Notifications
Clear all

Crowley on Psychology  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
30/09/2011 5:38 am  

Does anyone have any Crowley quotes on psychology? I know that Dion Fortune and Regardie were in favor of it.

Did Crowley actually believe that magical practitioners should have psycho-analysis before or during magical practice? I don't ever remember him mention it, but then I have not gone over and read all his writings.


Quote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
30/09/2011 2:11 pm  
"Jastiv" wrote:
Did Crowley actually believe that magical practitioners should have psycho-analysis before or during magical practice? I don't ever remember him mention it, but then I have not gone over and read all his writings.

I've never come across anything in Crowley's writings suggesting that.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
30/09/2011 3:11 pm  

I'm pretty sure it was Regardie who always suggested seeing a shrink. Crowley would have done his best "one-up" the shrinks, I believe.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4925
01/10/2011 3:32 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was Regardie who always suggested seeing a shrink. Crowley would have done his best "one-up" the shrinks, I believe.

Didn't Crowley claim to be the world's greatest psychologist? ... or some term to that effect? ... somewhere? - I think so.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
01/10/2011 3:55 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was Regardie who always suggested seeing a shrink. Crowley would have done his best "one-up" the shrinks, I believe.

Didn't Crowley claim to be the world's greatest psychologist? ... or some term to that effect? ... somewhere? - I think so.

I'm sure he did, somewhere, even if in his own mind. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2012 8:44 am  

Well, "make severe the ordeals" is hardly psychological.  Still, I've got to give it to the shrinks who try to reverse the ordeals.


ReplyQuote
fr.novumorganum
(@fr-novumorganum)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2
07/08/2015 7:00 am  

I think it would be fairer to say that crowley tended to think more in the discourse of psychoanalysis rather than psychology (btw Regardie recommended analytic work rather than psychology for occultist-not to be a nit, but the difference is important).

Probably Crowley.s main writing employing the discourse of psychology is his introduction to the goetia (but even that is informed by analytic models).

Crowley comments on Freud in MWT, however, there are deeper engagements in other texts.  One of the more interesting is the chapter on magickal memory in MTP, especially the sections where he talks about how to tell a useful memory from a frivolous one.  In the Magickal Record of the Beast 666, from his NYC years to his time at the Abbey, Crowley deeply engages the discourse of psychoanalysis.  Crowley, of course, analyzed himself (generally not possible in psychoanalysis --not saying that position is right but that is their position).  IN the diary Crowley uses analysis to deeply examine his psyche, his history, and the ideas he produces. 

Last, we learn in The Beast in Berlin, that Crowley was impressed with Alfred Aldler, and felt they were saying very similar things.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/08/2015 9:43 am  

In Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley writes, "The sincere student will discover, behind the symbolic technicalities of his book, a practical method of making himself a Magician. The processes described will enable him to discriminate between what he actually is, and what he has fondly imagined himself to be."

This differentiation is, of course, the heart of Thelema.

To these sentences, Crowley attaches the following footnote:

"Crowley" wrote:
Professor Sigmund Freud and his school have, in recent years, discovered a part of this body of Truth, which has been taught for many centuries in the Sanctuaries of Initiation. But failure to grasp the fullness of Truth, especially that implied in my Sixth Theorem (above) [i.e  "Every man and every woman is a star". That is to say, every human being is intrinsically an independent individual with his own proper character and proper motion." -- Los] and its corollaries, has led him and his followers into the error of admitting that the avowedly suicidal "Censor" is the proper arbiter of conduct. Official psycho-analysis is therefore committed to upholding a fraud, although the foundation of the science was the observation of the disastrous effects on the individual of being false to his Unconscious Self, whose "writing on the wall" in dream language is the record of the sum of the essential tendencies of the true nature of the individual. The result has been that psycho-analysts have misinterpreted life, and announced the absurdity that every human being is essentially an anti-social, criminal, and insane animal. It is evident that the errors of the Unconscious of which the psycho-analysts complain are neither more nor less than the"original sin" of the theologians whom they despise so heartily.

In other words, Crowley thinks that Freud understood some of this idea of magick but got a key part of it backwards: Freud understands that there are "disastrous effects on the individual" when the individual is "false to his [or her] Unconscious Self." But rather than embracing that Unconscious self, Freud committed the " the error of admitting that the avowedly suicidal 'Censor' is the proper arbiter of conduct."

Where Freud upholds a "fraud" by siding with the super-egoic "Censor," Crowley's Thelema recommends a process of unveiling that Unconscious self to the individual and embracing it.


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
07/08/2015 5:24 pm  

Yes, I think that Los gets very much to the essence of the matter here.

Crowley did comment on Jung as well, usually in conjunction with Freud, I think.  Cannot recall if he had anything to say about Jung's more spiritual approach, his concept of the Archetypes etc. (although I'm not certain that Jung had fully explored this by the time of Crowleys' death).

Perhaps you could carry on the good work here, Los ?  (Bloody cheek, I know,  ;)).


ReplyQuote
Share: