Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Nefastos »

Boreas wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:42 pm
Nefastos wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:18 am In this way depth psychology really is very "Satanic", as obnoxion said that the Traditionalists believe, for exactly this is one of the greatest blessings that master Satan helps us with: the journey into our own underworld, to correct (by realization) things done in the past. If that Satanic journey is not made, one remains an outsider to himself.

From the critic of psychoanalysis in the traditionalist milieu I have understood that they do not mean this "journey into our own underworld" which is the traditional "descent into hell" but the subverted character of PA in that it does not recognize any sovereign principle in man - which could be termed the super-consciousness - and instead extinguishes the sovereign principle by referring one-sidedly into the sub-consciousness and into the lustprinzip and todesprinzip that are especially in Freud seen as real sources of the being of man. This is what could be termed esoterically as the dissolution of being "in the gloomy shades of Hades".
Boreas wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:53 pm Continuing the slight off-topic: So the traditionalist critique of psychoanalysis states that it is a subversion and inversion of the proper esoteric process, because after the descent there is no re-ascent, because in materialist terms there is simply nothing to ascend to. The equivalent in the neo-spiritualist milieu is a "pantheistic" dissolution of the individual in cosmic consciousness. What about the "spiritualized" theories of Jung then? Well, he is simply accused of mistaking the psychic with the spiritual, and alchemy isn't just a pre-modern symbol of the individuation process.

As one who respects Jung very much, this doesn't do justice to the whole of his corpus as much as the critic stands in itself.


I cannot agree with this critic. I have read a hefty load of Jung, even though not nearly all, and I would not say either that he "mistakes psychic with spiritual" or that he would build on Freud's "lustprinzip and todesprinzip".

Jung's language is quite modern & scientific, but not his ultimate thought, which seeks balance. I think in this Jung's focusing on the center (equilibrium between the superconscious & subconscious) is the problem's root for the interpretation you mentioned. This, however, is a goal that the Star of Azazel philosophy shares: the Work that is done ultimately for the spirit ("God", and the highest being in each of us, with the help of the inner master) is done seemingly for the world, for the other people, and for individual illumination that is Luciferian. Its seeming focus is therefore in this middle-earth of soul reality, and not in spirit. When spirit is taken into the world without first purificating it by making it individual & personal, it presents itself as destructive monstrous forces. But this [application of soul] is practical & heuristic process and seeks but to serve monadic spirit ultimately. Compromise is total dedication for the universe that is absolute & whole.

EDIT: Added clarity.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Angolmois

Re: Satanist as an outsider

Post by Angolmois »

Nefastos wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:51 am I have read a hefty load of Jung, even though not nearly all, and I would not say either that he "mistakes psychic with spiritual" or that he would build on Freud's "lustprinzip and todesprinzip".
The traditionalist critic of Jung and Freud were kind of mixed up in that post of mine. The mentioning of Lust-principle and Death-principle were meant towards Freud only.

As for mistaking the psychic for the spiritual, I already mentioned Jung's interpretation of alchemy as an equivalent of his theory of psychic integration and individuation. In addition he interpreted for example Yoga as being a sort of individuation process towards reaching "psychic wholeness", while the process of yoga presupposes a balanced, individuated, healthy person whose yogic process is not some form of psychological therapy to reach psychic wholeness. I think this is the main critic towards Jung's purported mixing of the psychic with the spiritual, in that he interpreted these methodologies and esoteric works via his own western education.
Nefastos wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:51 am Should we move this into its own thread?
By all means!
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Nefastos »

Okay, moved; the original context is the thread Satanist as an Outsider. The comment involving obnoxion's information about depth psychology as Satanic is from quotations thread.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Nefastos »

Boreas wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:26 pmhe interpreted for example Yoga as being a sort of individuation process towards reaching "psychic wholeness", while the process of yoga presupposes a balanced, individuated, healthy person whose yogic process is not some form of psychological therapy to reach psychic wholeness.


Occult/spiritual development works in spirals, so the same process is valid & useful on different levels. But what is even more important to realize is that every human being has, or is composed of, a set of tools, each of them in different level of achievement. This means that an Indian yogi (not all of them are master adepts, obviously!) might benefit greatly from Jungian training, just like an Occidental neophyte can benefit from more classic forms of Indian yoga. Also, the difference of yogic practices in India alone is so vast that it is almost amusing to suggest taking "yoga" as something that is one orthodox thing to achieve something explicitly, or that yoga could not be used for some other positive outcome.

I have seen great things thought and written by Traditionalist authors, but it also sounds like they are trying hard not to open the both (and the third) eyes wide, but rather to voluntarily force one eye permanently closed, because it is easier to live & strive in a reality which has no pesky third dimension of differences in depth perception. Everything becomes linear, clear, easily weighed by one simple set of weights.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Smaragd »

Nefastos wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:20 am
I have seen great things thought and written by Traditionalist authors, but it also sounds like they are trying hard not to open the both (and the third) eyes wide, but rather to voluntarily force one eye permanently closed, because it is easier to live & strive in a reality which has no pesky third dimension of differences in depth perception. Everything becomes linear, clear, easily weighed by one simple set of weights.
I have sometimes felt lured to this sort of thing and I see a possibility there for training individual principles in such one eyed work. Perhaps we could say it is yet again a heuristic method applied to one phase of human development? The critique towards it is necessary so that the larger picture can be revealed in the background, and one applying such methods can gradually start to see with the second (and the third) eye how the methods are to be aligned with the larger whole in a complementary way. This also works the other way around: Jungs work and area of expertice can be seen a similar phase focusing on something specific in the human construction – a psyche, and thus larger whole is good to be pointed for the workers in that area too as the traditionalist critique seems to be doing. Àlthough I have not interpreted for example individuation to be only a form of therapy, but almost synonymous to the work we do at large in SoA, especially connecting to the importance of Ego – the divine self. Perhaps Jung has had to narrow the meaning down for culture bound reasons back in the day, or I’m just not as vastly familiar with his terminology and corpus of work.

Can it be said the traditionalists area of expertice is Will and reason, where from the supposed one eyed perspective comes from?
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Angolmois

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Angolmois »

A short answer for now since my life line (internet connexion) to the outer world has been cut down and I have to write with my phone. I'll devote this Day to reading More closely the critic of psychoanalysis and get back to this topic if there is something that comes up especially (so far I have said very little what I think myself other than that the critic doesn't do justice to the whole of Jung's corpus).
Nefastos wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:20 am This means that an Indian yogi (not all of them are master adepts, obviously!) might benefit greatly from Jungian training, just like an Occidental neophyte can benefit from more classic forms of Indian yoga.
Guenon was very strict on the matter and the demand for orthodoxy is great among the traditionalist school. Guenon even went so far that he said no one should or could call themselves a yogi unless one had already accomplished union with the divine / being a Master adept.

This goes down to his very strict usage of words and terminology such as religion, tradition, Esoterism etc. He said for example that there is no religion outside abrahamic faiths (religion being only one Mode that tradition can take), there is no such a thing as sufism (sufi being an equal to a yogi, an accomplished and liberated being, "The sufi is non-existent"), modern Esoterism is an oxymoron (because all Esoterism is pre-modern in essence) etc. This must be remembered when speaking of the traditionalist usage of terminology, Guenon especially, otherwise there is only confusion.
Nefastos wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:20 am Also, the difference of yogic practices in India alone is so vast that it is almost amusing to suggest taking "yoga" as something that is one orthodox thing to achieve something explicitly, or that yoga could not be used for some other positive outcome.
If we remain in the traditional usage of the term it signifies union with the divine, not union with the anima, not union with the subconscious, not union with the shadow, but union with God / Divine. Otherwise the meaning of the term is re-shaped and used to denote something other than it originally meant, and one can see that one is then easily on a risky, relativistic slope. This does not however mean that yoga couldn't provoke or develop for example health, wholeness, psychic integration etc. (the greater contains the lesser) but they are only a result, not the goal itself, otherwise one goes sideways which leads to risky psychic development. "One should not seek powers."
Nefastos wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:20 am I have seen great things thought and written by Traditionalist authors, but it also sounds like they are trying hard not to open the both (and the third) eyes wide, but rather to voluntarily force one eye permanently closed, because it is easier to live & strive in a reality which has no pesky third dimension of differences in depth perception. Everything becomes linear, clear, easily weighed by one simple set of weights.
I concur that a comprehensive worldview in traditionalist usage becomes easily an ideological cage which becomes an easy narrative from which to judge anything deemed deviant or unorthodox, usually anything modern. Yet I find a lot which rings True also.
Angolmois

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Angolmois »

Okay, what I realized is that the critic of psychoanalysis and depth-psychology is such a long and multi-faceted issue that I will not even try to summarize it shortly. Instead I will try to translate the 'Critique of Psychoanalysis' text from Evola's 'Mask and Face of Contemporary Spiritualism' into my blog in time with a commentary, since it appears that it is quite a central issue for many modern seekers. For now, I will quote here a lengthy paragraph from 'Yoga of Power' (p. 142) concerning Yoga and psychoanalysis:

"I think it is absurd to attempt to establish a connection between yoga and modern psychoanalysis, even if we exclude Freud's school and consider instead the pseudo-spiritual views of C.G. Jung. Psychoanalysis, as a matter of fact, operates on the mere plane of phenomenal psychology, and worse yet, it reifies or absolutizes the unconscious, presenting it as an impenetrable entity (Jung was very explicit about this). Therefore, according to psychoanalysis, the obstacle posited by an individuals's consciousness is considered insurmountable. Various psychoanalytical schools can only speculate on what the content of the unconscious is all about, since they do not admit the possibility of a direct and an immediate knowledge of the unconscious. These schools have variously assumed the content of the unconscious to be the heredity of the species; or the experiences during infancy (Freud actually referred to the sexual life of primitive people); or the mental structures found mainly in the hallucinations of neuro-pathological patients (Jung didn't hesitate to draw aberrant analogies between Eastern mandalas and the figures appearing in such hallucinations); or the so-called archetypes, which are transferred from a metaphysical plane to the plane of irrationality, of bios, of life, and, of the "entreaties" on the rational and social ego. The dimension under scrutiny is dark, materialistic and merely physiological. In yoga, on the contrary, the unconscious incorporates ontological principles and metaphysical realities; it may be resolved and known. In this case the unconscious gives way to a super-consciousness, and thus an authentic re-integration of the I takes place. Psychoanalysis reaches its most absurd conclusions when, in the person of Jung, it presumes to indicate the positive, "scientific" content of yoga and of related disciplines. Psychoanalysis claims that these Eastern disciplines merely attempt to heal neurotic and sick individuals who are plagued and torn by the conflicts and by the divisions between the conscious and the unconscious. Yoga does not purport to heal sick, neurotic, and tormented individuals, however. On the contrary, it presupposes a healthy, balanced person, to whom it will indicate the way to eventually overcome the human condition."
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Nefastos »

Boreas wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:14 pm
Nefastos wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:20 amAlso, the difference of yogic practices in India alone is so vast that it is almost amusing to suggest taking "yoga" as something that is one orthodox thing to achieve something explicitly, or that yoga could not be used for some other positive outcome.

If we remain in the traditional usage of the term it signifies union with the divine, not union with the anima, not union with the subconscious, not union with the shadow, but union with God / Divine. Otherwise the meaning of the term is re-shaped and used to denote something other than it originally meant, and one can see that one is then easily on a risky, relativistic slope.

Not true. Read, for example, easily available Hathayoga Pradipika. Its yogic practices are done in a coitus and reach for something totally different than with "the union with the divine" in the easy Occidental way of reading.

Boreas wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:14 pmGuenon was very strict on the matter and the demand for orthodoxy is great among the traditionalist school. Guenon even went so far that he said no one should or could call themselves a yogi unless one had already accomplished union with the divine / being a Master adept.

This goes down to his very strict usage of words and terminology such as religion, tradition, Esoterism etc. He said for example that there is no religion outside abrahamic faiths (religion being only one Mode that tradition can take), there is no such a thing as sufism (sufi being an equal to a yogi, an accomplished and liberated being, "The sufi is non-existent"), modern Esoterism is an oxymoron (because all Esoterism is pre-modern in essence) etc. This must be remembered when speaking of the traditionalist usage of terminology, Guenon especially, otherwise there is only confusion.

I wouldn't personally even try to reason with such use of ideas, for one cannot reason with a fanatic. If I give every word a meaning of my own, I am left alone in my own cosmos, and no actual conversation between open minds will be factually possible.

Smaragd wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:54 amCan it be said the traditionalists area of expertice is Will and reason, where from the supposed one eyed perspective comes from?

If we consider esoteric/spiritual process from the first triad basis, this is, sadly, also a way of saying that they leave Love out.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Wyrmfang »

Smaragd wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:54 am Can it be said the traditionalists area of expertice is Will and reason, where from the supposed one eyed perspective comes from?
I wouldn´t say traditionalists are experts in reason either. Insofar as I have read traditionalist literature, there is quite little profound questioning of one´s premises or creative production of new insights. On the other hand, the use of historical data and interpretation of other doctrines is highly selective at best as well. I would say the positive aspects are ultimately related to will-aspect, even if it is not stressed that much explicitly.
Angolmois

Re: Traditionalist Critic on Depth Psychology

Post by Angolmois »

Nefastos wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:18 am
Not true. Read, for example, easily available Hathayoga Pradipika. Its yogic practices are done in a coitus and reach for something totally different than with "the union with the divine" in the easy Occidental way of reading.
I might be wrong but isn't Hatha Yoga as a whole a sort of "preparatory practice"?
Nefastos wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:18 am
I wouldn't personally even try to reason with such use of ideas, for one cannot reason with a fanatic. If I give every word a meaning of my own, I am left alone in my own cosmos, and no actual conversation between open minds will be factually possible.
I doubt fanaticism has anything to do with it and at least in his own words he is not giving words "his own meaning" But seeking the original one.

Wikipedia wrote:

"Guénon's writings make use of words and terms of fundamental signification, which receive a precise definition throughout his books. These terms and words, although receiving a usual meaning and being used in many branches of human sciences, have, according to René Guénon, lost substantially their original signification (e.g. words such as "metaphysics", "initiation", "mysticism", "personality", "form", "matter").[25][non-primary source needed] He insisted notably on the danger represented by the perversion of the signification of words seen by him as essential for the study of metaphysics."
Nefastos wrote: Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:18 am If we consider esoteric/spiritual process from the first triad basis, this is, sadly, also a way of saying that they leave Love out.
I think one should be wary of generalizing too much since there is great variation on which principles different traditional authors refer to or emphasize. Evola - whom many don't consider a traditionalist proper - can certainly be accused of this, and Guenon and Schuon have been critizised of being "prejudiced against Love" But only because their emphasis was on jnana and they scorned sentimentalism.
Locked