Vision of the HGA vs. KCHGA
-
That book he mentioned, btw, is one of my favorite books on personality theory. It dates from around 1950 and is IIRC based on research he did through the Kaiser Foundation. I had a hand in keeping it in print through seeing it would stay part of certain academic programs back in the late '70s or very early '80s.
Tim could come across as very detached, removed. He was actually a deeply loving person (well, with a quirky temper to match his quirky sense of humor). He had the capacity to be deeply moved, but tended to keep himself pretty protected (maybe just 'celebrity shieldind' or a sort - but it always felt to me that he felt things more strongly than most people, was automatically picking up on several psychic levels, and that this made contact with people fairly intense for him - perhaps especially non-intimates, but certainly even small clusters of people he didn't really know).
-
From his horoscope, he was probably always on the high-strung edge (and, even late in life, he could release that as very dynamic energy and charisma that wouldn't quit - I have a funny story to tell sometime about a champagne bottle). But I'm pretty sure his extensive LSD (etc.) use stripped away a lot of natural protection. He didn't outwardly (that I ever saw) indulge in the sort of "not connecting & don't see me!" behavior most people use routinely. Some of his chemical use may actually have left his nervous system a little raw (though, again, I think that predisposition or actuality was there all his life - Aquarius Moon closely conjunct Uranus).
I think he had just blown most of the blinders off a long time before, and therefore was responding (with awareness) to far more than most people consciously detect.
Most people are more likely to associate that kind of sensitivith with Alpert, rather than Leary; but seeing the two of them fall into a hug with each other (after a long time of not seeing each other) was incredibly beautiful. They were both "all in" with each other, seems to me.
-
Dar and Frater INRI, I wouldn't go so far as to say "Emotions are all based on fear." I wouldn't say that it was too far from the mark, but to relate them all to "fear" might give us permission to discredit our emotional body (which does serve several purposes). I would say "emotions are signs of dis-ease or imbalance," but not necessarily fear. Of course, I guess you could argue that a "lack of fear" or a resulting "realizing I had no need to fear" (aka happy thoughts) is "based on fear," but I think that's a stretch.
I like Crowley's concept that consciousness is a sign of "dis-ease," that we aren't exactly conscious of ourselves (or something) until it creates a disturbance. Lack of ease is not exactly equal to fear.
Just sayin'
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"Timothy Leary - yes. He was a psychiatrist and I read an important paper by him when I was younger... 'The Politics of Ecstasy':"
Most of the stuff this guy wrote is pure bullsh*t to me.
@Dar es Allarah said
"I think he was going a bit black and white with his argument there actually. I recall the rest being better quality when he get's over the tirade. It sounds as if he's against emotions but I think all he's saying is that they aren't the be all and end all. One of the reasons why I like Mozart is his emotional passion is mixed perfectly with his love and his genius - fuelling it and thrusting the animal forth to make from it a God...
The emotions can be any which way but they need to chime and synchronise with the rest. With Mozart - he shows us how."
In my life, emotions (anger, sadness etc...) are fueled by unfulfilled needs, that's all. Nothing wrong or right about them.
-
@Takamba said
"Dar and Frater INRI, I wouldn't go so far as to say "Emotions are all based on fear." "
I did not side with the guy who wrote that "Emotions are all based on fear."
That's pure nonsense, IMO.@Takamba said
"I wouldn't say that it was too far from the mark, but to relate them all to "fear" might give us permission to discredit our emotional body (which does serve several purposes). I would say "emotions are signs of dis-ease or imbalance," but not necessarily fear. Of course, I guess you could argue that a "lack of fear" or a resulting "realizing I had no need to fear" (aka happy thoughts) is "based on fear," but I think that's a stretch.
"I agree.
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"
I really got off on it in my 20's. It was raw and exactly what I needed at the time. Sometimes it's a much as how people say things as what they say that gives you the rocket fuel. Crowley was good at that too.
"I see.
-
@Frater INRI said
"In my life, emotions (anger, sadness etc...) are fueled by unfulfilled needs, that's all."
Really, all of them? What about love, joy, wonder?
@Frater INRI said
"Nothing wrong or right about them."
Doesn't that depend on what you mean with right or wrong? As was said above, emotions are communication channels which interlink certain parts of one's psychoastralsomatic organism with each other - wouldn't it make more sense to bolster those communications instead of viewing them as something inherently needy, incomplete, and, looking at your choice of examples, negative?
-
@Simon Iff said
"
Really, all of them? What about love, joy, wonder?
"Emotion is astral energy, and astral love and joy and wonder will eventually dry out or turn into its opposite, IMO.
Deeper reality, a transpersoanl one, will never dry out, it will expand.
@Simon Iff said
"
Doesn't that depend on what you mean with right or wrong? As was said above, emotions are communication channels which interlink certain parts of one's psychoastralsomatic organism with each other - wouldn't it make more sense to bolster those communications instead of viewing them as something inherently needy, incomplete, and, looking at your choice of examples, negative?"Indeed.
-
@Frater INRI said
"Emotion is astral energy, and astral love and joy and wonder will eventually dry out or turn into its opposite, IMO.
Deeper reality, a transpersonal one, will never dry out, it will expand."
I agree, and you did agree to my second assumption, but I would also claim that one nearly always needs to be based and grounded on the other here. Metaphorically said, the human on the beast, the god on the human, and even later all three intergrated into one great beast.
Integrated as such, if and when the abovementioned three are rigged into the transpersonal, they need not dry out or turn around, but can also continue evolving and thereby expanding.
One thing I have come to see as a big hurdle on any path of evolution is the idea that once a certain level - however this is formulated - has been reached, this often produces the idea that all lower levels have now somehow become unnescessary or at least uninteresting. But human (and probably transhuman) nature is better modelled as a pyramid than a tower - in my opinion. The higher the top is, the broader one has to make the basis and the middle echelons.
Or at least this is how I see it.
-
Emotions are one of the most powerful central mechanisms of the physche. they are out 'flight or fight' response, with out which we would never have come down out of the trees. Emotions is what riases children, communicates with other, makes us social animals- it is all about emotions.
You can always tell how mature somebody is by looking at their emotional intelligence. Emotions are all. Every read Danial Golemans Book 'Emotional intelligence'? It virtually changed the way i thought of the human psycho-sexual- emotional- spiritual system. His work also changed the way many neurologists around the work thought, as well as physiologists.
All emotional energy emanates form the reptilian brain- and it is our task to filter it, to control it through the Neo cortex. this is the great challange of personal growth. Emotions are used in ritual, evokation and magick in general. Every body here knows what happens if you are in a bad frame of mind in a ritual.
Oh and go Leary GO. what a fantastic aid to clairvoyance, just the best. If you can find it, then go mushrooms and last but not least ' Acorus Graminous'.
-
Something that I believe that is important to observe is that most reactive emotions are no more than reactions to psychological events as if they where physical events.
For example, when someone offends you, your mind (and your body) reacts as if it had the power to physically injure you. The activation of “fight or flight” mechanism is this situation shows how misplaced the reaction can be.
In other words, the Nephesh reacts to events on the realm of Ruach as if they were his concern. Maybe we can say that this is a natural “confusion of planes”.
-
@Faus said
"Something that I believe that is important to observe is that most reactive emotions are no more than reactions to psychological events as if they where physical events."
Yes!
-
@Simon Iff said
"
One thing I have come to see as a big hurdle on any path of evolution is the idea that once a certain level - however this is formulated - has been reached, this often produces the idea that all lower levels have now somehow become unnescessary or at least uninteresting. But human (and probably transhuman) nature is better modelled as a pyramid than a tower - in my opinion. The higher the top is, the broader one has to make the basis and the middle echelons.Or at least this is how I see it."
Well said, IMO.
As far as astral emotions are concerned, as far as I can see now, they are here, where else. Nowhere else to go.
But...deeper reality is so much more...ummm...sweet? that astral dimension fades away in shame.
Nothing wrong with that, though. -
@Faus said
"Something that I believe that is important to observe is that most reactive emotions are no more than reactions to psychological events as if they where physical events.
For example, when someone offends you, your mind (and your body) reacts as if it had the power to physically injure you. The activation of “fight or flight” mechanism is this situation shows how misplaced the reaction can be.
In other words, the Nephesh reacts to events on the realm of Ruach as if they were his concern. Maybe we can say that this is a natural “confusion of planes”."
Very well put, Faust.
Even modern science, namely cognitive neurobiology and neuropsychology affirms that "life" is happening between the ears, not out there.
-
Good thinking 99-- isn't that the basics of magick.
The initiate feels there is an 'outside ' world, while hte adept knows it all comes from within.
q
-
@Faus said
"For example, when someone offends you, your mind (and your body) reacts as if it had the power to physically injure you. The activation of “fight or flight” mechanism is this situation shows how misplaced the reaction can be. "
I feel it is important to note that there is a physical effect.
That is, your body AND mind reacting in particular ways to particular stimuli.
While these reactions should not be allowed to control you, it is a grave error (in my opinion) to brush them aside.A person making an offensive remark may not cause you direct physical harm, but you should not ignore the flight mechanism if 93% of the time someone makes an offensive remark they follow it up with a punch to your nose.
Obviously, there would be circumstances where the mechanisms should be ignored.
Learning to feel and accept our emotions is an important aspect on the path of return.
Thereby allowing us to know when the source of a feeling is an emotion arising re-actively to stimuli or the urgings of something within. -
@Uni_Verse said
"Obviously, there would be circumstances where the mechanisms should be ignored.
Learning to feel and accept our emotions is an important aspect on the path of return."A better example would be a bad day in the office with your boss screaming at you, your adrenaline will be high all day long. Most of what we call stress (and the bad effects it has on health) seems to be caused by this. Still there are other emotions I did not took the time to think or read about.
As far as my understanding goes, it is not about denying them (an emotional reaction against an emotional reaction) but dismantling them through a process of analysis. This is only possible if we are mindful of them.
EDIT: I think it is like diffusing a bomb, you separate the trigger from the power source.
-
"Obviously, there would be circumstances where the mechanisms should be ignored"
In practice, I find that ignoring the mechanisms creates resistance and acknowledging an emotional response as merely an emotional response and nothing more tends to create more harmony and presences the right relationship between Ruach and Nephesh IMO.
An example would be getting emotionally triggered by a break-up with a lover. The emotions kick in, the body responds, a thought arises "I am heartbroken". The Ruach, observes the experience and acknowledges what is happening "They said x and now I am having thoughts, feelings and body sensations that accompany the experience called 'sadness'. We are not heartbroken. We are safe."
-
@Al-Shariyf said
"
"Obviously, there would be circumstances where the mechanisms should be ignored"In practice, I find that ignoring the mechanisms creates resistance and acknowledging an emotional response as merely an emotional response and nothing more tends to create more harmony and presences the right relationship between Ruach and Nephesh IMO.
An example would be getting emotionally triggered by a break-up with a lover. The emotions kick in, the body responds, a thought arises "I am heartbroken". The Ruach, observes the experience and acknowledges what is happening "They said x and now I am having thoughts, feelings and body sensations that accompany the experience called 'sadness'. We are not heartbroken. We are safe.""
Who's we?
-
"Al-Shariyf wrote:
Obviously, there would be circumstances where the mechanisms should be ignoredIn practice, I find that ignoring the mechanisms creates resistance and acknowledging an emotional response as merely an emotional response and nothing more tends to create more harmony and presences the right relationship between Ruach and Nephesh IMO.
An example would be getting emotionally triggered by a break-up with a lover. The emotions kick in, the body responds, a thought arises "I am heartbroken". The Ruach, observes the experience and acknowledges what is happening "They said x and now I am having thoughts, feelings and body sensations that accompany the experience called 'sadness'. We are not heartbroken. We are safe."
Who's we?"
I apologize for not being clear in my example.
When I said "We" I meant the Ruach and the Nephesh. In my example the Ruach was engaging in a conversation with the Nephesh. It was supposed to illustrate the process analysis being applied to an emotional reaction.