Tag Archives: Carl Jung

Holotropic Spontaneity and Carl Rogers XV

– The “cognitive psychology” movement has overplayed its hand, but the addition of a rational element to Rogers can indeed also be useful in undoing mistaken or disadvantageous concepts, if interested in that line. Albert Ellis’s book can provide all that is needed, or one can try Pamela Butler, or indeed philosophical ethics of any desired kind, from Epicurus to Buddha to Spinoza.

To consider whether one’s disturbing thoughts and beliefs are based on demanding that life be other than what it is, whether there is a different way to look at things which makes them less bother, and whether something “bad” is actually as disturbing as we tend to make out, are really the core Ellis activities. Personally I don’t think “full acceptance” can occur with the rational mind only, but a certain amount of acceptance, probably varying for each of us, usually can.

Rogers tends to dispel “unacceptingness” over time simply by accepting (and positive regard), engaging a natural processing which I personally find far more spiritually useful than Ellis’s approach of “proving rationally” that the badness isn’t so bad. In addition, your stress levels tend to be a huge indicator of how “bad” you think things are. But a little grounding in common sense can certainly be useful for people fresh off some of the less steady New Age boats, and some people really do prefer to think it all through as their primary way.

– Certain people, or anyone at certain times, may on the other hand need to exit rationalism anyway, as dogmatic. Some subpersonalities communicate only in pictures or music. Impressions and intuitions want to surface, processing wants to happen that doesn’t feel like reaching for a dictionary. Mythic intuition can be valuable even before it is directly linked to the genuine mundus imaginalis. If wanting to use Jungian concepts (shadow and anima/animus are very helpful) a brief summary like Murray Stein’s may be better wading into the dilatory originals. The results of the non-rational can and probably should be rationally assessed later. One may need to feel one’s way into the underlying direction in a subtle manner.

– If the process seems slow or directionless, one can set a goal to transform some habit or attitude, although perhaps only when one has already had experience of clearing things spontaneously. One may include a definite self-promise or oath if necessary — but with care and, if inexperienced, a termination date at first, at which point one will compare the old self with the new. Many people have a “most important to fix” aspect of personality, and promising oneself to definitely get to the bottom of it, and remove it, can be incredibly productive, radically transforming the life. The system will start processing towards it. There will also be moments of needing to re-affirm the necessary dedication, but you may not recognise yourself when you succeed — or may recognise yourself for the first time in a while.

– At other junctures (or one could also say, under the influence other subpersonalities), of course, it’s natural to put aside “looking at feelings” or labelling them in any way as itself overly analytical and just experience oneself, which leads to meditation. Rogers-style awareness can in fact simply become a peaceful meditation in which any and all things arising are lovingly accepted; they will then tend to evanesce. Becoming skilled at communing in silence can generate such blissful peace that words become superfluous. You’re moving past psychology at that point, and the spontaneous process you’ve created will eventually transform even the toughest resistance at awakening proper.

[You can add hypnotherapy, but based on feedback I’ve come to recommend that be done with a hypnotherapist unless you really are willing to study -- it’s just a little complex otherwise. And the Breakout Principle can produce the aha! effect by much easier means. However I myself have found the trance state very healing and have gone naturally into it at times in accordance with the unfolding of the process. If you are interested, it can be worth finding out about.]

That’s the end of the psychology — remember it all goes with the same basic idea, just taking regular time out from life to be peacefully and positively open to oneself, with the attitude described in the early parts of the series, and allowing the process that naturally follows from this. Next, a case example.

Holotropic Spontaneity and Carl Rogers VI

The extremely common estrangement of the human being from her directional organismic processes is not a necessary part of our nature. It is instead something learned, and learned to an especially high degree in our Western culture… The satisfaction or fulfillment of the actualizing tendency has become bifurcated into incompatible behavioral systems…

Carl Rogers on Personal Power (1977)

Both Maslow and Jung confirm these societal obstacles in the way of actualisation/individuation, which indeed are pretty self-evident. “Estrangement” (a cousin to “alienation” without the Marxist baggage) simply means being too occupied with the aforementioned social masks to be in contact with meaningful layers of oneself. This phenomenon was also noted by Wilhelm Reich.

Selves appear to be multifurcated and in fact shattered sometimes, in our current Western culture, rather than merely bifurcated. A great deal of psychology focuses on knitting together shattered selves into a new wholeness which is a definite achievement, existing in harmony with the underlying deeper consciousness. This process is described in subpersonality psychologies like Psychosynthesis, and also in the work of Grof. Via Rogerian processes it happens spontaneously, is noticed happening by itself, simply as a result of gentle congruous attention.

Since it also appears in shamanism, and in mythology in the stories of Osiris, Zagreus and Lemminkäinen for example, there must be a sense in which this shatteredness is age-old, probably a legacy of developments in human nervous system and culture. It may possibly be more widespread now that at previous times.

Spiritual But Not Religious in 2012 – VII

The major contributors to SBNR are very numerous. No-one has yet identified them all. Summarising their contribution would be practically impossible.

And there is no definite “product” of their endeavours, no nice Nicene “result”. One could spend days trying to give the gist of Gebser, Yogananda, Jung, or Huxley. Their modern heirs Stanislav Grof, Lawrence LeShan, William Irwin Thompson, or Glenn Morris would require just as long.

Anyone can wander the SBNR canon and pull out a personal conversation, a particular mind. With no official version, no orthodoxy. With no orthodoxy, no borders. SBNR is what you make it, not what it makes you.

Still, SBNR is no longer as directly indebted to Romanticism. It is leaner, and it has learned the difference between posturing and effectiveness. It has passed through existential crises and been tempered by them. What we have now is a settled growth of many intertwining plants — and a definite opportunity.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 112 other followers