Mysticism + Neurosis : What is the connection?
-
[what do people think?
are we all doomed to a MEGA-neurosis?
will a spiritual path positively affect behavioral/neurotic shortcomings?
are aspirants on the path doomed to intensify their shortcomings?
(the given example of of AC is the extreme case, but in the "Eye In The Triangle" Regardie drops a few other prominent names in the field, who in his opinion display disturbed behavior,=========
first of all who the hell was Regardie to comment on disturbed behaviour when i am told he he befriended gangsters?Your question is mind blowing and unanswerable; it is a Zen koan .its like asking am i a nerd? nevertheless it raises interesting points which force us to question polarity and equilibrium...
(1)What is "neurosis" anyway? e.g. Dr Leary refused to use the term as it is non-operational and unscientific i.e. it's mystical jabberwocky like the term "spirituality" because it means differernt things to different people whereas when we talk about "radioactive decay" or "levels of atmospheric pressure" there is a universally agreed consensus which can be verified by machines anywhere in the world.
First problem
Nitpicking aside let's go with the modern consensus i; hear that "neuroses" is an oversized ego which is either too timid/compulsively anxious or too obnoxiously uncooperative i.e when the neurotic adult was a child his neurotic parents could not actively discipline the toddler phase tantrums. The mother-father child triangle did not function as a team and the neurotic adult remains arrested at that stage left in limbo afraid of his own angry outbursts (timidity) ; lacking any firm self-assured mental behavioural boundaries (estranged/uncooperative). He is therefore constantly placing himself outside of his own social-world map and it is too painful to try to "fit in" with other people. ; to adjust his mental world map. The lack of self assurance leads to the strange irrational anxieties.
There are problems with this theory/set-up.
Whose to say that our therapists are not themselves neurotic? Are they not themselves coward outsiders sneakily slipping into the financially comfortable aloof role of exclusive shaman.?
Whose to say that the society we live in with it's willingness to go to war ,discriminatory economic policies and environmental neglect is not generally neurotic? The neuroses-curing psychiatrists are upholding that neurotic society by ensuring we conform to it's values. This is why Wilhelm Reich left the profession and became a socialist activist.
Crowley hated psychiatrists.
but thats not a good point to use in an argument
which leads us to
(3)Are Thelemic aspirants just weirdo neurotic outsiders i.e. the genuinely healthy would not have to bother? Do the folk on this forum have no friends or no life that they are resorted to geekily faffing around on internet forums?
I am reminded of a UK acne ointment advert in which the girl with the clear skin sees her friend using anti-acne cream and says "hey you dont have spots why?huh?" her cream smearing friend holds up the product and in her pride she smugly smiles, "i know".i.e. yes Thelemites are probaly all neurotic nerd cranks............initially.
(4) Furthermore neurotics falsely see themselves as different and outside of society ;
"let my servants be FEW AND SECRET they shall rule the many and the known" ? "ye are AGAINST THE PEOPLE my chosen" ? "fear not the (neurotic?) laughter of the (neurotically jealous?) folk folly " ?so who are neurotic ? us ; "the few and secret" or "the people" ? You choose
(5) if you are neurotic and you Thelemically pass through the Abyss then you become a Black Brother i.e. a self agrandizing crank.
Did Crowley ever come across (pun un-intended) as as a self agrandizing crank to you?(6) who "stamps down on the wretched and the weak(i.e. the neurotic and egotistical"? )
is it the neurotic ruffian doing the stamping?
the healthy bully?
can a bully be a healer? Reich was ostracised by Freud because he accussed him of bullying his patients. Reich argued that he was bringing them back to health and he acussed Freud of failing to heal ; he claimed Freud was upholding a death culture (Thanatos negativity)
Also Zen masters would hit their students
(7) a sign of insanity is to deny that you are dysfunctional in any way so i guesse your on the right track in asking your question about Mega Neuroses
(8) Apparently a psychiatrist can recognise a neurotic by the latter's lack of interest in competitive sport so i say we all put down our anally retentive Gematria books and have oursleves a game of football I'LL be captain of the geek team . "My number is 11, as are all their numbers who are of us"
(9) on mysticism ; Reich cited that sick people lose themselves in mystical expression as a substitute for a healthy sexual expression. Better find ourselves some sport playing massage quack so we can get religion. However he stated that competitive sports are also a means by which people release sexually sick neurotic impulses.
(10)
Damn i think i just became a "centre of (neurotic) pestilence"
-
"such views are the opinion of the herd
Genius means creative inventive beneficial product.Faraday,Einstein,Dali,Pasteur
Madness is a breakdown of life due to a deadening of the soul-psyche.dull stupidity"
Those may be your chosen definitions. You are welcome to them. My view is not so restricted.
"The word of Sin is Restriction." AL 1:41.
As an example, I will offer that genius could be used to identify someone with a very high IQ, who may not be productive at all. Look at those who join Mensa (no offence to Mensa ppl
) All they seem to do is talk about how smart they are.Genius also refers to the higher self, and some have used the term in place of Holy Guardian Angel.
As for Madness, I mention Bacchus, and leave the rest to your creative imagination.
" first of all who the hell was Regardie to comment on disturbed behaviour when i am told he he befriended gangsters? "
What's wrong with be-friending gangsters?
93, 93/93
-
"Quote:
first of all who the hell was Regardie to comment on disturbed behaviour when i am told he he befriended gangsters?""What's wrong with be-friending gangsters?
93, 93/93"
I was wondering the same thing.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@whitewolf said
"93.
"such views are the opinion of the herd
Genius means creative inventive beneficial product.Faraday,Einstein,Dali,Pasteur
Madness is a breakdown of life due to a deadening of the soul-psyche.dull stupidity"
"Those may be your chosen definitions. You are welcome to them. My view is not so restricted.
"The word of Sin is Restriction." AL 1:41.
As an example, I will offer that genius could be used to identify someone with a very high IQ, who may not be productive at all. Look at those who join Mensa (no offence to Mensa ppl
) All they seem to do is talk about how smart they are.=======
your agreeing with me........thats what i said too.a Mensa member can maybe work out higher math problems in an instant but all thats good for is becoming a maths teacher ; it's rote whereas someone who invents a new vaccine has took a creative leap forward for all i,e, both lobes are put to use=========
Genius also refers to the higher self, and some have used the term in place of Holy Guardian Angel.
exactly the higher self which heals, illuminates and creates
As for Madness, I mention Bacchus, and leave the rest to your creative imagination.
====
Dionysian "madness" is not disconnected,depressive schizoid vegetation. On the contrary it is peak experience which in Maslovian terms signifies health. remember before the Kennedies/LBJ went along with the media hysteria in the very early 60.s LSD peak experience was actually being used to successfully cure chronic alcoholics. -
@gerry456 said
"first of all who the hell was Regardie to comment on disturbed behaviour when i am told he he befriended gangsters?
"Either I'm missing something or this is a serious non sequitur. Regardie was a Reichan therapist and therefore qualified to comment on mental health. What does this have to do with who he hung out with?
Dan
-
the main thread (Does mysticism cause or cure neuroses?) is going off on a tangent and you guys seem to think organised crime is a cool alright phenomenon not to be shunned or rallied against. Okay fine do your will.
Wouldnt you find it a bit odd if Wil Reich had Al Capone around for tea every weekend? wtf?
Then again i suspect your asking me to open my mind a bit as to the motives of Israel in befriending this guy who some author categorised as a "gangster". To be fair I dont know the specific details about Israel's friend or whether he liked/approved of the guy or not. My source is a book about Israel released during late 80.s or early 90.s.the final chapter is an account of Regardie's LRBP performance whilst the author sat glued to his seat.
Anyway my initial point (and admittedly it seemed to be a snipey anti-Regardie comment) was think for yourself (about mysticism and how it realtes to neuroses) and dont let wonderful gurus like Regardie think for you. Now how about commenting about the 9 or 10 pionts i made after that.
-
@gerry456 said
"first of all who the hell was Regardie to comment on disturbed behaviour when i am told he he befriended gangsters?"
Who is Regardie? One of the greater adepts of modern times and, perhaps more importantly, the single greatest propagator of Thelemic literature and teachings thus far.
Who is he to comment on such things? In addition to the above, he was an experienced and extremely gifted psychotherapist.
Gangsters? Well, I just might share that opinion of some of his colleagues, but I'm not clear what that has to do with the question at play. Hey, some of my best friends have, er, hung out with drug dealers.
"(1)What is "neurosis" anyway? e.g. Dr Leary refused to use the term as it is non-operational and unscientific i.e. it's mystical jabberwocky like the term "spirituality" because it means differernt things to different people"
Admirable and, as usual, courageous of Tim. OTOH, there are exacting definitions (that have especially improved in the last several decades). Diagnosis is as much art as science, but definition of neurosis isn't much harder than definition of anything else.
"Nitpicking aside let's go with the modern consensus i; hear that "neuroses" is "
Etc. Wow, I understand your reaction to the word, since you aren't using it in a way that is very consistent with its actual definition.
The point I'm making is that "neurosis" is a technical term of a specific profiession, the psychiatric profession, and though it has been picked up in common speech, that doesn't make casual popular in-the-moment contextual usage of it any more accurate than, say, if I remarked that my car engine was having trouble because of the thingamabob going whacko.
"Whose to say that the society we live in with it's willingness to go to war, discriminatory economic policies and environmental neglect is not generally neurotic?"
Of couse it is!
"The neuroses-curing psychiatrists are upholding that neurotic society by ensuring we conform to it's values."
No, only that we be functional in it so long as that's where we're living.
"This is why Wilhelm Reich left the profession and became a socialist activist."
Of course, that was half a century ago. The practice of psychiatry and clinical psychology today really doesn't much resemble its pracice in the '40s and '50s. - Which isn't to say that it is now bereft of problems. Hardly! But Reich and others have had an enormous impact, and the field is no longer the one he left.
"Crowley hated psychiatrists."
Overstated, substantially inaccurate, and - so far as it is accurate - refers only to psychiatrists of 1947 or earlier. It isn't the same field anymore, by far.
"but thats not a good point to use in an argument"
"(4) Furthermore neurotics falsely see themselves as different and outside of society"
Not all neurotics. In fact, with some neuroses, failing to see the extent that one is different and outside of society is part of the neurosis.
"(5) if you are neurotic and you Thelemically pass through the Abyss then you become a Black Brother i.e. a self-agrandizing crank."
There are some technical errors in that sentence.
First, I'm not sure how one could "Thelemically" pass through [I assume you mean "cross"] the Abyss, or how it would be different from, say, "Christianly" passing through the Abyss etc. The Abyss isn't doctrinal.
Second, no, one doesn't become a Black Brother if one crosses the Abyss. One is unveiled as a Black Brother for failure to cross the Abyss. The ego is held more tightly and more valued than the surrender.
Third, the neuroses don't continue past the Abyss any more than any other personality component, though they generally will continue to have automomous existence in the Q'lippah the Master leaves behind.
What I think you meant to say (or, at least, what would have been technically accurate) is that a neurotic Adept whose neuroses prevent him or her (at the appropriate, ripened time) from releasing the ego constraints that permit crossing the Abyss, will be disclosed as a Black Brother, who is a self-agrandizing crank. (Or something like that.)
"who "stamps down on the wretched and the weak(i.e. the neurotic and egotistical"? ) is it the neurotic ruffian doing the stamping? the healthy bully?"
Anybody working on themselves. This "stamping" is what we do within ourselves, not to others.
"can a bully be a healer?"
Sure. It's happened a lot. Fritz Pearls was one of the biggest bullies and most brilliant healers of modern times.
On the other hand, one isn't required to be a bully in order to be a healer; and I see your point that it isn't what one normally would expect.
"Apparently a psychiatrist can recognise a neurotic by the latter's lack of interest in competitive sport"
-
@gerry456 said
"Wouldnt you find it a bit odd if Wil Reich had Al Capone around for tea every weekend? wtf?"
Well, no, not really. Capone definitely needed what Reich had to contribute. "Preching in taverns" is a time-honored route of evangelism. (Additionally, Capone had money, which Reich needed. Additionally, Reich himself became a convicted felon, as much a "gangster" as anyone else in some people's minds. Judgements can be tricky.)
"Then again i suspect your asking me to open my mind a bit as to the motives of Israel in befriending this guy who some author categorised as a "gangster". To be fair I dont know the specific details about Israel's friend or whether he liked/approved of the guy or not. My source is a book about Israel released during late 80.s or early 90.s.the final chapter is an account of Regardie's LRBP performance whilst the author sat glued to his seat."
I thought I knew who you meant before, since there is someone he was connected to in the last years of his life that probably fit your description.
But now I see that I haven't the slightest idea who you mean (nor where the story came from nor whether it has any credibility).
Having known Francis personally for many years, I would give him the benefit of the doubt on the matter, pending clear information to the contrary.
"Anyway my initial point (and admittedly it seemed to be a snipey anti-Regardie comment) was think for yourself (about mysticism and how it realtes to neuroses) and dont let wonderful gurus like Regardie think for you."
You really have no respect for established experts as a source of information, eh? Nor for trusting people educated in a matter above people with idle, casual, barely informed, emotional opinions about it?
-
[But now I see that I haven't the slightest idea who you mean (nor where the story came from nor whether it has any credibility).
a book about Regardie which i read released early 90.s or late 80.s. The author who wrote the book hung out with Regardie in his latter years. The book contains the M.P. Exercise, it documents Regardie's life,i cant remember the title, it was probably on the Wilson Leary publsihing company."Cosmic Trigger" etc the author was probably in his 20.s in the psychedelic 60.s....the thing i recall most about it is in the final or penultimate chapter Israel performed the LRBP and the author was very impressed after being initially skeptical. Surely someone must remember or posses this book.
-
i have been doing a search on google but have yet to find the title/author
-
[You really have no respect for established experts as a source of information, eh?
well i am an Honours Graduate so i must have some sort of respect for established academic experts. My degree took 4 years to complete and consisted of a lot of research,exam revision,collation of various sources from academic experts ,sitting exams and writing projects ,eh?.
============
Nor for trusting people educated in a matter above people with idle, casual, barely informed, emotional opinions about it?"
========
I take it by" idle, casual, barely informed, emotional opinions "your referring to the author of the text i speak of. I know nothing about him. -
Neurosis: Adaptation to the awareness (conscious or unconscious) of the disparity between reality and one's ideal perception of reality.
Psychosis: The repeated and obstinate attempt to carry out one's faulty interpretation of reality.
But then I've only studied Psychology academically at major university (3.9+gpa) and feel all DSM classifications are faulty. It's simply too difficult to resist commenting given the rather unscientific approach on this thread so far.
Here's my own opinions:
Freud was in love with his sister. Jung was fearful of being labelled a wizard, but created his own magickal order that exists to this day. Adler merely provided justification for the exploitation of others. These three giants rarely 'cured' anyone. Skinner helped create zombies and raised awareness of such a scary set of procedures. Maslow made people feel better about their mediocrity. Perls was an effective bully but got results. Riech couldn't transcend his predjudice as to the origins of his own theories and hence never protected himself. Regardie took everything for what is was worth, dropped it if it didn't work, and understood the placebo concept. Hyatt was in it for the money.
All of this is to some degree false and yet not that far off either.
Ok, this limb's gonna break if I stay out here much longer!
Y.S.
-
One of the truly splendid things about DSM definitions is that all (or, at least, nearly all) such pathology is defined in terms of social or occupational dysfunction. That is, it is diagnosable as a problem if it doesn't cause a problem in your ability to function in the world in terms of relationships or the ability to function in your chosen work.
I've long held to the aphorism that "a problem isn't a problem unless it's a problem," and its corollary, "any time a problem is a problem, it's a problem." In this regard, the DSM definitions couldn't be more dead on the head!
-
Quickly: I have noticed some differences between various paths, including G:.D.: styled reformer or offshoot groups. The most unique seems to be B.O.T.A. in that the outer order performs basically no ritual for quite a while (perhaps never?) due (apparently) to the fact that there is no personal supervision. (Edit: Jim rightly corrected me on this; I am speaking of Associate Builders, NOT the Outer Order).
The reason for this, I have been told, is that the influx of LVX tends to magnify whatever is there already in the personality, whether good or bad. This seems to make sense based on my experience with the material so far. There is a slow building of a psychological foundation for each major revelation of occult wisdom.
Regardie, in contrast, says this influx will do all sorts of good in "The Art of True Healing." I believe he does mention psychotherapy as a recommended preliminary, perhaps even necessary (I can't remember), but the basic message I got was: "do the middle pillar. It will fix you right up!" Surprisingly, the first time I did the MPR, I felt weird. Actually, I felt quite weird for quite a while. Like I had drank way too much coffee. Still, I persisted for months until it went away or I got used to it. In that time, I overcame quite a few personality quirks that I noticed and focused on. Currently, I am on-off with ritual; I feel good not doing it, but I'll give it a shot if I feel "off."
My guess, at this point, is that one should take a look at himself honestly and ask himself if he wants his traits magnified. If not, maybe put off ritual work and try some in-depth self-analysis. There are quite a few self-help occult-oriented books out there that could help with this. I have read some goofy pop psychology that helped.
The quickest way I know of to feel better is to shine light in the dark spots. Sense and feel around your body until you find a spot that doesn't feel right. Try to identify the feeling and ask why you feel bad. Unrelenting self-honesty, in my experience, dissolves the feeling within minutes. It might go something like this: "I feel bad. It's a guilt sensation. I feel guilty because I behaved badly. I behaved badly because I was confused and felt threatened. I was confused because this experience surprised me. It surprised me because I had thought of myself differently. This experience forced me to realize I was not how I imagined myself, which is why I reacted defensively/offensively. Etc." The feelings quickly melt away. If unconfronted, however, these feelings turn into rigid muscular armor. This is what gives you a hunched back and furrowed brow, along with, I believe, a host of physical ailments. For more on this mind-body connection to muscular armoring, I recommend Christopher Hyatt's "Undoing Yourself With Energized Meditation and Other Devices," purely for the three exercises. He was a student of Regardie's.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I have noticed some differences between various paths, including G:.D.: styled reformer or offshoot groups. The most unique seems to be B.O.T.A. in that the outer order performs basically no ritual for quite a while (perhaps never?) due (apparently) to the fact that there is no personal supervision."
I take it that, by "Outer Order," you don't mean the First Order of Chapter initiates - correct? - but that you mean non-initiates (Associate members and Pronaos "steppers"), yes?
Because what you write isn't correct for First Order initiates in B.O.T.A.
"The reason for this, I have been told, is that the influx of LVX tends to magnify whatever is there already in the personality, whether good or bad."
Exactly. The light ignites whatever patterns are present.
"Regardie, in contrast, says this influx will do all sorts of good in "The Art of True Healing." I believe he does mention psychotherapy as a recommended preliminary, perhaps even necessary (I can't remember), but the basic message I got was: "do the middle pillar. It will fix you right up!""
I don't see a contrast here, though. Perhaps a difference in emphasis, but the essential message is the same, I think.
Case and Regardie both had extreme confidence in the beauty of L.V.X. Both also recognized that shit will get stirred by it as well. Both felt that only the psychologically healthy should set foot on those portions of the path that actively accelerate evolution with formal steps. Regardie's solution for this (which I think is generally the best solution) is to get a sound grounding in personal psychotherapy first.
"My guess, at this point, is that one should take a look at himself honestly and ask himself if he wants his traits magnified."
LOL, yes!
-
Guys,
If you don't mind me saying so, the last three posts were much more constructive.
Here I am realizing that I had posted yesterday while on painkillers (love'em/hate'em) 'cuz I threw my back out really hard. Why? Past injuries and neurotic stress no less. lololololol
Self knowledge is not a tasty ingredient for a banana split, let me tell ya!
Well it's gettin' towards noon and the bell tower is really tall...
Y.S.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Having known Francis personally for many years, I would give him the benefit of the doubt on the matter, pending clear information to the contrary.
"Did he ever mention why he never embraced Thelema, OTO, etc even after being so close to Crowley as his secretary? Did Regardie ever get initiated into A.'.A.'.?
-
@DavidH said
"Did he ever mention why he never embraced Thelema, OTO, etc even after being so close to Crowley as his secretary? Did Regardie ever get initiated into A.'.A.'.?"
I thought he did embrace it. He writes a great introduction to the old edition of The Law is for All. He also makes positive references to Thelema and uses quotes from Liber L in The Middle Pillar that you wouldn't pick up on unless you already knew something about Thelema.
-
Well, I could be wrong, I just read a bio of him on the internet and that's what it said.
Here is what I read:
"Despite his association with, and admiration for, Aleister Crowley, Regardie never considered himself a Thelemite. It is telling that he joined an offshoot of the Golden Dawn in 1933, over thirty years after Crowley himself terminated his association with the G.D. In fact, Crowley was actively involved with the Ordo Templi Orientis during the 1920s and later, yet it appears that Regardie either had no interest, or Crowley did not invite him to participate therein."Because I don't trust all sources on the internet I wanted to ask the question to Jim since he knew the man personally.