Tag Archives: Albert Ellis

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.

Advertisements

Spiritual But Not Religious in 2012 – XIII

5 Elemental Challenges — Water

The stability of post-counterculture pop SBNR is threatening to become a definite complacency as cultural fragmentation proceeds.

One marker is the end of Mishlove’s Thinking Allowed on PBS in America. The show had interviewed major SBNR thinkers like Terence McKenna, Colin Wilson, Michael Murphy, Stanislav Grof or John Lilly, dozens of them, at a depth that interviews themselves have mostly now lost. Those guys did not look out of place alongside an Albert Ellis, an Oliver Sacks or a Stephen Pinker. There were backward references to the rest of Western SBNR culture thrown in too.

“Thinking Allowed” is the opposite of ideocracy. The show presented an almost unlimited variety in one single format on a trusted TV source that has now given itself over far more to scientism. A decade after the show ended it seems almost impossible to imagine anything similar happening again. With the net it should be easy in principle, yet I haven’t found anything of this scope and gentility. Most net coverage of SBNR is far too specialised to want to look over the whole in this truly creative and exploratory way. (Meanwhile BBC news recently included an apology from Peter André for his early work! ^_^)

Shallow commercial agendas also prevent thought. I’ve mentioned names like Marsilio Ficino, Johann von Goethe, William Blake, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Jean Gebser, Carl Jung, Aldous Huxley, Stanislav Grof, Lawrence LeShan, Robert Monroe, William Irwin Thompson, and Glenn Morris.

But I find that such names are quite rarely mentioned in the general SBNR discourse, though I could add a hundred more. James Redfield, Eckhart Tolle, Paulo Coelho, Neale Donald Walsch, Oprah Winfrey, and Rhonda Byrne are by no means adequate substitutes.