50020108 VI om
Lloyd Keane <nuhad418@...
> As I stated I am not an appologist of Jung. My hope is to push the addiction
> within analitical psychology to the "Self" to a more inclusive (post abyss)
> form of consciousness. The same thing has been used in Lama Govinda's
> concept of Multi-dimentional consciousness and other more philosophical cirles.
thanks for the heads-up on your activities.
> My problem is with author's like Noll not citing Jung correctly. I have read
> Noll, I have read "Cult fictions" I have read most of the collected works of
> Jung. Who cares?
what was Noll's citation problem? will you be able to assess this
when you haven't got his book? I suppose not.
> Occultist tend to (mis) use Jung to give credence to their claims. I am
> working the other direction.
again, thanks, I'll watch to see what this means.
> In Jung's later work he began to see that the esoteric approaches were
> beyond mental addiction to lables. Occultists (Thelemites included)
> foget (in my oppinion) that the demons and angles and elementals and
> what ever else can be conjoured, are part of our psyche. They may
> exist objectively, I can't make that call, but our PERCEPTION of them
> or the so-called archetypes come through our brain which is int turn
> conditioned by a plethora of factors.
this is the contention of ceremonialists like Poke Runyon, whose texts
pertaining to grimoires like "The Lemegeton" (The Lesser Key of Solomon)
indicate that he believes them to be mystical manuals rather than some
kind of handbook to obtain fame, power and riches through the control of
'demons' (evil spirits). it is not foreign to me, and in fact I supposed
the same thing going into a study of ceremonialism and demonology, though
like you I am hard-pressed to rule out some kind of 'objective existence'
beyond our minds.
all that said, 'archetypes' are usually portrayed by ceremonialists and
Neopagans in my experience as "universal" (and by this they mean both
common to all human experience *and* transpersonally extant beyond the
human biology and psychology). this was the level of 'evidence' which
Jung sought to indicate he'd obtained in the Solar-Phallic Man incident,
if memory serves, and that he faked this is important to all other kinds
of transpersonal claims he may have made as well as the confidence that
those who wish to use his theories may reliably lend to them.
> You want to trash Jung, I will join your wagon, just don't use Noll
> as your proof.
you haven't explained why we shouldn't yet, especially surrounding the
Solar-Phallic Man incident. sure, we could ignore him because he was
promoting race-based theories at some point, but my point wasn't about
his bad politics, but about his *bad science*, which should concern all
proponents of "Scientific Illuminism" and those who want to shift the
field of psychology out of the "soft" categorization, utilizing it for
the purposes of mysticism.
> As a themlemite (?)
I'll presume you're writing directly to me and wondering whether I'm
a Thelemite. you can use your best judgement on that one. I am not a
Crowleyite, if that makes any difference to you. I don't typically
find a lot of value in Spermognostic hyperbole and the overemphasis of
masculine and solar symbolism in association with adepthood, should we
be bringing the fabled 'Secrets' of King's and Naylor's text into the
discussion. I don't use the term 'Thelemite' as a self-descriptor, but
do find it valuable to bequeath it upon those whose will I admire.
> I would assume a solar phallic man god would be quite suited to your
> world-view, I know it is for mine.
totally Old Aeon (Horusian), d00d!
> No I won't cite anything, not because I can't but because this type
> of conversation/debate needs a nice pipe (with whatever in it) and
> much scotch, neither of which work well over the internet.
ah, the Grady McMurtry school? Blessed Beast!
> If this is not enough to challange your points...I'm not going to
> lose sleep over it, sorry.
that's ok, thanks for making your position and interests plain.
> But I would enjoy your input (and anyone elses on the list) on some
> criticisms I have with Jung which I will develope during tje duration
> of my thesis developement
as it relates to the subject of Thelema, I'm sure it will be on-topic
and I welcome your pioneering efforts.