Archetypes, complexes, Gods and spirits
-
@Faus said
"It seems to me that the complex is my personal Yetisratic aspect of the Briahtic archetype."
Yes.
"In this light, would it be right to think that the different yetsiratic beings are independent complexes very much like the complexes that are found inside the human psyche? (like bacteria and mitochondria)."
Well, unless they're actual beings (as you called them).
"Going even further, there would be an identity between the HGA and the Self Archetype, being the development of the Adept the formation of a Self Complex (that would an integration of the other complexes)."
Define "the Self Archetype" as you're using it. (And, of course, the answer depends on whether the HGA is a psychological construct or an actual alternative being, yes?)
"Well, it gets even worst when I start thinking about psychological projection…"
You can walk the psychological projection angle all the way to Kether. Get acustomed to noting, recording, and analyzing them now - that well will never run dry.
-
@Frater Potater said
"But now we need to define what we mean when we use the word "being"."
Oh, how about "a more or less autonomous and persisting aggregation of consciousness"?
"Although I guess it's really more of a question of what we mean when we say "Yetzirah". Do we mean some independently existing place, or some "higher" dimension, with a substantial existence apart from material reality? A place that is inhabited by many independently existing spirits, angels, elves, and whatnot?"
I mean a layer of reality that has certain distinctive characteristics that distinguish it from the layers "above" and "below" it. More specifically, it is that layer more subtle than physical matter which, yet, contains differentiated forms and patterns, such as specific images. It is the layer within which human personality exists.
Quoting in part from Visions & Voices: "Yetzirah is the level of images and other forms that pre-exist material actuality. We participate in, and potentially control, these formulations by concentrated thought, employing the image-building power we call imagination. In human psychology, Yetzirah corresponds to the field of personality, including the whole range of emotion; the reactive and adaptive aspects of consciousness; the capacity to form, perceive, and select images; and the intellect. The World of Yetzirah itself is what we commonly label the 'astral plane.' The Yetziratic aspect of each of us is 'in and of' the World of Yetzirah in the same sense that our physical bodies are 'in and of' the physical world. In awakening to conscious awareness of Yetzirah, we learn to see past the veil of our physical senses to the wondrous world behind them, a world of magic and fantasy, of psychic realities and shifting tides, and of energies too subtle for physical sensation."
"
"You can walk the psychological projection angle all the way to Kether. Get acustomed to noting, recording, and analyzing them now - that well will never run dry."If it's an approach that works for some people, and makes more sense, than I don't see what the problem is... so many people into thelema and magic avoid this viewpoint like the plague."
Yes, and (at least in most cases) averse to actually seeing themselves for what they are or understanding how they architect their lives. (No one who adopts that point of view is in Temple of Thelema - at least, not past the very earliest degrees - since it is a core tool used by all tenured members.)
-
@Frater Potater said
"If it's an approach that works for some people, and makes more sense, than I don't see what the problem is... so many people into thelema and magic avoid this viewpoint like the plague."
It's difficult for most people to grasp the concept of something being "psychologically real."
For most, it is either real, or it is "merely" psychological. But to claim something is spiritually real and psychologically rooted seems at times to be like saying to someone that the gods of Thelema are "factual fiction." To a lot of people, psychological means imaginary, and that's a major mistake.
Quantum reality IS Psycho-spiritual.
-
Platitude. Sure.
You describe Reality in less than ten words and see what platitudes you come up with. It's the nature of the beast.
In quantum mechanics, where the manifestation light is literally and measurably affected by the expectation of the observer, the imaginary line between mind and matter was breeched. Mind affects matter. That's science now. That's fact now.
This means that we live in a reality that is at least partially shaped even on the material level by the thoughts of our minds.
The thoughts of our minds are psychological.
Our psyches have universal aspects to them about which we communicate in spiritual terms.
Our psycho-spiritual thoughts and interactions affect our reality on a quantum level.
This is how I put it together. You are free to disagree.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" Well, unless they're actual beings (as you called them)."
I was thinking of beings very much as "a more or less autonomous and persisting aggregation of consciousness" complexes being an important part of their constitution (like it is a important part of ours). A Venus being for example would have his “Venus complex” working as his “Ego-complex”.
" Define "the Self Archetype" as you're using it. (And, of course, the answer depends on whether the HGA is a psychological construct or an actual alternative being, yes?) "
I am using it as the archetype of the integrated psyche, integrate the subconscious and the conscious mind. More in the sense that it is the force that takes the psyche towards wholeness. The “self-complex” would be the result of this action, the mind where the opposite are in a dynamic integration .
In both cases the HGA and the Self would not be psychological constructs, but something outside the psyche acting upon her (as far as I understand archetypes, they also are outside the psyche). Of course this overlap of definitions is happening because I am considering function.
"You can walk the psychological projection angle all the way to Kether. Get acustomed to noting, recording, and analyzing them now - that well will never run dry."
Since reading your article in the Black Pearl I am giving it a try. Finding projections as a defense mechanism is not as hard as it seems (if there is emotion, there it is).
In a lesser explosive and unbalanced way, projection seems to work as a tool to understand the outer reality based in my inner structure. Somehow I am only able to indentify something outside myself if it exists inside me. If it does not or if my inner structure is distorted, my perception is distorted as well.
Going further, this outer and inner dynamic of projection may result in rapport and communication. Projection as defense mechanism is only an aberration of the very mechanism that connects the psyche with everything else.
And if we take complexes plus projection…it is a long shot but I would say that there lies the very ingredient of rapport.
Well, it got worst
-
@Faus said
"
"You can walk the psychological projection angle all the way to Kether. Get acustomed to noting, recording, and analyzing them now - that well will never run dry."Since reading your article in the Black Pearl I am giving it a try."
Which issue is that in? I'd like to take a look at it.
-
@Frater Potater said
"
"Yes, and (at least in most cases) averse to actually seeing themselves for what they are or understanding how they architect their lives. (No one who adopts that point of view is in Temple of Thelema - at least, not past the very earliest degrees - since it is a core tool used by all tenured members.)"When you say "seeing themselves for what they are/understand how they architect their lives", I wonder what you mean."
Witnessing psychological projections (which was the topic to which the above responded) is the single most powerful technique I know for seeing your own psyche in a mirror. The world is constantly reflecting you back at you. Step one is to see that this is so, and step two is to start looking into the mirror with an eye to seeing what you actually can see.
Subconsciuousness isn't asleep when the self-conscious mind is awake. Rather, the two are attentive riders in the front seat of the same car: Just because self-consciousness is driving doesn't mean that subconsciousness isn't engaged in the same conversation! Or (to turn the metaphor completely inside-out), subconsciousness and self-consciousness are the two windshields we are constantly looking out thrugh simultaneously. A consequence is that we are simultaneously awake, perceptive of our environment, etc., AND we are having a dream. The two mingle in the best story our psyches can create in the moment, and that story is invariably about us. It is equally true to say that we are still dreaming throughout the day as it is to say that we are awake.
What we term psychological projections are the dreams we are having when awake. They are the ever-present mirror we have to look into for self-discovery.
"Maybe this perspective helps them in their daily lives to be balanced, and empowered people? Many of the great thinkers or artist who have inspired me are skeptic, or atheist... agnostic, at the very least."
I'm not sure what theism-agnosticism-atheism has to do with the subject of projections.
-
@Iamus said
"
@Faus said
"
"You can walk the psychological projection angle all the way to Kether. Get acustomed to noting, recording, and analyzing them now - that well will never run dry."Since reading your article in the Black Pearl I am giving it a try."
Which issue is that in? I'd like to take a look at it."
He means the article on rehabilitating subconsciousness in BP #9. - It's clear that Faust already knows what projections are, and I don't think I detailed very much in the article, but we can have more discussions of it in a thread here if people want.
This is one of the primary techniques Phyllis selected for College of Thelema students from the beginning, and continues to be core to much of the work that C.O.T. and T.'.O.'.T.'. teach and practice today. It's pure gold! (Well, OK, silver!)
-
It works.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Subconsciuousness isn't asleep when the self-conscious mind is awake. Rather, the two are attentive riders in the front seat of the same car: Just because self-consciousness is driving doesn't mean that subconsciousness isn't engaged in the same conversation! Or (to turn the metaphor completely inside-out), subconsciousness and self-consciousness are the two windshields we are constantly looking out thrugh simultaneously. A consequence is that we are simultaneously awake, perceptive of our environment, etc., AND we are having a dream. The two mingle in the best story our psyches can create in the moment, and that story is invariably about us. It is equally true to say that we are still dreaming throughout the day as it is to say that we are awake.
What we term psychological projections are the dreams we are having when awake. They are the ever-present mirror we have to look into for self-discovery."
Very well said. If it's not ridiculous to say so.
-
Not at all.
Yes, after people get the lesson, "Oh, this is all my stuff!", it is important to learn to see, "Hey, wait a minute, THAT one didn't come from me." That's just practical sorting and cataloging.
Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter... because it's ALL "My stuff." Otherwise, it can't hook you.
-
@Pattana Gita said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Not at all.Yes, after people get the lesson, "Oh, this is all my stuff!", it is important to learn to see, "Hey, wait a minute, THAT one didn't come from me." That's just practical sorting and cataloging.
Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter... because it's ALL "My stuff." Otherwise, it can't hook you."
There are other explanations for why projected identification content might hook a person that does not include it being 'my stuff'. Obedience, conformity, or (in cases of an immature psyche) it might be part of a pattern of psychological abuse from a parent - a sort of possession. If you put it all down as 'my stuff' then you undermine the ability of the psyche to reject (not identify with) content from abusive people."
Even if it has its roots in abuse, it's still "my stuff" in virtue of being inside of my head. Also, notice how differently people react to abuse (or any kind of trauma). Some people go through prolonged, repeated instances of abuse and recover relatively quickly, while other people have developed fully legitimate cases of PTSD that persisted for years from simply witnessing an assault on a complete stranger. It's clearly not the case that this can be explained simply by how resilient these people are, so we have to conclude that it's the relationship between the subject and the trauma that determines the nature and severity of the reaction. Thus, if some part of an abusive experience sticks with me, it ultimately has to be explained by the nature of my psyche, and simply rejecting that experience as "not mine" is to also reject whatever in me made that relationship possible.[Disclaimer: none of what I just said in any way removes the guilt from the abuser. The point is just that there would be no way of determining in advance how a particular abusive action will affect the survivor of the abuse, or at least not without intimate knowledge of the makeup of the survivor's psyche.]
-
@Pattana Gita said
"There are other explanations for why projected identification content might hook a person that does not include it being 'my stuff'. Obedience, conformity, or (in cases of an immature psyche) it might be part of a pattern of psychological abuse from a parent - a sort of possession. If you put it all down as 'my stuff' then you undermine the ability of the psyche to reject (not identify with) content from abusive people."
I repeat: It doesn't "hook" unless it's something in us. There is nothing for it to grab hold of.
Now, patterns get formed and decisions made when we are very young, based on our limited resources; and then (unless we revisit and remap) those decisions stay with us the rest of our lives. (This is called "letting a 3-year-old make decisions for you.") But if these patterns or decisions are seriously at odds with the deeper nature, the psyche throws a fit! The issue always presents itself anew - over and over again throughout life. Each such "fit" is an opportunity to revisit and heal the pattern.
But that comes later. First you need to be able to recognize that you are looking into a mirror. Then you have to actually look and see what's there. A little later, you are equipped to redecide.
-
@Pattana Gita said
"but why do you need to own/identify with all the content you see reflected in the mirror as 'my stuff'? You're making the mirror an impersonal thing and the content/reflection something personal, Jim. I don't get that... it seems the opposite way around to me. "
But it's exactly the case. We'd see ourselves if there were nothing but dancing lights in the mirror - because that's all we're capable of seeing. The fact that something objective is there does not mean that a person can connect with it. Navigation through life is like skrying with a crystal ball.
The important thing, though, is the tracing back. Eventually, one sees for oneself the underlying patterns which shape one's own psyche. But you can't trace it back until you find the individual threads that rise up as surges of reactive emotion and other strong-impact experiences.
I'm really surprised you aren't getting this. You're one person to whom I thought this would be obvious, familiar stuff. And we've only been talking about the outermost aspects of it. Some deeper aspects are discussed here: www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6800
-
@Faus said
"I am using it as the archetype of the integrated psyche, integrate the subconscious and the conscious mind. More in the sense that it is the force that takes the psyche towards wholeness. The “self-complex” would be the result of this action, the mind where the opposite are in a dynamic integration .
In both cases the HGA and the Self would not be psychological constructs, but something outside the psyche acting upon her (as far as I understand archetypes, they also are outside the psyche). Of course this overlap of definitions is happening because I am considering function."
I usually thing of complex and sort-of-autonomous things as tools or instruments of the HGA. Why sometimes it´s actived a particular complex? Why the next ocassion not? Then after you analize it, and you see patterns through consequences of why a complex could have been not actived in a particular ocassion, why in other yes, etc. I think it´s not exactly part of an usual rationalization mechanism, I find there is part of "truth" in some cases. I one is not fully skeptic and doen´t have that sort of faith, it would turn in a sort of or rationalistic thing without end, like a "there´s nothing more than this" thing.
As about change patterns, kill complexs and so on, I find in some particular cases fight against it could make itself an infinite loop, in part because it is not really a question of "I" against the "complex", it is a question of complexs against other complexs. I think it´s not so far thing of suppress things of you and your life (because, though their could be really fucked up for you, it still are your things), as for enriched it, make it more wide, doing things really different of what you are used to do. It will not free you from the complex etc, but will make you more experienced, having seen thing from others point of view, and the complex itself would be changed in consequence.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"
I usually thing of complex and sort-of-autonomous things as tools or instruments of the HGA. Why sometimes it´s actived a particular complex? Why the next ocassion not? Then after you analize it, and you see patterns through consequences of why a complex could have been not actived in a particular ocassion, why in other yes, etc. I think it´s not exactly part of an usual rationalization mechanism, I find there is part of "truth" in some cases. I one is not fully skeptic and doen´t have that sort of faith, it would turn in a sort of or rationalistic thing without end, like a "there´s nothing more than this" thing.As about change patterns, kill complexs and so on, I find in some particular cases fight against it could make itself an infinite loop, in part because it is not really a question of "I" against the "complex", it is a question of complexs against other complexs. I think it´s not so far thing of suppress things of you and your life (because, though their could be really {******} up for you, it still are your things), as for enriched it, make it more wide, doing things really different of what you are used to do. It will not free you from the complex etc, but will make you more experienced, having seen thing from others point of view, and the complex itself would be changed in consequence."
I understand that complexes have some sort of function in communication, even more directly in yetsiratic level of communication. Like the particular antenna that can synchronize with a specific astral frequency, its inhabitants and Archetypes. So I would be more likely to say that they are our tools and that, sometimes, they can be used by the HGA and, on other moments they can be barriers.
I do not think that they should be destroyed or something, but purified and integrated. It seems that the very word “complex” has some nasty connotations, especially pathological ones. I do not see than as naturally pathological but they can become so in case of bad inner relationships.
Edit: I just perceived that I am using the word “complex” as a general label to any subconscious structure. It may be the wrong use but, knowing this probably will make it easier to understand what I am talking about.
-
I have been seduced to try to formulate my take on what has been formulated as "projection" here.
Our life experiences (including possible past lives) shape the patterns of how we act, feel and experience.
The outside world on average influences us more than we influence the outside world, especially in the beginning of each life. Most deeply our first relationships, during the first say three to five years.
The patterns learned then are the only ways of interpreting or "scrying" the experiences we have and the reactions and actions we exhibit to them.
Deeper still, they are also the only way to interpret our-selves in the most fundamental way imaginable. We ourselves literally consist of our projections!
Except. What most here call the HGA, is that of us which for reasons that are too complicated to me wanting to go into currents in us which do not consist of what other people have put into us. These currents are real actions, not just reactions, even if these reactions might have been well-reflected very indirect reactions.
Not sure if the above is understandable, will wait for feedback to decide that.
Please note I am not talking about responsibility for these projections we and our experiences consist of completely except in case of - again, in terms usually used here on this board - far advanced adepts. I think also that Mr. Eshelman did not mean that - correct me if I'm wrong. There is already a very nice thread about hyper-responsibility that would be suited for this debate.
For a very interesting insight into the projection angle look at the original Abramelin Operation by Abraham von Worms, from a psychological perspective, what's going on in that process. It's all in there.
Looking back at what I just wrote I'm not sure I wrote something understandable. Hope I did
-
Quick note, Faust: I think that use of "complex" is on-target. However, it might be misunderstood by people who only have encountered the word as meaning "pathology."
But such a structure (or complex) need not be pathological, of course.
-
@Faus said
"I do not think that they should be destroyed or something, but purified and integrated. It seems that the very word “complex” has some nasty connotations, especially pathological ones. I do not see than as naturally pathological but they can become so in case of bad inner relationships.
Edit: I just perceived that I am using the word “complex” as a general label to any subconscious structure. It may be the wrong use but, knowing this probably will make it easier to understand what I am talking about."
Well I undestood complex as Jung did it, in the book he has about the subject. Not essencially different to as you used it, if I´m not wrong. And yep, the therm has gained bad reputation, as pathological or traumatic, but Jung himself said that a complex would not be necessarily bad and so on.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Quick note, Faust: I think that use of "complex" is on-target. However, it might be misunderstood by people who only have encountered the word as meaning "pathology."
But such a structure (or complex) need not be pathological, of course."
Uep, I didn´t see your post in time. Yep, really, more than referring to the most common use that people do of the word, I was thinking in an alternative view of the treatment of complexes people want to change, though I really didn´t know what is the usual treatment for them in therapia or something.
