Magic and psychology

[Nungali]

I didnt want to tangent the other thread so made a new one.

 

 

Some poo poo  Crowley  for (aside from other things)  his 'psychologification' of magick .  And also Jung ... as if they have taken the magic out of magic . 

 

But I was just thinking .... could we not say instead that 'magic'  influenced psychology and changed psychology to a more magical  (Jungian )  viewpoint ? 

 

(yes, I know many reject Jung , including a psychiatrist I knew who refused to discuss him  - best to avoid the kitchen if one cant handle the heat      ... any suggestion was met with "Talk to my brother, he is a Jungian, I am not. "  )

[Marblehead]

So what do you want to talk about?  Magic, psychology, or Jung?

 

I'm ignorant of all three but I could have some fun in the thread.

[Michael Sternbach]

So what do you want to talk about?  Magic, psychology, or Jung?

 

I'm ignorant of all three but I could have some fun in the thread.

 

It could be fun to watch you muck about with them.

[Michael Sternbach]

It's an interesting observation that Crowley and Jung, coming from opposite directions, sort of meet each other half-way.

[RigdzinTrinley]

I do not know much about magic, a little about jung - what I can say from my studies of estern tantra and modern western psychology is that - magic or tantra for that matter is an ancient form of psychology, and so modern psychology can't really help it but be influenced by it, things don't emerge without causes or just manifest randomly.

 

Jung just made the logical connections on some level no?

Edited May 1, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

what would be interesting for me to hear is how you (plural) see the relationship of classical magic and modern psychology or also of modern magic and psychology

 

The following points come to mind:

1) how they are similar, how they differ?

 

2) how they enrich each other, how they limit each other?

Edited May 1, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I didnt want to tangent the other thread so made a new one.

 

 

Some poo poo Crowley for (aside from other things) his 'psychologification' of magick . And also Jung ... as if they have taken the magic out of magic .

 

But I was just thinking .... could we not say instead that 'magic' influenced psychology and changed psychology to a more magical (Jungian ) viewpoint ?

 

(yes, I know many reject Jung , including a psychiatrist I knew who refused to discuss him - best to avoid the kitchen if one cant handle the heat ... any suggestion was met with "Talk to my brother, he is a Jungian, I am not. " )

 

I almost started a thread on this myself, though I might have limited it to Jung himself, after reading the following post:

 

Here’s a small extract from Carl Jung’s Red Book where he engages in a long discussion about magic with a wise spirit guide of his, Philemon. He tries to understand what it involves to move beyond reason……

 

Jung: "Now, let us not stray from [the topic of] magic."

Philemon: "Why are you so determined about learning more about magic, if you claim that you have left your reason at home? Or would you not consider consistency part of reason?"

Jung: "I do—I see, or rather, it seems as if you are quite an adept sophist, who skillfully leads me around the house and back to the door."

P: "It seems that way to you because you judge everything from the standpoint of your intellect. If you forsake reason for a while, you will also give up consistency."

J: "That's a difficult test. But if I want to be adept at some point, I suppose I ought to submit to your request. All right, I'm listening."

P: "What do you want to hear?"

J: "You're not going to draw me out. I'm simply waiting for whatever you are going to say."

P: "And what if I say nothing?"

J: "Well, then I'll withdraw somewhat embarrassed and think that Philemon is at the very least a shrewd fox, who definitely would have something to teach me."

P: "With this, my boy, you have learned something about magic."

J: "I'll have to chew on this. I must admit that this is somewhat surprising. I had imagined magic as being somewhat different."

P: "Well, this shows you how little you understand about magic and how incorrect your notion of it is."

J: "If this should be the case, or that's how it is, then I must confess that I approached the problem completely incorrectly. I gather from what you are saying that these matters do not follow ordinary understanding."

P: "Nor does magic."

J: "But you have not deterred me at all; on the contrary, I'm burning to hear even more. What I know up to now is essentially negative."

J: "With this you have recognized a second main point. Above all, you must know that magic is the negative of what one can know."

J: "That, too, my dear Philemon, is a piece of knowledge that is hard to digest and causes me no small pain. The negative of what one can know? I suppose you mean that it cannot be known, don't you? This exhausts my understanding."

P: "That is the third point that you must note as essential: namely, that there is nothing for you to understand."

J: "Well, I must confess that that is new and strange. So nothing at all about magic can be understood?"

P: "Exactly. Magic happens to be precisely everything that eludes comprehension."

J: "But then how the devil is one to teach and learn magic?"

P: "Magic is neither to be taught nor learned. It's foolish that you want to learn magic."

J: "But then magic is nothing but deception."

P: "Watch out—you have started reasoning again."

J: "It's difficult to exist without reason."

P: "And that is exactly how difficult magic is."

J: "Well, in that case it's hard work. I conclude that it is an inescapable condition for the adept that he completely unlearns his reason."

P: "I'm afraid that is what it amounts to."

J: "Ye Gods, this is serious."

P: "Not as serious as you think. Reason declines with old age, since it is an essential counterpart of the drives, which are much more intense in youth than in old age. Have you ever seen young magicians?"

J: "No, the magician is proverbially old."

P: "You see, I'm right."

J: "But then the prospects of the adept are bad. He must wait until old age to experience the mysteries of magic."

P: "If he gives up his reason before then, he can already experience something useful sooner."

J: "That seems to me to be a dangerous experiment. One cannot give up reason without further ado."

P: "Nor can one simply become a magician."

J: "You lay damnable snares."

 

This certainly has nothing to do with the tradition of magic as it developed in the West from the Hellenistic Period to the Nineteenth century. I doubt that it really has anything to do with magic as thought of in many other cultures either.

 

A tradition needs to be understood on its own terms, then one is in a position to make changes to it, otherwise one is like a surgeon ignorant of anatomy. God help his poor patients.

 

Though I have made a lifetime study of magical traditions, I am not a traditionalist, I am a pragmatist and I want to be like the surgeon who knows his patients anatomy before cutting out this, or lopping off that, just because it doesn't made sense to me, which is what the modern "experts" on magic that I have read, seem to do all the time.  I don't have any more time to waste on such nonsense.

[Nungali]

Some  'straighter'  psychologists see the writings in these books as evidence of Jung's own psychosis . 

 

 

What would be the magical counterpart of the  psychological 'drives' ?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Nungali

[Brian]

I am reminded of a section in the delightfully misnamed Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy in which it is revealed that the secret to flying is simply to fall while being so distracted as to miss the ground.

[Michael Sternbach]

Some 'straighter' psychologists see the writings in these books as evidence of Jung's own psychosis .

 

 

What would be the magical counterpart of the psychological 'drives' ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spirits (both "demonic" and "angelic"). They are not easily distinguishible from unconscious aspects of the psyche (hence Crowley's uncertainty regarding them). Think of Swedenborg.

 

Talking about Jung, this is where the Archetypes come into play. Jung was critisized for never making clear whether they stood for "primitive" instinctual drives or for lofty impulses of a higher nature. In fact, the two are linked with one another.

 

This "pre"/"trans" ambiguity pervades much of metaphysical literature, and sometimes leads to confusion. Ken Wilber addresses this.

 

Interestingly, the Egyptian Amduat tells us:

 

Stars below,

stars above,

what's below,

is above.

[Michael Sternbach]

I almost started a thread on this myself, though I might have limited it to Jung himself, after reading the following post:

 

 

 

This certainly has nothing to do with the tradition of magic as it developed in the West from the Hellenistic Period to the Nineteenth century. I doubt that it really has anything to do with magic as thought of in many other cultures either.

A tradition needs to be understood on its own terms, then one is in a position to make changes to it, otherwise one is like a surgeon ignorant of anatomy. God help his poor patients.

Though I have made a lifetime study of magical traditions, I am not a traditionalist, I am a pragmatist and I want to be like the surgeon who knows his patients anatomy before cutting out this, or lopping off that, just because it doesn't made sense to me, which is what the modern "experts" on magic that I have read, seem to do all the time. I don't have any more time to waste on such nonsense.

Although Philemon's "definition" of magic indeed seems quite at odds with its almost academic understanding in the Kabbalo-Hermetic tradition, it is interesting that it speaks to magic's way of defying the expectations of the linear mind, as every practitioner of the art experiences.

 

That may also be the reason why I'm feeling compelled to reply to the posts in this thread in reverse order...

[Michael Sternbach]

what would be interesting for me to hear is how you (plural) see the relationship of classical magic and modern psychology or also of modern magic and psychology

The following points come to mind:

1) how they are similar, how they differ?

2) how they enrich each other, how they limit each other?

 

I think, especially the application of visualization and affirmation is a direct heritage from the magical tradition. The influence is particularly evident in NLP.

 

Also, the (little understood) art of transforming the lower into the higher, or spiritual alchemy, which is discussed in the Kybalion, has great psychotherapeutic potential. (Remember that the Kybalion was supposedly authored by Paul Foster Case, a child of the Golden Dawn. )

[RigdzinTrinley]

I just started to read Paul Foster Cases book on tarot - just the introduction, and I must say I liked it very much

I think, especially the application of visualization and affirmation is a direct heritage from the magical tradition. The influence is particularly evident in NLP.

 

Also, the (little understood) art of transforming the lower into the higher, or spiritual alchemy, which is discussed in the Kybalion, has great psychotherapeutic potential. (Remember that the Kybalion was supposedly authored by Paul Foster Case, a child of the Golden Dawn. )

if there is time then maybe you want to read Rob Preece book on "the psychology of Tantra" it is not much more then an introduction to buddhist tantra, but a very well written one and from the POV of a long time practicioner and Jungian analyst - I mentioned the book before. Anyway I think you might get some nice insights from reading it, and it is not really a demanding book either.

 

just boil some tea and relax into it. I am kind of a purist and of course I do not think that you can simply say Jung = Buddhist Tantra, or even that you could use Jung to realize and understand Buddhist Tantra completely, but it is possible to approach tantra through a jungian understanding. Open the door that is - once in the mandala palace itself, I would say that Jung can't really help any longer

 

and clinging to jungian concepts, by that point is nothing more then a hindrance in my opinion. His work does help to safeguard the western psyche to some degree from being overhelmed be the psychic energies that tantric practice and symbolism can cause to errupt. So it is like a first savety net somehow, but then again once the practicioner entered the tantric vessel properly - I think then there is no need for nets or probs of any kind, they are just a hindrance to go deeper

 

hope that moves the discussion along

 

I also read the ibntro to Paul F. Cases book on tarot - was a very good read and pretty deep I would say. based on that I would like to mention something / ask another question

 

I do look around for what happened to the G.D. or other hermetic orders, such as Cases BOTA - and one wonders if it all went down the drain? are there any intact practice lineages upheld in a more formal yet healthy way? I mean apart from individuals doing their own magical work? looks like as soon as migicians try to form an order these days it ends in tears and confusion...

 

are there any orders that are functional in your understanding?

Edited May 3, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[rex]

Psychosynthesis is a strong contender for similarities between the two. It's method involves development of the will, the use of visualization and imagination. It has it's own transpersonal ontology with a goal to centre the personality around something beyond itself.

 

 

 

Edit: tpyo

Edited May 3, 2016 by rex

[RigdzinTrinley]

Psychosynthesis is a strong contender for similarities between the two. It's method involves development of the will, the use of visualization and imagination. It has has it's own transpersonal ontology with a goal to centre the personality around something beyond itself.

 

a very good vajrabrother of mine from sweden became a therapist in that school actually - never read about it - I will do so now. Thanks for reminding me that this is around

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Although Philemon's "definition" of magic indeed seems quite at odds with its almost academic understanding in the Kabbalo-Hermetic tradition, it is interesting that it speaks to magic's way of defying the expectations of the linear mind, as every practitioner of the art experiences.

 

That may also be the reason why I'm feeling compelled to reply to the posts in this thread in reverse order...

 

What it speaks to quite eloquently are the limitations of Jung's mind, whether “linear” or not, and it is the same type of limitation that “causes” him to think of “synchronicity” as “acausal”, because his definition of causality is that of Nineteenth Century “scientific” reductionism, which he confuses with reason and rationality.

 

I have posted a little on Jung and magic and psychology here:

 

I don't doubt that magic is psychology, but it is a question of whose psychology. Personally, I prefer Plotinus' psychology:

 

Plotinus on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

to Jungian or any reductionist psychology, derived from the Seventeenth Century revival of Epicureanism and based on unexamined presuppositions deriving from Nineteenth Century materialism. As far as I am concerned Jung is a confused thinker caught between Nineteenth Century materialism and Romanticism. This confusion, often not clearly defined, is one of the characteristics of a large spectrum of Western thinking from the mid-Nineteenth Century to the present.

 

And I also prefer the middle Platonist use of the term Archetype, which they originated as a reference to Plato's ideas:

 

A good introduction to Middle Platonism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

to Jung's also. . . .

 

I don't have more time to devote to this, having worked these issues out a long time ago. I have posted upon these issues here on the Dao Bums many times and anyone can use the search function to find these posts, but I hope that this short discussion is helpful to you and anyone else who may read this thread. (Emphasis added, ZYD)

 

and a little more about Jung and my preferred “psychology” here:

 

 

Unfortunately I suspect the irony of this:

 

I don't doubt that magic is psychology, but it is a question of whose psychology. Personally, I prefer Plotinus' psychology:

was lost on a lot of people because Plotinus psychology is a real psyche-ology, a study of Soul that includes the soul of the world among others. I have a book whose charming title Soul-Sisters, certainly belies its dense text and scholarly rigor. Probably a published doctoral thesis, its full title is Soul Sisters; A Commentary on Enneads IV 3 (27), 1-8 of Plotinus (Editions Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1980) by Wypkje Helleman-Elgersma. It is a work on what I call the communion of all souls, for in Plotinus all souls are of the same essence and form a great family, sisters in this case because of the feminine gender of psyche in Greek.

 

What a difference from the confused "collective unconscious" of Jung, to say nothing of the many "still stuck at the beginning of the Twentieth Century neurologists" who still dominate the field. There are of course exceptions among neurolgists and I have posted a little on them, but I don't have time to look those up, still, I did want to make a little time for you.

 

From the Plotinian perspective even "physics" is "psychological", but nonetheless "real" and "objective" as a class of interactions between our souls and the soul of the world manifesting in a rigorously mathematical form. . . . (Emphasis added, ZYD)

 

a class of interactions between our souls and the soul of the world manifesting in a rigorously mathematical form: What I mean by this is that a view of "the laws of gravity" and the "laws of electromagnetism" as mathematical descriptions of "substantial forms", which are the "formal causes" of our experience of "common sense", by which I mean the common sensory experience of "the world", the observation of which is the basis of physics.

 

Plotinus' psychology is based on Plato's teachings and the result is a "rational" model of magic and how it works.  It is "rational" because it is the working out of a coherent worldview starting from Platonic first principles.  In spite of common usages involving "rational", "scientific" and "materialism", rationality is not identical with Nineteenth Century materialism, which materialism is proof of the adage, "garbage in, garbage out".  Reasoning from materialist first principles naturally results in materialist conclusions which cannot be made into a coherent worldview no matter how hard one tries.  The whole of Twentieth Century physics was a large scale reductio ad absurdum refutation of materialism.

 

Finally at the risk of being verbose, but to clarify further the Romantism/Reductionism dichotomy, I will quote from my post on Romanticism in the Eliphas Levi thread:

 

One of the important things to bear in mind with neo-magical theory is the extent to which the beginnings of the magical revival corresponded to the development of Romanticism. Romanticism itself has beginnings as early as the late Eighteenth Century, in Philosophy with Rousseau and in the arts and literature with the Sturm and Drang movement. Toward the end of the Eighteenth Century these movements, which were more rebellions against the restraint of neo-classicism became fused with a growing dissatisfaction with the “scientific materialism” being loudly put forward by the Evangelical Atheists of “D'Holbach's Coterie”. Circa 1800 a group of philosophical thinkers hijacked Kant's philosophy and basically created a movement that conflated reason and logical thinking with materialism and encouraged both anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism, though at the same time creating a type of approach to spiritual phenomena which I call “spiritual empiricism”, which is in some ways an imitation of “scientific empiricism”.

 

It is under the Aegis of Romanticism and its descendants that the Magical Revival and the "Journey to the East” were undertaken, and the whole of modern “mysticism and magic” is more or less tinged by Romanticism, which of course includes the Dao Bums.

 

At least a little familiarity with Romanticism is a good thing, you may even see aspects of yourself there. This cite is a good beginning point because it separates out important themes that are fundamental to Romanticism:

 

Thematic Analysis of Romanticism

 

The Wikipedia article covers this in more detail, but having the thematic guide of the previous site is useful:

 

Romanticism Article on Wikipedia

 

The intellectual, artistic, social and spiritual descendants of Romanticism are a diverse bunch, with Nazi and Hippies being distant cousins, just like Jerry Lee Lewis and Jimmy Swaggart are cousins, though you couldn't tell it from anything other then their family trees.

 

As the Nineteenth Century developed there was a tendency, following the influence of Hegel, to want to reconcile opposites, thus was born the wish to reconcile magic and mysticism with science. This tendency has already been observed in the wish to model older magic on mesmerism, but is also alive today, though mesmerism plays little part, having been replaced by Jungian psychology. In my own opinion magic has not benefited by these attempts to reconcile it with science, in part because they have not understood magic on its own terms, nor did they have the view of science that we have today. Generally these attempts have resulted in a diminution of magic as the "Archetypes in the Mind of God" have become the mere archetypes of the collective unconscious. The extreme was reached a little after 1900 when in the mind of one man, magic became mere neurology. That man's name was Edward Alexander Crowley, whose non de plume, was Aleister Crowley. I will cover more about him and the French schools in the next few posts. (Emphasis added, ZYD)

 

the thematic guide of the previous site is useful: So useful is it in fact, that the link is a large part of why I quoted the above post.  Please read it, it is short and packed with information, and you will see a lot of ideas that characterize both Jung and modern magic.

 

For those who have missed them, I hope to return to my discussion of Crowley et. al. shortly

[Nungali]

 

I do look around for what happened to the G.D. or other hermetic orders, such as Cases BOTA - and one wonders if it all went down the drain? are there any intact practice lineages upheld in a more formal yet healthy way? I mean apart from individuals doing their own magical work? looks like as soon as migicians try to form an order these days it ends in tears and confusion...

 

are there any orders that are functional in your understanding?

 

I think all that is finished now    for a variety of reasons, one being modern communication;  there are all sorts of 'internet groups' around and so-called revivals like 'Khemetic ' societies  ,  Clark's  'Egyptian revival'  'school'  ( ex Om Seti )   and a few others.

 

There is a smatterin of GD around but it doesnt seem to take off in any big way - most is revival, I think the only trad branch left in NZ closed some time back ?   The A.A. has resurged a bit,  but who knows what its like or how big.

 

Every so often Freemasonry attempts an interest surge and membership drive  -  but that doesnt really work . 

 

The main one that has survived and grown into modern times seems to be the O.T.O.  - but that is also a fraternity, mostly  and it has a big focus of being a 'social experiment' , so that dynamic might be what keeps it alive partially ? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis#Current_Grand_Lodges

 

Then there are the secret underground ones  -  some of them are really  good - the ones that have split off from a bonafide good tradition with good people running them (I am not talking about  secret small made up  groups with people with no experience in this )   I was in  one of those once.   Great stuff !  

[noonespecial]

Sixth night. My soul leads me into the desert, into the desert of my own self. I did not think that my soul is a desert, a barren, hot desert. dusty and without drink. The journey leads through hot sand, slowly wading without a visible goal to hope for? How eerie is this wasteland. It seems to me that the way leads so far away from mankind. I make my way step by step. and do not know how long my journey will last.  -  Jung. Liber Novus

 

I didnt much care for Jung a couple years back, but he was onto something for sure...commendable for his research alone, he was the for real 'method of science, aim of religion' 

Edited May 10, 2016 by noonespecial

[noonespecial]

I think Jung and AC both understood the goal of 'magick' was to find the spark of the eternal within, or the analogy I like, the one who tills the field, AC called it an HGA, Jung the Self, these are both inherently internal processes, you can use a external ritual to effect progress, but the change is actually occurring in the operator's mind. If one understands this process, I think you can also understand how things like old folk magic, curses, love spells, etc - also occur within the realm of mind. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by noonespecial

[Radiant]

I didnt want to tangent the other thread so made a new one.

 

 

Some poo poo  Crowley  for (aside from other things)  his 'psychologification' of magick .  And also Jung ... as if they have taken the magic out of magic . 

 

But I was just thinking .... could we not say instead that 'magic'  influenced psychology and changed psychology to a more magical  (Jungian )  viewpoint ? 

 

(yes, I know many reject Jung , including a psychiatrist I knew who refused to discuss him  - best to avoid the kitchen if one cant handle the heat      ... any suggestion was met with "Talk to my brother, he is a Jungian, I am not. "  )

 

Except, you're not starting on the right point. That was Crowley's pre-adept view - one example I can think of is his Goetia (his petty one-upping of Waite. You need to read Crowley in order to see how his views evolve. People who think magic is in their heads are in microcosmic states of change and have never experienced world bending magic. If I don't see it, it must not be real right?

 

Of course magic influenced psychology - it also influenced countless other disciplines because they used to be sacred, mysteries, or related to the mysteries. Even computer science is connected to magic. You can see the principles of computer science in the analinear system of Enochian. Lovelace enjoyed these works. Brick laying, construction, sailing, the construction of kingdoms is tied to the Keys of Solomon - many kingdoms were an attempt to raise the Kingdom of Solomon on Earth - you see this in the Goetia for the building of the kingdom, and it merges into the arturian myth.

 

Nowadays, people see demons as diseases of the mind and schitzophrena, etc. That doesn't make them any less real.

 

Who cares about Jung really? The idea of the archetype has long existed before him.

[Nungali]

Except, you're not starting on the right point.

 

Why ?    I am posing a question about cross reference of two systems  as some see it

 

" Some poo poo  Crowley  for (aside from other things)  his 'psychologification' of magick .  And also Jung ... as if they have taken the magic out of magic . "

 

What point do you think I should have started on, my own view on it ?

That was Crowley's pre-adept view - one example I can think of is his Goetia (his petty one-upping of Waite. You need to read Crowley in order to see how his views evolve

 

I do ?  ... or the 'some' mentioned above ?       What do you mean by "I need to read Crowley IN ORDER " ?

 

In order of what ?   Time ? yes, that's one consideration.  I would suggest 'Grade' is a better marker for comprehension, which can be a separate influence from time written.  Then there is "class of publication"  which has to do with perspective and your own level of comprehension.

 

 

. People who think magic is in their heads are in microcosmic states of change and have never experienced world bending magic. If I don't see it, it must not be real right ?

 

 

Of course magic influenced psychology - it also influenced countless other disciplines because they used to be sacred, mysteries, or related to the mysteries. Even computer science is connected to magic. You can see the principles of computer science in the analinear system of Enochian. Lovelace enjoyed these works. Brick laying, construction, sailing, the construction of kingdoms is tied to the Keys of Solomon - many kingdoms were an attempt to raise the Kingdom of Solomon on Earth - you see this in the Goetia for the building of the kingdom, and it merges into the arturian myth.

 

Nowadays, people see demons as diseases of the mind and schitzophrena, etc. That doesn't make them any less real.

 

Who cares about Jung really? The idea of the archetype has long existed before him.

 

 If you don't see it must not be real ?    Wrong.    Even wrong if you say, "If I cant see it , it must not be real ."

 

As in my experience, people can shut down their ability to see things if they are too challenging for them.

 

I think there is a lot more to Jung than  'the idea of the archetype' , I suppose the people that are interested in that 'more to' are the ones that 'care'   to read him .

[Michael Sternbach]

Sixth night. My soul leads me into the desert, into the desert of my own self. I did not think that my soul is a desert, a barren, hot desert. dusty and without drink. The journey leads through hot sand, slowly wading without a visible goal to hope for? How eerie is this wasteland. It seems to me that the way leads so far away from mankind. I make my way step by step. and do not know how long my journey will last.  -  Jung. Liber Novus

 

I didnt much care for Jung a couple years back, but he was onto something for sure...commendable for his research alone, he was the for real 'method of science, aim of religion' 

 

Your citation is reminiscent of the magickal trip Crowley undertook in a desert (mind you, in a real, not an imaginary one).

 

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/642011.html

[noonespecial]

Your citation is reminiscent of the magickal trip Crowley undertook in a desert (mind you, in a real, not an imaginary one).

 

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/642011.html

 

Hi Michael, I've read AC's Vision and the Voice, it's a nice little book. But what perks my interest is the part in parenthesis, imho illumination is a state of being wherein there is no difference in whether one closes his eyes and journeys into a forest or actually goes into a forest, that is the point of initiation - merging the two worlds, volatilizing the fixed, and fixing the volatile, the Sufi Adepts would write of always being awake. That is, while they slept they were awake, when they were awake they were sleeping, when they closed their eyes, scenery and intelligences would emerge - in higher modes of attainment, they would close their eyes and all would be LIGHT. When stated so plainly, it's clear why this is dangerous stuff. If All we sense are varying gradations of Mind, what is more real, going into an inner desert or an outer desert, I would guess it depends on the level of the initiate.

 

So, if I go into the forest, do some hallucinogenics and chant some calls, I can always tell myself the day after, "it was just the drugs," and surely I can write some awesome literature based on the experience. In comparison, when the dreamscape and the mundane world are equally real, and the worlds begin to overlap, when we see Imagination working in Nature is when things really get interesting, even better for folks like me is none of this requires any knowledge of Tarot, Astrology, or anything beyond basic Qabalah. 

[Radiant]

Why ?    I am posing a question about cross reference of two systems  as some see it

 

" Some poo poo  Crowley  for (aside from other things)  his 'psychologification' of magick .  And also Jung ... as if they have taken the magic out of magic . "

 

What point do you think I should have started on, my own view on it ?

 

I do ?  ... or the 'some' mentioned above ?       What do you mean by "I need to read Crowley IN ORDER " ?

 

In order of what ?   Time ? yes, that's one consideration.  I would suggest 'Grade' is a better marker for comprehension, which can be a separate influence from time written.  Then there is "class of publication"  which has to do with perspective and your own level of comprehension.

 

 

 

 If you don't see it must not be real ?    Wrong.    Even wrong if you say, "If I cant see it , it must not be real ."

 

As in my experience, people can shut down their ability to see things if they are too challenging for them.

 

I think there is a lot more to Jung than  'the idea of the archetype' , I suppose the people that are interested in that 'more to' are the ones that 'care'   to read him .

Sorry. I did not see this. Hi . The point I'm making is that towards the end of his life, Crowley's vies changed. Ever since Victorian times, we've been using this backward (IMO) model of man called psychology compared to the more Classical theological view. This leads to a whole subculture of people believing that magic is all in their minds, which is not totally wrong, but what is?

 

If I cant see it , it must not be real .

 

I was being sarcastic - emphasizing the words of those who deny the existence of macrocosmic magic. I was trying to make the point that it either exists with or without their input.

 

Personally, I think Victorian times is a low time for magic with the exception of a few key figures who actually innovated the tradition. That's why I admit that I don't really care about Jung and there are more worthwhile characters to study. I'm not saying that you can't compile    a magic with Jung' model - any magus worth their salt would be able to.

[9th]

Who cares about Jung really?

 

anyone with at least a spark of intelligence