Narcissism
-
I'm moving this from Reincarnation, following Nirbiraja's suggestion that the topic there was no longer about Reincarnation.
The topic has long since ceased being about reincarnation. You've established you don't believe in it; you've established by way of a Freudian slip that you have interpreted Thelema in such a way so as to contradict it's more arcane and metaphysical aspects; and I honestly don't see a need in engaging you in a sort of bantering without a cause other than pushing your own unique metaphysic. If you want to create a thread specifically denoted to your pseudo-psychotherapy and/or projections to hide the fact that more than anything, you just can't fathom Thelema to be interpreted in a way other than your own, I'll happily engage you. But as it stands, I've you pegged; it's not the other way around. Do well to confront that, and we'll get along just fine.
I've made no comment about reincarnation, which I accept in principle, even if I sometimes find the reality often hard to realize. Other times, the obvious necessity of it flows like water. I don't think you have me pegged at all.
I am extremely well aware my own perspective on Thelema isn't universal - I'm reminded of that constantly. Nor should it be. Nor can it be. It has changed, it is changing, and will change again and again.
I do respect your understanding of yoga - no guff. But you seem to have skipped past some of the steps that should have been taken before you got to where you are. I don't think you recognize this. That basic personality-level work is not something that's peripheral to work in the mysteries, it's crucial. You can call it pseudo-psychotherapy or whatever term you like, but some version of such work is core in modern mystery schools, and for good reason.
Edward
-
First, I said:
"I have no firm belief in reincarnation, in the empirical sense. I simply don't feel I either know or can know whether 'I" have lived before, in that sense."
Then, I said:
"I've made no comment about reincarnation, which I accept in principle, even if I sometimes find the reality often hard to realize. Other times, the obvious necessity of it flows like water. "
So, you caught me for not remembering my own comment. Strike one to you.
Yet both statements are different ways of saying the same thing. I can't come to a firm, stable conclusion on the topic, but I don't dismiss it. My perspective shifts, but within a stable zone.
"Why have you given me a label of Narcissism without accepting it first within yourself? "
I clearly recognize a certain level of narcissism in most people, myself included, but I don't need what the psychologists call 'narcissistic supply' to the extent you present yourself (in this forum, anyway) as requiring. And I don't get as angry as you have sometimes when I fail to get the responses I do look for.
"You are after all denying the need to learn anything from me, yet claiming I somehow lack that you know best."
'That which I know better' is a more felicitous phrase.
Simply put, though: as noted, you present yourself as angry, though you may see it as 'energized.' You confront and denounce, and then wonder that you get feedback on the same wavelength. This baffles you? I generally avoid angry people, and one reason I'm posting in this thread is to come to terms with the effects in myself your anger evokes. Teachers should provoke their students, but one reason I'd never accept you as a teacher is that you seem provocative ... period. I don't see that I have a 'need' to learn anything from you. You seem cold, and you seem happy with that.
I'm quite aware I'm responding to you with anger. Choosing 'Narcissism' rather than a more neutral word as the name for this thread is a manifestation of that, for example. I may forget making some of my comments in a thread online, but I have learned to stay with my emotions, and let them show me where I need to look. In that sense, perhaps, you may be a teacher, but not one I'd want to study with long. I don't question your intellectual acumen, but I don't see a lot of evidence that you recognize the world you make for yourself.
Edward
-
"That's not Raja Yoga; that's Jnana Yoga. Look to Liber 185 for 3=8."
I never said it was Raja Yoga. Raja Yoga is your beat.
"I care not a jot about your emotions. Your attachments are your attachments."
Well, we all attach in different ways, yes? <b>De</b>tachment comes from knowledge, not repression.
Edward
-
I find myself, at times, caught up in myself -- and a certain amount of subjectivity is inherent in recognizing oneself as an individual. There are, however, very different ways one might come to terms with this sense of self and the relation of the Self to the Whole.
While the term "narcissism" has a negative connotation that speaks to the idea of an overblown ego (and perhaps a low sense of esteem that feeds it), the idea of becoming caught up in oneself is not necessarily negative.
On days when I feel powerfully alive and boundlessly confident, I revel in that sense of self. I revel in it as an awareness of myself in relation to, and as a part of, the bigger picture. That is, I take joy in my microcosm in that I am aware that the enjoyment is coming from an inextricable relationship to the macrocosm. Oddly, days I am powerfully melancholic can have much the same effect. It is the powerful sense of being alive, methinks, that spurs such revelation even if it is sometimes revelation sans revelry.
That sort of narcissism, if one cares to use the term that way at all, seems healthy enough. I am not generally wrapped up in petty squabbles and the goings-on of the material world so much as I am looking at my own hands and marveling at the work they do, speaking to people and marveling at my individual participation in shared activities, and soaking in the world with a sense of the world breathing me even as I breathe it.
I don't think this is a means of comparing "self" to "Self"... I think there is already plenty of congruence there, and no need to separate the two with a semantic wall. The comparison here is also not "self" to "no self", which are also inherently congruent terms. The comparison is something more like "Self, self, and no self" to "limited self"... or perhaps "actualization" to "ignorance". Or the manifest self to the unrealized self.
So. Reincarnation.
From the standpoint of empiricism, I agree that we do not have, and are not likely to have anytime soon, material proof thereof. But there are many truths that science does not speak to. Poetry provides one of many examples of art reaching for truth in ways science cannot, for instance. For all its practicality, The Origin of Species does not speak to me the way Paradise Lost does.
Reincarnation is, if it is to be believed, a recurrence of the self in another time and place. But time itself is fluid and measured poorly on clocks and wristwatches. Likewise, space is not to be wholly fathomed in miles. Where time and space represent the movement of the spirit in the material world, they are markers of delineation that make it possible for the self to realize itself, or "its self", as it were. This makes growth possible.
As patterns are everywhere and in everything from seasons to sunsets, prints of spider webs from millions of years ago, the cycle of life and death, habits, ideas, and practices... it is hard to deny reincarnation, at least in a broad sense. If you want to know if you, specifically, will reappear after death in another form, you may wish to define yourself. A tricky, but profitable, exercise. What will go into this form that will be "you"? Memories? Experience? Wisdom? Emotion? What separates this you from every other "you"? Very little, I suspect. And at a higher level of existence, nothing at all.
Life is. That alone speaks to me of reincarnation. It may be a sense of a rain drop rejoining the ocean, or it may be a much more tangible self moving from one phase of awareness to the next. A mystery, that. A great one.
I seem to be rattling on, so I will just put this out there and be done with it for the time being. I am curious what others think. I. Me. This self in this Web of shared selves.
-
There is no room for narcissisim in High Magick one must eliminate the ego,, Frater N
-
@damian blackthorn said
"There is no room for narcissisim in High Magick one must eliminate the ego,, Frater N"
That is assuming your goal is to survive the crossing of the Abyss. What if one doesn't have the goal of crossing the Abyss and desires to become a Black Brother?
-
@Edward Mason said
". That basic personality-level work is not something that's peripheral to work in the mysteries, it's crucial. You can call it pseudo-psychotherapy or whatever term you like, but some version of such work is core in modern mystery schools, and for good reason.
"I think it's all very well and useful for someone to have psychotherapy before embarking on Magick but with respect to Regardie , Hyatt et al it simply isn't always possible.
For instance I suffer from depression and have done for quite a long time and even the NHS in this country(UK) simply do not have the money or rescources to get one proper therapy.The single thing they offer is CBT- cognitive behavioral therapy- which consists of 'think the opposite of what you are doing' which pretty much is covered by the work on the Hexagram rituals but to a far lesser degree. Plus its group and I simply dislike the vast majority of people I meet. Hence my ID on herePrivate is simply out of the question since :
-
It costs far far too much and I can't work to pay for it because of the illness (catch 22).
-
Most therapy's that ARE offered here are simply the 'talk a lot while the therapist daydreams until your hour is up- which is simply not good enough and is there just to make you come back for 20 years... Nothing gets fixed apart from the shrinks new kitchen suite and his holidays in Barbados.
-
There are no Reichian or other systems that work on offer around here.
So I've just decided to write my diary and do the work, expecting that things will work out in the end. Actually it was one of the major reasons to start the work in the first place.
-
-
We all have our problems in illnesses,by all rights i should be on a clock tower somewhere with an ak. but thru High Magick in strong disciplin[also Magick] i have learned to work with my issues and deal with them,without drugs booze or therapy.You have the knowledge to become the best that you can be,that,s what High Magick is all about. If you wish to be a Brother of the Left Hand Path then do so.But be Wise and do it for yourself anad nobody else.I choose to cross the Abyss and follow the path of the v.v.v.v.v.,,,,,,,,,,, 93/93 93,Fater N
-
i must note (and i was actually thinking about this today) - it takes a pretty damn big healthy and strong ego to be a good magician.. after all your basically attempting to alter reality through your will alone..
i think the ego is always a great tool, the point i think is to not identify with it, but identify with ones Angel or Genius or Daimon.. but to give up the ego... you couldn't really do your work on this plane..
-
anyone can study and Learn High Magick thru intellect,But if your going to do it Spiritually there is no room for Ego on that high plane.It is when your there that you will understand there can be no ego... Think about it. Frater N. 93/ 93
-
Dear Frater N.
Perhaps you should look at what exactly the ego is a bit closer, by studying ATU 1 and ATU 7. It is nothing less than a creation, a vehicle if you will, for the divine itself. And in fact, there is infinite room on the "higher plane" for the Bride of God. -
The Ego triggers the intellect,the intellect then triggers the Will its very Ogdoadic,, the Will triggers emotion,, now the intelect get s you there to that Higher plane now Ego must be destroyed, in the Spiritual Realm there cannot be Ego.. Now you must change the way you think and percieve things. Read all the atu paths you wish,But in the Spiritual realm NO EGO;;; AGAPE IN L.V.X. to you,,,, Frater N,,,