|
|
Post by yehezkel on Mar 23, 2009 4:00:16 GMT -8
There are discussions going on elsewhere that make me have the following thoughts:
There needs to be a forum and resource center for Thelemic psychological professionals. My idea for it so far would be called "Thelemic Hospitallers" after the templars whose job it was to give aid to those making the Pilgrimage.
This forum would be unique in that psychological professionals would need to take a very specific ethical approach to how they apply the philosophy of Thelema to the actual practice of various schools of psychological thought. In my opinion, the work of Erwin Hessle exists as a perfect example of the "empirical" stance required by any true attempt at expressing the psychological aspects of Thelema in terms of scientific investigation - the language of the field itself. I mean, not everyone agrees with his justification of his viewpoint, but I don't think anyone can refute the genius of his "Word" to the psychological realm. For any psychological scholar or professional to apply the principles of Thelema to their theorization and practice and research, they would have to take the "practical" stance of Hessle, if only to communicate these ideas with legitimacy to their peers in the psychological realm.
In other words, psychological professionals MUST approach the topic from his directionv ANYWAY. They are required to by the ethical and empirical standards of their Work. This is true even for those who disagree with his justification of his position. He could (and should in my opinion) be considered at least one of several important psychological perspectives made available to Thelemic psych professionals. On the resource site that I suggest, those interested could get together and discuss everything from practical techniques applicable to therapy to philosophical applications to schools of thought like Existential psychology, or REBT, or all of it really.... But just by the nature of the professionals and their Work of application, it must be at least admitted that a certain Hessle-like approach would be necessary.
So, I have a domain, "ThelemicHospitallers.com," for anyone who is interested. I'm sure other thelemites demonstrating interest could spur this into coming together sooner. Help with shaping the philosophy of the forum would be greatly appreciated... As well as names of other Thelemites who have worked to examine Thelema from more purely psychological perspectives... Or those who have limited the full expression of their beliefs in order to meet the criteria of their profession and Work...
Any takers? Any thoughts? Any practical suggestions? I know he is a controversial character, but as a student of counseling myself, I see such value specifically in the limitations of his approach. It must be admitted also that I have probably neglected the work of other names who are less controversial and in the public eye at the moment. Let this be taken as "brainstorming ideas" as Thelema attempts to organize a conversation with psychological health professionals and research scientists. I'm open to the thoughts of others on this...
peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victus on Mar 23, 2009 8:59:11 GMT -8
There are discussions going on elsewhere that make me have the following thoughts: There needs to be a forum and resource center for Thelemic psychological professionals. My idea for it so far would be called "Thelemic Hospitallers" after the templars whose job it was to give aid to those making the Pilgrimage. Exactly what kind of 'resources' would be available to them? Why 'Thelemic' and not just normal professionals? Is this just a collection of Thelemic professionals? If so, there is already the Psychology Guild of the OTO with their Neschamah journal. What kind of ethics would that be? Im not sure that Erwin writes much about the psychology of Thelema... He talks about faeries and demons not existing but Im not sure he really goes to the other side and explains it all as part of psychology (unelss you think that is the default if you dotn believe in objective angels and demons and 'goblins' as is said often) What Word did he give exactly? I honestly have no clue what the 'stance of Hessle' is beyond the same as nearly everyone else: empirical claims require empirical proof and making wild guesses at things isnt accepted. This isnt new. This is how science, and especially psychology works. To stray from this would be a divergence not something normal where being 'empirical' is the exception. What stance? That you cant make claims withotu backing them up? Im not sure I even understand your point. It seems you just seem to like the idea of empiricism which SCIENCE is ruled by. Why not study science? Why not read the 'Psychological Commetnary on Liber AL vel Legis' by IAO131 that talks about the psychology of Thelema? This is true even for those who disagree with his justification of his position. He could (and should in my opinion) be considered at least one of several important psychological perspectives made available to Thelemic psych professionals. On the resource site that I suggest, those interested could get together and discuss everything from practical techniques applicable to therapy to philosophical applications to schools of thought like Existential psychology, or REBT, or all of it really.... But just by the nature of the professionals and their Work of application, it must be at least admitted that a certain Hessle-like approach would be necessary.][/ |
|
|
|
Post by yehezkel on Mar 23, 2009 12:29:36 GMT -8
Well... a hot point, I see.
You'll have to forgive me. I can be a bit of an exciteable newbie at times. I was not aware of the Neschamah Journal, which makes me feel more than a little embarassed. IAO131's writings are top notch in my book and have informed me greatly. Perhaps I have confused Hessle's perspective with IAO131's writings and am barking in the wrong direction. Each might be insulted by the association. I don't know... But in my mind, they are similar approaches to Thelemic practice and investigation in that they are both rigidly intellectual and evidence-oriented.
What can I say? You live and you learn.
I'm merely looking for an avenue of service and have attempted to defend a perspective on Thelema that I see as valuable because of its rigid stance against charlatanism and superstition. In a world where the loudest and most controversial representatives of a perspective get the most notice, perhaps I have made the mistake of not giving credit where it is most aptly due.
Let me rephrase... I wish that I could be a part of that dialogue. I wish that I was intelligent enough to participate fully. At most, I am a student who might best serve as the host of an online resource library including the works of both Thelemites as well as the relevant works of past and present masters of the psychological science. Perhaps hosting a forum created to facilitate this kind of discussion could be an act of service of mine.
As it is, the knowledge that there is already an entire journal, implying also a community of writers for that journal, disheartens me, as it probably means someone else is already performing the service that it would be my joy to perform.
Brother, you are trouble-shooting my ideas with a very pointy spear. I did ask for comments, remember? I did that precisely because there is SO much I don't know. I thought I saw a need and an opportunity for joyful service. Perhaps there is neither need nor opportunity.
You criticisms are very clear, practical, and appreciated. Perhaps take a more informed and constructive run at the idea now that my ignorance is revealed?
|
|
|
|
Post by yehezkel on Mar 23, 2009 12:46:45 GMT -8
I have a better answer... Because he was the loudest, fiercest expression of the atheist's perspective I saw, and he was fighting his heart out. That alone seemed worthy. But I also realize he's made more than a little bit of an ass out of himself in his attempt to be heard and to have his perspective recognized. What can I say? I can relate. I don't know enough of the history to have a more complicated view than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victus on Mar 25, 2009 16:34:47 GMT -8
Well... a hot point, I see. You'll have to forgive me. I can be a bit of an exciteable newbie at times. I was not aware of the Neschamah Journal, which makes me feel more than a little embarassed. IAO131's writings are top notch in my book and have informed me greatly. Perhaps I have confused Hessle's perspective with IAO131's writings and am barking in the wrong direction. Each might be insulted by the association. I don't know... But in my mind, they are similar approaches to Thelemic practice and investigation in that they are both rigidly intellectual and evidence-oriented. What can I say? You live and you learn. I'm merely looking for an avenue of service and have attempted to defend a perspective on Thelema that I see as valuable because of its rigid stance against charlatanism and superstition. In a world where the loudest and most controversial representatives of a perspective get the most notice, perhaps I have made the mistake of not giving credit where it is most aptly due. Let me rephrase... I wish that I could be a part of that dialogue. I wish that I was intelligent enough to participate fully. At most, I am a student who might best serve as the host of an online resource library including the works of both Thelemites as well as the relevant works of past and present masters of the psychological science. Perhaps hosting a forum created to facilitate this kind of discussion could be an act of service of mine. As it is, the knowledge that there is already an entire journal, implying also a community of writers for that journal, disheartens me, as it probably means someone else is already performing the service that it would be my joy to perform. Brother, you are trouble-shooting my ideas with a very pointy spear. I did ask for comments, remember? I did that precisely because there is SO much I don't know. I thought I saw a need and an opportunity for joyful service. Perhaps there is neither need nor opportunity. You criticisms are very clear, practical, and appreciated. Perhaps take a more informed and constructive run at the idea now that my ignorance is revealed? 93, LOL I get you. It is good to see an empirical approach. The Army of RHK is against superstition of all kinds - in cluding 'Thelemic' superstition. Hopefully you read the last Journal of Thelemic Studies issue where Los writes about 'Thelemic Atheism.' Very good essay imo. Perhaps we can form alliances with various atheist groups on certain topics/issues... Any ideas? -V. |
|
|
|
Post by yehezkel on Mar 25, 2009 20:57:01 GMT -8
Well, it was expanding in my mind.. I don't know how practical this version might be either. But... I was thinking of expanding it to "Temple Hospitallers" and open the site as more of a resource to psychological researchers, professionals, pastoral counselor types from any "true temple." The impulse would be to expand awareness and increase discussions of psychological interpretations of ritual, mystical, and magical experiences. The idea would not be to belittle or lessen the experiences, but instead to more fully understand and perhaps even articulate new ways to communicate about mystical/magical experience in as much of the language of psychology and empirical research as possible. Even if it was just a place for the psychology-oriented types from various occult and initiatory groups to make connections and conversation, it might become a rather interesting colloquium. Resources and articles from members would be made available to the fraters and sorors from other traditions, but with the same leanings regarding how they fit in to Life.
More like trying to connect members of an already existing school of thought within the fraternal order systems. Like I said, I'm not sure how practical that ideal is, but I like the idea of it, for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by yehezkel on Mar 26, 2009 8:16:42 GMT -8
"Diversity in Expression - Unity in Science" - that kind of feel.... Like a voluntary college of those who are attempting to approach the mystic art through the perspective and terminology of psychology and empiricism.... In the same spirit that Jung took as he approached these things. That's not to say that members don't also have other, more experiential/artistic ways of comprehending and expressing these ideas as well.
But what words do we use to communicate to fellow psychologists and scientists? How do we define and judge the benefits of the practice? What are some common pitfalls and how do we best handle them from a "pastoral counseling" or therapeutic perspective? Could we generate material that would be beneficial to all true temples? What implications for psycho-analysis would ancient qabalistic texts have if translated into "our" language? What implications for dealing with mental disorders? Would analyzing this ancient expression of their knowledge lead to new hypotheses? New attempts at operational definitions?
Not sure how many people would be interested, but I would be, you know? So, it may just be worth a little effort to see...
|
|
|
|
Post by sororamnis on Mar 31, 2009 17:19:34 GMT -8
I am a psychologist by degree and I can say that TGW is exceptional in efforts to facilitate healing and growth in others so long as one has already applied it to themselves. Others don't know what it is or where it came from necessarily, it has integrated beautifully with all forms of my attempted counseling. The catch is understanding the client. I have determined that to reach another, I must first find a way to reach them on their level of understanding regardless of the technique or any efforts will be futile. Once the level of understanding is determined using the work seems to flow naturally with psychological systems. I see no need to single it out or explain it to anyone as The Work itself is created to integrate with any spiritual or psychological technique.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding this thread?
Wishing Well Upon Your Will.
|
|
