College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

I see, need to keep on searching then. Thank you for the reply in any case!

@Hannah Indeed! I appreciate your response. I will be fascinated to see how you navigate that point when your son reaches the teenage years, as, in my experience, that was really when I became aware of my own Mother Complex (On a side note, Crowley writes that the Zodiacal sign of Cancer just is the sign of the Mother Complex, and Jim corresponds the sign of Cancer with the Scarlet Woman in 776 1/2. As a Cancer Sun who grew up without a biological father but had a strong attachment to mother, I feel that this explains a lot of my own habits, hang ups, shining moments, etc. hahaha). I have inferred that generally, the Mother Complex doesn't affect a biological male until they hit puberty (I cannot speak for all sexes, hence my specificity in biological males :-)). My own theory is that the shock of puberty and sexuality shatters the image of the initial image of Mother in the psyche. I theorize that someone who is maybe more equipped with tools of self soothing (and psychic Understanding) as well more comfortable with sexuality may be able to perceive the Mother Complex for what it is and avoid a more violent and painful separation. According to modern developmental psychology, parents simply need to be "good enough," and once the child is capable of realizing that their parents were "good enough" (i.e. that the child's needs were met enough of the time that they are reasonably equipped for the world we are born into) then they can move on from parental hang ups and focus on the journey of self discovery (though parental complexes never leave and we are constantly trying to live in harmony with our own psychic images of Mom & Dad). I do agree that Christianity is HEAVILY to blame for the epidemic of the Mother Complex plaguing young men in today's age (in fact, I think this is perhaps one of the biggest reasons for the Manosphere, homophobia, and the death pangs of the Old Aeon, since Christianity has really failed a lot of Male youths). Christianity's sexual repression and emphasis on celibacy creates Eunuchs, which only contributes to male impotence. Although we are not physical castrating people in the realm of Malkuth, the bastardization of Christianity indoctrinating people today creates a sort of spiritual Eunuch. I have theorized that when Crowley talks about building the Wand as a Magickal Weapon and it's relation to the Phallus, this is part of what he's referring to (healing the spiritual castration that occurs from these types of issues). I've spoken to a lot of young men who have described essentially this, that they are spiritually castrated. Christianity's blatant repression of sexuality prevents everyone from becoming comfortable with expressing sexuality, and this is precisely what Freud was pointing to when he wrote about the Oedipus Complex. Failing to sort through sexual projections breeds a strange codependent relationship in which the child does not develop the self assurance and resiliency to overcome obstacles since Mother knows best and Mother protects. Ironically, this is a source of homophobia in the male psyche, because on one hand, the male psyche (or the socialized male western psyche) is getting pulled towards the opposite sex, but it has not developed any of the shifts in awareness to truly appreciate the opposite sex. Instead, because Mother provides and protects, the individual is completely blinded by the Anima (which in this case exists solely as a projection of their Mother) and becomes possessed by it. Why would the individual need to treat the opposite properly when their experience of the opposite sex has been nothing but codependency with Mother? People that are Anima Possessed generally aren't even aware that they are expressing projections of a fantasy of the opposite sex, and hence why we get this weird behavior in some men where they believe they are objectively treating women how they should as heterosexuals, even though all they do is crush femininity and kill any real signs of eroticism. It largely stems from that lack of emotional intelligence and/or comfortability with the force of Eros. The cognitive dissonance these conflicting signals create are precisely what has bred incel culture and the type of man who claims to love women but refuses anything projected as womanly, only feeling safe to show affection towards men. In this type of Psychic Structure, the individual projects femininity as the Other and corresponds the concept of "Woman" with all of those other fears of the Other. It is no wonder that there is a correlation between all of the forms of prejudice and this disconnect between men and women. The same cognitive laziness that puts woman in the Shadow of heterosexual men is the same cognitive laziness that breeds all of the other forms of prejudice, creating a Shadow of size and magnitude that drove even the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche insane. If you know the name of the Qlippothic force that causes this, please share, as I aspire to discover the name of this demon that is plaguing society (I say this humorously, at the risk of coming off too strong since it is sometimes difficult to communicate tone over text and I realize that the Qlippoth can be a touchy issue for some). Unfortunately, since these peoples' sexuality is so unconscious, if you point to their Shadow, the victim of this type of cognitive dissonance cannot even comprehend that they are mistreating women (and that it's impossible to claim heterosexuality if you mistreat women), often resorting to gaslighting and homophobia. This homophobia is a symptom of this disconnect between the biological imperative to mate with the opposite sex and the conscious mind's fixation on the Anima (at expense of women as people and human beings because this personality type is incapable of looking past their projection of the opposite sex). Since heterosexuality is expected in young men, when they fail to experience the same level of attraction that was experienced in puberty from hormonal imbalance, they repress the feeling that heterosexuality is not yet authentic to them (since they haven't done the Work to appreciate the opposite sex, the opposite sex being the symbol of the Other since they are told that there is a hard distinction between men and women) and this expectation vs reality attacks the conscious mind (since it prefers simple answers). Interestingly Freud argued that homosexuality is the default sexuality for humanity, because it is easier to admire something you are (which is an inherently homosexual attitude), and that it takes work to develop healthy relationships with the opposite sex, since they are initially perceived as a different species of being. So naturally, the conscious mind rebels saying, "I'm straight! My partner must not be perfect otherwise I would love her because I am objectively straight and it is objectively wrong for men to show emotion, much less admit that all of my emotions are directed towards particularly male centric interests and perspectives!" Of course, this is exacerbated by the Christian virtues of Guilt and Shame, since Pride (a Thelemic virtue according to the Book of the Law) would require a level of homosexuality (for example, to appreciate the man you are would require a comparison to other men, and for a man to compare themselves to other men is an inherently homosexual action since naturally some men are going to be more appealing than others). That male anger towards women for no reason other than that women exist and seemingly withhold the love and affection of their projection of Mother is a direct consequence of this psychic structure because the conscious mind is essentially angry at itself for failing to integrate what it perceives as the Other. It hurts men, women, and trans folk across the board. It really grinds my gears because it's no one's fault that society is what it is, and yet we are forced to deal with and take seriously these ridiculous projections as the consequences of society's Shadow whether we like it or not. It's no wonder Jesus got so angry prior to Crucifixion, as he was probably dealing with a similar level of frustration at his society's Shadow. Hahaha I keep writing huge walls of text, thank you everyone for your attention. I have a bad habit of writing essays instead of short responses.

@Hannah I so agree. I read the more gendered sections of this chapter and thought, "Wow!" A lot of it reminded me of Jung's hang ups on Gender and Biological Sex, to the point where I wondered if von Franz had taken any attempt at separating Jung's own difficulty with gender from his ideas. A lot of her projections seem directly inspired by some of the more unappealing aspects of Jung's ideas on Gender (as MANY have written that Jung was NOT comfortable around women, even given his emphasis on uniting the gendered opposites within the psyche, some even going so far as to argue that the ideas of "Anima Possession" and "Animus Possession" are inherently sexist concepts used to justify and explain the female hysteria written about so prevalently in Jung & Freud's time). I know that we have the luxury of modern gender theory and modern biology, but it makes it really difficult to parse through some of the ideas. The most interesting idea that von Franz presented in terms of gender was the idea (and perhaps this was in the next chapter, I can't remember) was when von Franz describes an archetype of the Divine Feminine mating with a demon in the Woods. The reason I found this so interesting is that this seems to be a "pseudo code" for a specifically feminine shadow, and men often speak about women as if this mating with the demons is something that actually occurs (have you seen the movie The VVitch? That is the first, modern expression of this archetype that comes to mind). Von Franz, being a woman and having had to deal with patriarchy, would've been such a fascinating person to explore this as an interpersonal archetypal situation and possible solutions to get the diversity of genders to work together. Instead, she clings to Jung's weirdly male centric notion that this is just the Anima, and that the Man needs to rescue the Feminine Aspects of Psyche for her to have any value (going so far as to say that, by default, the Anima, and therefore the Feminine Aspects of Psyche, are poisonous without Masculine intervention, which has really negative implications about how Jungian thought perceives women). Again, I want to be able to overlook these hang ups, but let's be honest. If we're going to genuinely explore a polarized, gendered view of the psyche, then why are we only seeing the Male Shadow in this book? There is hardly anything that deals specifically with a Female Shadow in this book thus far, which makes me extremely suspicious of taking the polarized gendered approach seriously. I cannot find any reasonable justification as to why that wouldn't be discussed, because even from a Male, Polarized perspective, if we take gender to be "real" in the biological sense, wouldn't men want to read about the "Female Shadow"? Wouldn't it only serve to explain and make conscious these strange gendered projections we've developed from growing up in Western Society? Even if they aren't just projections, wouldn't men want to read these things to learn how to better harmonize with women? I could only imagine that exploring fairy tales that do express a feminine Shadow would be infinitely more useful than young men going on Google and looking up, "How to get a woman to like you." I hope my language in this response isn't too incendiary, and I hope that I didn't mislead anyone. It's difficult for me to justify using such polarized language in this realm of discussion, but given that this book is written from that place, I wanted to emphasize that it still fails to explore any nuance even within polarization. To put it more plainly, even if we take the notion of Biological Gender seriously, von Franz's argument still fails to provide any type of nuance on the discussions of gender, sex, and the psyche. It's really disappointing to see her, as one of the few women to achieve a level of stature at that time and in this realm of study, regurgitate Jung's own misogyny!

@jjones I feel very similar about the text, I at times have to lumber through reading and don't always like what she has to say, but the discussions around its contents have been really powerful for me. Lately I have been seeing the shape of my shadow more and more, and feel empowered taking responsibility for its machinations. I think no matter the book, the real learning is coming from exchanging dialogue with ya'll! Especially given all of our unique backgrounds which we bring to the text!

@anael_lucis This is such a fantastic response. I loved reading this and I love how clearly you outlined the Thelemic shadow. Your description of the Shadows of the Beast and Babalon remind me of Borderline Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In one of the classes I took in college, the instructor made the argument that BPD and NPD are both the same phenomenon but are expressed differently because of the way men and women are socialized. I also really love that you emphasize how we're always responding to both Shadow and Self in all interactions, even when we are focusing on one or the other. Shadow and Self dance around us constantly, but it can be easier in my experience to linger in the Underworld with the Shadow at times than to acknowledge and embrace the Self in Joy. You reminded me that even the Shadow is an expression of Self.

Analyze the part where the dream shifts, because I have learned through analysis that the "phase change" is significant. What did you do to cause the change and then what happened immediately after? Why do you think that happened? In my personal experience, if I "test" an entity with a pentagram and it doesn't react negatively, that's usually a good sign, but go with your intuition. I have tested entities and received very negative reactions, so that becomes pretty obvious to discern. You can also interpret everyone you encounter in the dream space as part of yourself, as said above. I think it's a matter of convenience. Next time you go to sleep, you could seed the intention in your mind to pick up where the dream left off and see what happens.

I really enjoy reading everything on Jung for this reason. I’ve always been fascinated by dreaming, and have always had very great dream recall like I remember dreams from when I was a kid and I’m 29 now. I actually just got one of his books I’m meaning to read after I’m finished with this thelema one I’m reading now.

Hi Luis, welcome!

@jjones I appreciate the way you connect True Will as being contained within the shadow, yet I am curious about the definition of shadow being "all of which we choose not to identify as." I wonder if there are aspects of our shadow that are not part of our True Will, things we do not identify with and no longer serve us. Sounds like tricky business! Because on the other hand, I agree with you that "there will always be some aspect of True Will within [the] Shadow." You bring up an excellent point that even for those who can state their True Will in words, life is an ever-evolving dynamic motion and how our True Will is best expressed changes across a lifetime, even more. So, there will always be blind spots... which, you know what, I think I see your point now. Makes me think of the Masonic legend of the rejected stone! Perhaps many of us have unconsciously thrown out our True Will into our Shadow, and now we have to dig through that deep to find it again? In your next paragraph, I definitely relate. It reminds me of the Emperor with no clothes... for some reason it is so embarrassing to think of other people seeing my shadow before I see it myself. Especially when I first started this kind of introspective work, I was aware of how big my blind spots were, yet I hadn't built the skills to see myself clearly, it was so frustrating!! And, I knew other people were more skilled in this than I, and could definitely see that shadow all over the place. I was mortified. Luckily, as I grow in self-awareness, I feel more at peace with my younger self because as I can see mine and others' shadows more clearly, I have much more compassion. Likely, the people I worried about the most were also the least judgmental. Also, I think humor really helps. I know that if I can laugh at myself, then I am free from that aspect of my shadow. It is quite silly to attend a parade with no clothes on, very serious-like, and puffed up... if only the emperor learned to laugh at himself! There would be much less violence in this world if people learned how to laugh. I also really appreciate how you say "the things we repress as society atrophy our ability to adequately perceive and understand those psychic objects being repressed." This makes me think about the power of naming something... how if we collectively repress it, we no longer have the power to define it. We forget about its existence while it remains active and churning in our lives. There is something here about history, how important stories are in defining the ego of a culture. Later you talk about the way initiates have an almost irritating effect on non-initiates, which I believe is especially the case for adepts. I think people who have integrated their shadow and exist simply in a state of certainty and truth can be very disquieting to others. I'm not sure but I wonder if this is perhaps the "red powder of projection." Adepts have a way of, just by being in proximity to others, increase the rate of putrefaction and, ultimately, transmutation. Sometimes this looks messy at first. I think it sparks a sense of unease, wondering why they aren't so clear, leading them to question just how much they know of themselves and the world. I think this happens to those who are primed to search. I really love how you describe the state of being an example for others by not projecting your Shadow on them as "one of the greatest expressions of True Will I have experienced thus far in my journey." That is beautifully said! And now thinking about it, it is safe to say that this is an aspect of every person's True Will, imho... something to practice living everyday! I so so appreciate your alternative interpretation of the story!! I agree that Von Franz seems to do the thing she warns against, trying to fit a rigid model to the story... your correspondences to the three planets makes a lot of sense. I especially like your association of the Tailor to the Sun. Honestly, I did not like the story or her interpretation... but using your analysis, especially discovering that it is a Thelemic parable, makes me like it much more! While reading this section of your post, I thought of how cool it would be to write fairy tales using the tarot trumps and court cards to highlight the nuances of their energy, for example, their ego, superconsciousness, shadow, etc.. like how you uplift those layers in the characters of this tale. Very cool! Your ending statement, so solid and inspiring. Fear being the enemy of shadow work is deeply resonate, thank you for sharing!

@Stef Yay!

I have tried the soft tip “paintbrush” style, but find the chisel point easiest and most accurate.

https://thelema.org/aa/bookofthelaw

I think about this frequently. Jung was highly fascinated by the Nag Hammadi Codex after it was discovered. If you haven't checked it out yet, I highly recommend it. In the Gospel of Thomas (perhaps one of the most popular writings in the Codex), the figure of Christ describes Thelemic ideology well before Crowley's time. So much so that more than a few in my life have argued Thelema is just an updated form of Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas includes descriptions by Christ that we are to discover our own unique connection to divinity, live in relationship to that divinity, and ignore those who claim to know better. Christ calls for a very personal relationship with the divine that does not require one to practice Biblical exegesis, or that strange spell "in Jesus's Name..." that the Church so adamantly grasps to. It is no wonder the Codex was hidden at the onset of Christian imperialism.

As someone who adores Carl Jung, I thought I'd add my own thoughts for the sake of records keeping. In response to the first point, Jung was describing the New Aeon as an age of relativity. In other words, To enter the New Aeon, Jung's writings imply that without any external institutions, traditions, and/or powers for the common folk to fall back on, we are left with empiricism. Crowley seemed to think similarly. If this idea is an interesting one, I highly recommend a book called Quantum Psychology by Robert Anton Wilson. It offers a highly concise and entertaining guide to train the mind to experience as a scientist. It does so by targeting the thing we all use to think, language. In practice, empiricism looks a lot like the Chaos Magick maxim, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." (My Qabalistic thinking cap says, "Naturally, Nothing IS true, because Nuit describes herself as Nothing!") In regards to the second point, yes, Abraxas, though a solar deity, is a description of the Supernals in my understanding of Jung's work. Abraxas was described by Jung as the ultimate unification of opposites. Abraxas appears to Jung as the Lord of the Light and the Darkness. Abraxas is fundamentally beyond human comprehension because Abraxas transcends reality. If I remember correctly, in Jung's Sermons, he talks about how the average person is incapable of handling the reality that if "God" is all powerful, that means "God" causes all of the problems of the world just as much as all of the goodness in the world. His descriptions of Abraxas are similar to ancient Greek descriptions of Hekate, who both creates and destroys in her wake (many ancient Greeks believed Hekate to be similar to our descriptions of Binah). Jung was highly aware that the transcendent denies all descriptions, because to describe a limitless being would inherently limit it. In that regard, Abraxas is similar to Nuit in that we can't really "talk" about Abraxas. However, even Nuit limits her expressions in the Book of the Law to Joy, and so Abraxas seems to describe the interplay between human rationalism (which was traditionally seen as the Great Father) and chaos (which was traditionally seen as the Great Mother). To further complicate the discussion, Crowley argues that there has been a polarity shift in the New Aeon, to where the Father principle is now Chaos (Therion, the Great Beast), and the Mother principle is structure (Babalon, the Scarlet Woman).

Welcome, Scott!