartment and eventually advance towards long pranayama sessions but would that help their problem?

Tremorless?  But for one thing, to begin with why would there be any such trauma?

"david" wrote:
Crowley described magick as the raising of the whole man to infinity

Again, the precise context please.  I know he says this somewhere in Book 4 but I don’t mean to plough through the whole big blue breezeblock in order to track it down.  And although some people might know a given reference, there will still be plenty of others who don't.

"david" wrote:
but are you saying his girlfriend said he wasn't a whole personality?  The general consensus is he was an Adept but was, simultaneoulsy  "a flawed character."

No I am not.  I’m saying she regarded him as the “rottenest” type – hardly a glowing testimonial, in fact about as bad an appraisal as one could get - and this from knowing him intimately well over a number of years, arguably better than anyone else could ever have done before or after.  This was not just someone who would have been shocked by a short momentary encounter with “the demon Crowley”.

"david" wrote:
Don't you think that Reich would've been appalled by him and would've said he was perverted and  "armoured"?  I'm not telling you I'm asking you.

No I don’t think he would have been “appalled” or necessarily have judged him as ”perverted” – the language of the tabloid press – but would probably have suggested he was armoured, since most people are.  And at least until he may have got to have known him better.  Maybe he might have seen it all as some sort of “mask of sorrow” though?

"Shiva" wrote:
[...] Also, let's remember: "An adept is only a adept when operating in his/her light body." At all other times, he or she is just a human being like all the rest of us who are not (immediately right now) operating in our light body.

Although one’s awareness might not be on it the whole time I can’t see that “the Body of Light” (upper case capitals optional) is something that can be shut on and off like a light bulb when “operating”.  I don’t remember this quote, could you refresh my memory here?  If it’s from A.C. it’s quite surprising as it seems to contradict things he mentioned elsewhere about it (although it’s not that surprising and nothing new, as we all know: pace his views on reincarnation, Aiwass as his personal HGA, extraterrestrials etc etc.)

"Shiva" wrote:
It is obvious to many (most?) of us that AC was way up there (let's not quibble about the grades and the titles), and also that he seems to have had an abrasive, rotten personality. This is not uncommon in metaphysical biographies.

Yes it is obvious.  There’s no question about that, I think; just like there’s no question about the answer to the question posed by this very thread, if you get my drift…  The thing behind it though is, wasn’t this meant to have been addressed in terms of “doing the work” at all?  Although it doesn’t specifically spell out in one of the  A.’. A.’. Libri for the lower grades, “follow these exercises and avoid being a perfect shit, personalitywise”, the implication is still there in terms of the work done on the elements of the vehicle and throughout the rest of the Work involved in trying to maintain a balance.  In connection with which, I would have thought that to be perceived as the rottenest type of person by your closest magickal confidante - not to mention  lover and companion for several years - would have required a certain amount of imbalance somewhere, unless one accepts the somewhat farfetched but not impossible notion that this is the impression we were somehow meant to receive with A.C.’s real self “hidden” away from anyone’s perception.

"david" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
Also, let's remember: "An adept is only a adept when operating in his/her light body." At all other times, he or she is just a human being like all the rest of us who are not (immediately right now) operating in our light body.
It is obvious to many (most?) of us that AC was way up there (let's not quibble about the grades and the titles), and also that he seems to have had an abrasive, rotten personality. This is not uncommon in metaphysical biographies.

Yes and Jamie can't seem to reconcile that fact.  Perhaps you could help him understand how that is so.

Look, I haven’t declared myself one way or the other, so it’s not a case of reconciling anything.  Often I advance points and positions in posts purely for the sake of argument – which is after all the whole point of a debative forum.  It doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with any of them, or believe in them, or what have you.  Sometimes I might advance a contrary position just to be that – contrary.  It’s all stuff and techniques that A.C. recommends, as I’m sure you must be aware?

Impishly and perversely yours:
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
04/02/2015 9:31 pm  

It seems a bit odd to me that all this discussion about Crowley's "flawed character" rests on the infallibility of Ms. Hirsig's account. As I don't have the encyclopaedic knowledge of his biography that some do, I'm sure to be missing some obvious sign posts that would allow me to better trust her report but, not having that knowledge, I'm forced to question her reliability as a witness.

Yes, she was close to him for a number of years; yes she saw sides of him that many didn't. However, if we are to take him at his word, it was a cornerstone of his system to seek out the most vile and horrible companions to be his concubines. Given Crowley's personality at the time, that gives me the impression that she was likely your standard, run-of-the-mill, lower-middle-class New Yorker of the time: A relative non-entity in whom Crowley saw the potential of a sublimated sex-fiend dazzled by the idea of a wealthy non-conformist Brit taking a passing interest in her. He found her to be an ideal companion because she would act as his little sex-kitten that he could "degrade" in all sorts of ways. She found him to be an ideal sugar daddy, ready to whisk her around the world to all sorts of "exotic places", install her as his "Scarlet Woman", and place her on a pedestal above all others. Then, after several years of witnessing what it means to live outside the standard accepted morality of consensus society without actually advancing her own psyche to a point where she could break those chains in herself, she began to judge his character on exactly those lines of consensus appropriateness which he had long since abandoned.

By the standards of well-bred society, Crowley was no doubt a no good shit. By the standards of simple honesty and forthrightness, was he a no good shit? I don't have the answer to that question. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the records of him as no good shit are all written by those who were at some point unable to withstand his blunt and simple honesty.

As I understand things, Jane Wolfe knew him from about the time he started with Hirsig and also found his personality to be that of a no good shit until she broke through that standard judgment level of her psyche. Once she managed to take that step on the Path, she recognised that everything he did was toward one single aim and that her resistance to that way of thinking was exactly the block that needed to be destroyed. Having reached that plateau, their relationship changed completely and they became intimate confidantes through to the end of his life. Likewise with Germer who, I take it, was seen as a cold wall of unfeeling German stone to the rest of the OTO but by Crowley as the one man he trusted to continue his work after his death.

As I see it, these aren't simple animal-level personality decisions. This is the implicit trust in other Adepts that one finds once one takes an actual step along the Path.

"david" wrote:
Someone with agraphobia  could eventually sit for a tremorless hour in their apartment and eventually advance towards long pranayama sessions but would that help their problem?

Sounds like an excellent question to ask Dr. Shoemaker as it appears to be one of applying yogic techniques as a method of psychotherapy.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Although it doesn’t specifically spell out in one of the  A.’. A.’. Libri for the lower grades, “follow these exercises and avoid being a perfect shit, personalitywise”, the implication is still there in terms of the work done on the elements of the vehicle and throughout the rest of the Work involved in trying to maintain a balance.  In connection with which, I would have thought that to be perceived as the rottenest type of person by your closest magickal confidante - not to mention  lover and companion for several years - would have required a certain amount of imbalance somewhere, unless one accepts the somewhat farfetched but not impossible notion that this is the impression we were somehow meant to receive with A.C.’s real self “hidden” away from anyone’s perception.

I would adjust the first part of this in that I see the lower grades to be seeking the ultimate result of balance but that, to achieve it, one might first need to make a massive over-correction in order to give one the material to then cancel out both sides of the equation. Once the elemental grades are passed through, one should have the tools and ability to maintain balance through the rest of one's work, however during those grades one must push oneself all sorts of out-of-balance in order to discover the limits between which the Middle Way runs.

However, as to Crowley and Hirsig, this matters little as he was already far beyond that level of the Work when he found her. Playing with your "farfetched but not impossible notion", I'm pressed to wonder if perhaps Crowley did consciously or unconsciously regard his Work as "Logos of the Aeon" as a physical corrective to the consensus morality of well-bred society. A sort of lightning rod or eidolon that must intentionally set itself up as the end-all be-all No-Good-Shit in order for the process of cleansing the world of the sins of the father (Osirian class morality) to manifest in the world.

Pure speculation, this.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/02/2015 11:47 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
It seems a bit odd to me that all this discussion about Crowley's "flawed character" rests on the infallibility of Ms. Hirsig's account. As I don't have the encyclopaedic knowledge of his biography that some do, I'm sure to be missing some obvious sign posts that would allow me to better trust her report but, not having that knowledge, I'm forced to question her reliability as a witness.

My memory is hazy on this, but wasn't she an alcoholic, then quit, then started again after the death of hers and Crowley's first child? And didn't the entire series of episodes help her into an asylum?

"david" wrote:
Someone with agraphobia  could eventually sit for a tremorless hour in their apartment and eventually advance towards long pranayama sessions but would that help their problem?

It's possible that it would assist with the problem, maybe even assist in curing it. The experiment under the cited conditions would have to be recorded and the results reported, multiple times over, a la scientific method. Knowing the times, this has probably already been done, and reported, legitimately. If anyone wants to look up credible case studies, feel free.

If you were just picking a random fear, then I would say yes, meditation can assist with overcoming fears, and has been doing so for thousands of years. Some fears however, are healthy, and are a necessary part of the survival mechanism.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5028
05/02/2015 12:05 am  
"Tao" wrote:
By the standards of simple honesty and forthrightness, was he a no good shit?

C.F. Russell, in Znus is Znees, tells how AC was dishonest in many ways. For example, he (AC), a "chess master," would play blindfold chess with C.F., and C.F. caught him with one of those minature, peg-pieces-type, chess boards hidden under the covers of his bed, where he lay when playing, so as to keep track of the pieces. He cites other examples.

I think one only needs to read his "private" letters in order to see what kind of a persona he had. Martin Starr published many of them in The Unknown God, and they finally woke me up after decades of Thelemic work. Woke me up to the persona. I still think he was way up there in consciousness. By "consciousness" I mean the ability to let go of the ego and enter samadhi - that's what measures the "grade," not what the persona is like when not in samadhi.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/02/2015 12:15 am  
"Tao" wrote:
Yes, she was close to him for a number of years; yes she saw sides of him that many didn't. However, if we are to take him at his word, it was a cornerstone of his system to seek out the most vile and horrible companions to be his concubines.

We were discussing this in the other thread http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42.msg88131;topicseen#new  as you probably know  I don't know if he meant ugly personalities I think he meant people that we find physically unappealing i.e. repulsive.  I have emboldened the verb "to mate" in the following section where he talks about yoga and concubines.  As follows from LIBER CL Book 150  De Lege Libellum  http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib150.htm ;

"IT IS WRITTEN that ``Love is the law, love under will.'' Herein is an Arcanum concealed, for in the Greek Language Agaph, Love, is of the same numerical value as Velhma, Will. By this we understand that the Universal Will is of the nature of Love.

Now Love is the enkindling in ecstacy of Two that will to become One. It is thus an Universal formula of High Magick. For see now how all things, being in sorrow caused by dividuality, must of necessity will Oneness as their medicine.

..........Yet since each star is but one star, and the coming together of any two is but one partial rapture, so must the aspirant to our holy Science and Art increase constantly by this method of assimilating ideas, that in the end, become capable of apprehending the Universe in one thought, he may leap forth upon It with the massed violence of his Self, and destroying both these, become that Unity whose name is No Thing. Seek ye all therefore constantly to unite yourselves in rapture with each and every thing that is, and that by utmost passion and lust of Union. To this end take chiefly all such things as are naturally repulsive. For what is pleasant is assimilated easily and without ecstacy: it is in the transfiguration of the loathsome and abhorred into The Beloved that the Self is shaken to the root in Love.

Thus in human love also we see that mediocrities among men mate with null women: but History teacheth us that the supreme masters of the world seek ever the vilest and most horrible creatures for their concubines, overstepping even the limiting laws of sex and species in their necessity to transcend normality. It is not enough in such natures to excite lust or passion: the imagination itself must be enflamed by every means. "

If I'm not mistaken, Hirsig was the girl he started necking with as soon as he was introduced to her in an artist's studio therefore, to me  that indicates that he found her physically attractive.  Besides she wasn't hideously ugly.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/02/2015 12:29 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
By the standards of simple honesty and forthrightness, was he a no good shit?

C.F. Russell, in Znus is Znees, tells how AC was dishonest in many ways. For example, he (AC), a "chess master," would play blindfold chess with C.F., and C.F. caught him with one of those minature, peg-pieces-type, chess boards hidden under the covers of his bed, where he lay when playing, so as to keep track of the pieces. He cites other examples.

I think one only needs to read his "private" letters in order to see what kind of a persona he had. Martin Starr published many of them in The Unknown God, and they finally woke me up after decades of Thelemic work. Woke me up to the persona. I still think he was way up there in consciousness. By "consciousness" I mean the ability to let go of the ego and enter samadhi - that's what measures the "grade," not what the persona is like when not in samadhi.

Yeah it's a different "plane."  Regardie is good on this subject imo in The eye in the triangle. These issues (pun intended) are also discussed here in detail. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbRrt2DbJa8  Living Thelema - Ego and the Great Work


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/02/2015 12:47 am  
"jamie barter" wrote:
A good result for you there, david, particularly seeing as how ayino and myself put all the work into requesting it!  Now there’s no reason why you can’t address any outstanding ishoos (- I am sure tao will be delighted!)

Which reply?  What number?

"jamie barter" wrote:
“Some have argued that he never completed the full initiation to Ipsissimus on all the planes in any case, as in “As a god goes, I go.”  (Let alone the debate about his Magus and Magister Templi).  Others (or some of the same) would also argue that he certainly seemed to still have work to do resolving negative behavioural aspects in his personality vehicle such as petty jealousy, paranoia, over- or under-emotional treatment of his (lady) friends, etc., many of which should have been levelled out even at the Adeptus level.  But that’s a whole other debating kettle-o’-fish, of course…”

I read that Buddha was in the habit of not answering questions he felt no need to answer.  This can be viewed as arrogance and impoliteness.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
05/02/2015 1:21 am  
"david" wrote:
I don't know if he meant ugly personalities I think he meant people that we find physically unappealing i.e. repulsive.  I have emboldened the verb "to mate" in the following section where he talks about yoga and concubines.  As follows from LIBER CL Book 150  De Lege Libellum  http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib150.htm ;

...
Thus in human love also we see that mediocrities among men mate with null women: but History teacheth us that the supreme masters of the world seek ever the vilest and most horrible creatures for their concubines, overstepping even the limiting laws of sex and species in their necessity to transcend normality. It is not enough in such natures to excite lust or passion: the imagination itself must be enflamed by every means. "

Huh... I'd read exactly the opposite. He begins by describing mediocrities and nulls, not words I would normally attach to physical appearance but rather to their (lack of) influence on the stream of history. Then "vilest and most horrible creatures", without specific mention of their outward appearance, at least leaves the door open that he was speaking of their moral qualities, does it not?

After all, Catherine the Great's stallion was quite a looker, but a downright beast when it came to the rights of the proletariat.  😉


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
05/02/2015 1:50 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
I think one only needs to read his "private" letters in order to see what kind of a persona he had. Martin Starr published many of them in The Unknown God, and they finally woke me up after decades of Thelemic work. Woke me up to the persona. I still think he was way up there in consciousness. By "consciousness" I mean the ability to let go of the ego and enter samadhi - that's what measures the "grade," not what the persona is like when not in samadhi.

That certainly seems a fair way to go about evaluating. As I've only seen some of Jane Wolfe's diary and letters and glanced over the bits that are in "The Progradior Correspondence", I would  have to assume I'm not getting the full picture. However, with a starting cost of around $176 for a used volume, I can't imagine I'll be getting the inside scoop from Starr anytime soon unless "The Unknown God" happens to turn up on one of my various Thelemic acquaintances' bookshelves.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/02/2015 12:34 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Huh... I'd read exactly the opposite. He begins by describing mediocrities and nulls, not words I would normally attach to physical appearance but rather to their (lack of) influence on the stream of history. Then "vilest and most horrible creatures", without specific mention of their outward appearance, at least leaves the door open that he was speaking of their moral qualities, does it not?

It does appear to lean towards the way you're reading it. I don't know for sure.  By your logic he is saying that famous aeon-spanning sovereigns such as Genghis Khan, Henry VIII, Alexander, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Victoria and Solomon liked a bit on the side that was wholly cranky, demanding and stroppy because it drove them on to greatness?.  I'm not enough of a historian to verify that.  It would've helped if Crowley would've provided examples.

However as the treatise is about yoga it seems to be in the same vein as all of the quotes I've cited in this thread as part of repulsion-confrontation  a "technique for destroying "evil" (, including the part about making love (?) to ugly grannies (or grandads ) from Liber Vel Reguli which I've reproduced below.)) 

Anyway from LIBER CL  Book 150 De Lege Libellum ; To this end take chiefly all such things as are naturally repulsive. For what is pleasant is assimilated easily and without ecstacy: it is in the transfiguration of the loathsome and abhorred into The Beloved that the Self is shaken to the root in Love.  Thus in human love also we see that mediocrities among men mate with null women: but History teacheth us that the supreme masters of the world seek ever the vilest and most horrible creatures for their concubines, overstepping even the limiting laws of sex and species in their necessity to transcend normality. It is not enough in such natures to excite lust or passion: the imagination itself must be enflamed by every means. "

Mediocre men mate with null women but masters of the world mate with vile creatures?  But"mediocre men" also mate with morally vile and horrible creatures also.  Check out the UK Jeremy Kyle show for a verification of that. Initially I though he was talking about masters of magick not political masters or sovereigns.  Sovereigns don't "transcend normality" but yogis do but then again you could be right as masters of mysticism were usually ascetic and celibate.

Why, if it was just about females who make no mark on history (null women) would he also mention that mating with them is "overstepping the laws of sex", "exciting lust and passion"  and having to use the imagination to excite oneself sexually when mating with them?  That is, someone who doesn't make a mark on history may still "excite lust" in someone.  I doubt that a list of today's porn stars will be remembered in time as oppose to a modern Nobel prize winner.   

from LIBER V REGULI

http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib5.html

The Magician should devise for himself a definite technique for destroying "evil." The essence of such a practice will consist in training the mind and the body to confront things which cause fear, pain, disgust,* shame and the like. He must learn to endure them, then to become indifferent to them, then to become indifferent to them, then to analyze them until they give pleasure and instruction, and finally to appreciate them for their own sake, as aspects of Truth. When this has been done, he should abandon them, if they are really harmful in relation to health and comfort. Also, our selection of "evils" is limited to those that cannot damage us irreparably. E.g., one ought to practice smelling assafœtida until one likes it; but not arsine or hydrocyanic acid. Again, one might have a liaison with an ugly old woman until one beheld and loved the star which she is; it would be too dangerous to overcome the distaste for dishonesty by forcing oneself to pick pockets. Acts which are essentially dishonourable must not be done; they should be justified only by calm contemplation of their correctness in abstract cases. ...............

Unfortunately the word liaison has two different meanings which don't throw any light on the matter.

n.
1.
a.  An instance or a means of communication between different groups or units of an organization, especially in the armed forces.

b.  One that maintains communication: served as the president's liaison with Congress.

2.  A sexual relationship, especially when at least one person is married or involved in a sexual relationship with someone else.

3.  Linguistics Pronunciation of the usually silent final consonant of a word when followed by a word beginning with a vowel, especially in French.

intr.v. li·a·soned, li·a·son·ing, li·a·sons
To serve as a liaison.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/02/2015 1:50 pm  

I thought that Crowley was declaring that the standards for beauty and atttractiveness i.e. the golden ratio and proportion in face and body (as follows)

http://www.goldennumber.net/facial-beauty-new-golden-ratio/

are, naturally, easily pleasing and easy on the eye i.e. easy for the mind to assimilate and crave within that dividuality and this  always leads to sorrow if not elevated via yoga i.e. Love as discussed in http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib150.html  LIBER CL  Book 150
De Lege Libellum ; OF LOVE....
....
Now Love is the enkindling in ecstacy of Two that will to become One. It is thus an Universal formula of High Magick. For see now how all things, being in sorrow caused by dividuality, must of necessity will Oneness as their medicine.................But now I would have you to know that in the mind are no such limitations in respect of species as prevent a man falling in love with an inanimate object, or an idea. For to him that is in any wise advanced upon the Way of Meditation it appears that all objects save the One Object are distasteful..... . So therefore all objects must be grasped by the mind, and heated in the sevenfold furnace of Love, until with explosion of ecstacy they unite, and disappear, for they, being imperfect, are destroyed utterly in the creation of the Perfection of Union........ Seek ye all therefore constantly to unite yourselves in rapture with each and every thing that is, and that by utmost passion and lust of Union. To this end take chiefly all such things as are naturally repulsive. For what is pleasant is assimilated easily and without ecstacy: it is in the transfiguration of the loathsome and abhorred into The Beloved that the Self is shaken to the root in Love.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
05/02/2015 5:41 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Yes, [Leah Hirsig] was close to him for a number of years; yes she saw sides of him that many didn't. However, if we are to take him at his word, it was a cornerstone of his system to seek out the most vile and horrible companions to be his concubines. Given Crowley's personality at the time, that gives me the impression that she was likely your standard, run-of-the-mill, lower-middle-class New Yorker of the time: A relative non-entity in whom Crowley saw the potential of a sublimated sex-fiend dazzled by the idea of a wealthy non-conformist Brit taking a passing interest in her. He found her to be an ideal companion because she would act as his little sex-kitten that he could "degrade" in all sorts of ways. She found him to be an ideal sugar daddy, ready to whisk her around the world to all sorts of "exotic places", install her as his "Scarlet Woman", and place her on a pedestal above all others. Then, after several years of witnessing what it means to live outside the standard accepted morality of consensus society without actually advancing her own psyche to a point where she could break those chains in herself, she began to judge his character on exactly those lines of consensus appropriateness which he had long since abandoned.

I think your assessment of Leah Hirsig may be a little harsh, and that she was a bit more than his “little sex-kitten”.  Shen seems to have taken Thelema, and her duties as Scarlet Woman, very seriously and to heart until she felt herself outdated and to be replaced by A.C.’s future S.W., but even then she was prepared to play ball for a bit.  Her diaries also show moments of acumen and awareness indicating more cerebral activity than your words might suggest!

"Tao" wrote:
By the standards of well-bred society, Crowley was no doubt a no good shit. By the standards of simple honesty and forthrightness, was he a no good shit? I don't have the answer to that question. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the records of him as no good shit are all written by those who were at some point unable to withstand his blunt and simple honesty.

If someone feels wronged by someone else, they are bound to slag off that person as a result, unless they happen to have an especially forgiving nature.  Plenty of examples have been given – and not only by spurned lovers – by others who felt they were treated dishonourably, or cavalierly, or at least inconsiderately, by the Great Beast, in sufficient numbers to cause a neutral observer to conclude that the weight of evidence suggests he could indeed be a bit of a 'no good shit'.  And then the fact can’t be dismissed that even if he wasn’t like it all the time, or that his detractors may have been mistaken and he only got it wrong some of the time, it would still leave those few occasions when he would have been in the wrong and genuinely behaved without proper consideration for the wronged party.  But because he was such a great master, and the Logos of the Aeon, and the holy chosen Prophet & all that, we are meant to brush this to one side as unimportant and without significance and in effect say it doesn’t matter that he appeared to have done no quasi-psychological type work on his egoic self at all?  The “complete wo/man” should after all have covered all of the ground from Malkuth up to Kether, in all four worlds.

"Tao" wrote:
[...] I see the lower grades to be seeking the ultimate result of balance but that, to achieve it, one might first need to make a massive over-correction in order to give one the material to then cancel out both sides of the equation.

I agree with this except for saying that this “massive over-correction” seems to come under the reconciliation of opposites, which I would argue is more the task of an Adept rather than a pre-Adept in the “Elemental” grades.

"Tao" wrote:
Once the elemental grades are passed through, one should have the tools and ability to maintain balance through the rest of one's work, however during those grades one must push oneself all sorts of out-of-balance in order to discover the limits between which the Middle Way runs.

Balance is, though, required at all times and all stages of progression.

"Tao" wrote:
[...] Playing with your "farfetched but not impossible notion", I'm pressed to wonder if perhaps Crowley did consciously or unconsciously regard his Work as "Logos of the Aeon" as a physical corrective to the consensus morality of well-bred society. A sort of lightning rod or eidolon that must intentionally set itself up as the end-all be-all No-Good-Shit in order for the process of cleansing the world of the sins of the father (Osirian class morality) to manifest in the world.

This would be, as the Logos, part of the “curse” of the grade of Magus – to speak out the “truth” (or “folly”) as seen, despite massive opposition which might very well ensue.

The “farfetched notion” related to Liber AL II:53 (“[…] But I will hide thee in a mask of sorrow: they that see thee shall fear thou art fallen: but I lift thee up.”) – maybe no one is able to see the real (personality of) A.C. as it is hidden, directly it would seem, through the active agency of Aiwass, and which wouldn’t exclude his then coming across as a no-good low-down rotten piece of shit.  As it were!

"Tao" wrote:
Pure speculation, this.

But everything is speculation up to a point which is to say, nothing remains certain.

"Azidonis" wrote:
My memory is hazy on this, but wasn't she an alcoholic, then quit, then started again after the death of hers and Crowley's first child? And didn't the entire series of episodes help her into an asylum?

Aren’t you thinking of Rose there?  That description would seem to fit her better; I’m not aware Leah was “an alcoholic” although she certainly seems to have had what Kaczynski describes as a “drunkard father” and therefore might even have been extra wary of the demon drink, but then again a lot of Crowley’s ladies drank – immoderately, and some of them – some of the same ones too – ended up in the nuthouse.  Is it so easy to attribute a clear line of cause and effect though.

"Shiva" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
By the standards of simple honesty and forthrightness, was he a no good shit?

C.F. Russell, in Znus is Znees, tells how AC was dishonest in many ways. For example, he (AC), a "chess master," would play blindfold chess with C.F., and C.F. caught him with one of those minature, peg-pieces-type, chess boards hidden under the covers of his bed, where he lay when playing, so as to keep track of the pieces. He cites other examples.

Overall I think this would certainly make him some sort of a cheat, although not necessarily a shit.

There was another trick with a boulometer (a sort of thumbscrew) which he used to impress people with his strength of will, but which could be adaptable in that it could appear to be wound all the way by releasing a hidden pin.  He used it in one of his O.T.O. rituals to demonstrate the point that appearances can be deceptive.  (I recently remember R.A. Wilson referring to this sleight of hand in Masks of the Iluminati as well.)

For all that though, playing chess without being able to see the actual pieces in front of one is still quite an achievement.  He is also meant to have carried on a game with more than one person at the same time, if the anecdotes of Regardie & Yorke are to be believed, during which they used to call out the moves to A.C. for him to follow the match in his head, if their account is true. 

"Shiva" wrote:
[...] By "consciousness" I mean the ability to let go of the ego and enter samadhi - that's what measures the "grade," not what the persona is like when not in samadhi.

Part of the measurements/ requirements of the grade, though not all of them.  The A.’. A.’. work for these grades is quite thorough, and overlaps areas which might now come more under the remit of psychotherapy.

You seem to be suggesting one can be a master, or at least an adept, having not addressed one’s subconscious fears, phobias, nervous tics etc which would affect the magician’s overall consciousness, and I would contest that this would come under the heading of “not holding back one particle of dust” (in the sense of these psychological issues not dealt with); also one should be balanced in terms of the 5 elements before being capable of carrying out the KCHGA and presenting oneself as a fit vessel, as a “Virgin” to Adonai the bridegroom.

"david" wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Hirsig was the girl he started necking with as soon as he was introduced to her in an artist's studio therefore, to me  that indicates that he found her physically attractive.  Besides she wasn't hideously ugly.

No she wasn’t.  He saw her as a dead soul, didn’t he. 

There does seem to be a certain overlap here with the “vile and horrible creature/concubine” thread, as you remarked ("We were discussing in the other thread"...) and it’s even more noticeable with most of your last reply (# 96).  What goes on here?!  I think in essence both aspects of it boil down to the ishhoo of whether we should treat this description literally or more abstractly and metaphorically, and even consider both literal and metaphorical elements in it.

"david" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
By the standards of simple honesty and forthrightness, was he a no good shit?

C.F. Russell, in Znus is Znees, tells how AC was dishonest in many ways. For example, he (AC), a "chess master," would play blindfold chess with C.F., and C.F. caught him with one of those minature, peg-pieces-type, chess boards hidden under the covers of his bed, where he lay when playing, so as to keep track of the pieces. He cites other examples.

I think one only needs to read his "private" letters in order to see what kind of a persona he had. Martin Starr published many of them in The Unknown God, and they finally woke me up after decades of Thelemic work. Woke me up to the persona. I still think he was way up there in consciousness. By "consciousness" I mean the ability to let go of the ego and enter samadhi - that's what measures the "grade," not what the persona is like when not in samadhi.

Yeah it's a different "plane."  Regardie is good on this subject imo in The eye in the triangle. [...]

Different plane or not, I contend it is still a part, and an important part, of the Great Work.

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
A good result for you there, david, particularly seeing as how ayino and myself put all the work into requesting it!  Now there’s no reason why you can’t address any outstanding ishoos (- I am sure tao will be delighted!)

Which reply?  What number?

The ones I can recall are from Replies #53 and possibly #41 from my side, not all of which may still be relevant of course.  I cannot speak for tao, but maybe they are similarly Replies #54 and possibly #45.

"david" wrote:
I read that Buddha was in the habit of not answering questions he felt no need to answer.  This can be viewed as arrogance and impoliteness.

Yes.  And I read he was very slow with answering emails too.  Tut!  I don’t know, these religious leader types…

"Tao" wrote:
[...] As I've only seen some of Jane Wolfe's diary and letters and glanced over the bits that are in "The Progradior Correspondence", I would  have to assume I'm not getting the full picture. [...]

I’m sure I’ve seen those downloadable online somewhere.  Not at all sure where though, sorry.  Maybe some other not-so-lazy knowledgeable Lashtalian might help you out with a pointer.

"david" wrote:
Why, if it was just about females who make no mark on history (null women) [...]

Like Little nell maybe? (Boom, tish.)
(Shame-faced apologies there. :-[)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
05/02/2015 8:23 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
I think your assessment of Leah Hirsig may be a little harsh, and that she was a bit more than his “little sex-kitten”.  Shen seems to have taken Thelema, and her duties as Scarlet Woman, very seriously and to heart until she felt herself outdated and to be replaced by A.C.’s future S.W., but even then she was prepared to play ball for a bit.  Her diaries also show moments of acumen and awareness indicating more cerebral activity than your words might suggest!

Entirely possible. And, as I never met the woman, I'm more than willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. However, having met several women who fill the role of "chosen companion of the head of an order" in the present time-continuum, I'm also bound to balance it out a bit with my personal experience of a certain personality type marked by very volatile emotional swings as the tenuousness of their position reveals itself. Without necessarily extending this judgment to the Hirsig/Crowley relationship, I have found that women (and, I suppose, men) in this particular position tend to provide the least trustworthy accounts of the true psychology of their magical mates.

"jamie barter" wrote:
If someone feels wronged by someone else, they are bound to slag off that person as a result, unless they happen to have an especially forgiving nature.  Plenty of examples have been given – and not only by spurned lovers – by others who felt they were treated dishonourably, or cavalierly, or at least inconsiderately, by the Great Beast, in sufficient numbers to cause a neutral observer to conclude that the weight of evidence suggests he could indeed be a bit of a 'no good shit'.

While conceding that it is very likely that, on occasion, the GB (like any person ever) was a 'no good shit', I'd just amend the above to observe that often, if someone feels wronged by the universe in general, they are bound to slag off on a particular person as a result, that action being much more emotionally satisfying than railing impotently at the universe for all the wrongs wot it done me. Projection is one of the more common defense mechanisms and, with someone as intense as Crowley must've been, I'm sure he provided an excellent canvas for the misplaced accusations of many around him. Again, this doesn't discount any actual no good shittery in which he likely engaged, but, let's be honest... when one starts calling the world as one sees it, one suddenly gains a whole slew of enemies one previously didn't even know to exist.

"jamie barter" wrote:
And then the fact can’t be dismissed that even if he wasn’t like it all the time, or that his detractors may have been mistaken and he only got it wrong some of the time, it would still leave those few occasions when he would have been in the wrong and genuinely behaved without proper consideration for the wronged party.  But because he was such a great master, and the Logos of the Aeon, and the holy chosen Prophet & all that, we are meant to brush this to one side as unimportant and without significance and in effect say it doesn’t matter that he appeared to have done no quasi-psychological type work on his egoic self at all?  The “complete wo/man” should after all have covered all of the ground from Malkuth up to Kether, in all four worlds.

Are we meant to brush it to one side? I would rather read it that there are certain judgments regarding what a proper, well-balanced egoic self is meant to be that are nothing more than societal mores, baked into our mental/emotional system from birth. If david's hammering home of the aversion therapy side of Crowley's system shows us anything, it should be that any and all judgements are relative, should it not? That evil, as he puts it in De Lege Libellum, is a relative and not an absolute term, dependent on our own individual path through life (or true will). Thus, acting in tune with the mores of the Teens and Twenties in order to be seen as a 'good non-shit' by those around him, conditioned by the very society he was working to overturn, would have run counter to his path of Teaching the Next Step.

If the ego is meant to be transcended, is it really necessary to make it pretty and tidy and publicly presentable?


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3