psychologists / spiritual teachers

[Guest happycase]

Recommendations?

 

I've been reading Jung, Perls, Nietzsche, and Nisargadatta for the past year and their wisdom and techniques are sofar inexhaustible, potentially only getting richer.

 

Any other writers like these? Intuitive, prophetic, a stream of insights instead of a presentation of information? Valid confidence and whatnot.

[Guest fiznuthian]

i dunno man i've been seeing a neuropsychologist and while she doesn't spout prophetic insights to me, i do feel about 75% better about life.

[luke viia]

I find myself returning to Joseph Campbell and Ralph Waldo Emerson year after year...

 

gonna look into Perls and Nisargadatta now. just picked up The Symbols of Man by Jung yesterday.

[Guest enxyme]

Any one in the Humanistic/Transpersonal tradition...

 

Abraham Maslow, Stan Grof, Carl Rodgers, Frances Vaughan

 

Ram Dass has many great books...

 

Yogi Bhajan

 

Swami Satchidanana

[Guest Makinami]

I like Jiddu Krishnamurti but he can be damn monotonous in his teachings.

[Dale]

Psychology and spirituality are two separate things - although one can argue that spirituality concerns "the mind", psychology is the scientific study of the mind whereas spirituality is very much subjective that is measured and discussed on a philosophical basis. I understand though why spirituality is interesting though -- I'd agree with the post above that Krishnamurti offers interesting perspectives. I would recommend looking up Jacque Fresco.

[Braintree]

Psychology and spirituality are two separate things

 

This.

 

When I read about spirituality, I prefer to read teh Tao Te Ching or the I Ching.

[Guest A/D]

you can't get better than eckhart tolle for pop psych. "power of now" is a great guide to self- and other-observation and awareness. i recommend it to basically everybody and keep extra copies on hand to give out.

[chenGOD]

Don't bother with Fresco unless you're into self-serving platitudes.

 

Otherwise, I would suggest the writings of Fred McGriff.

 

If you want some eastern thought, lots of the Confucian thinkers are good - Mencius, Mozi, XunZi (for a good comprehensive understanding of neo-confucianism, him and the Zheng brothers are what you want)

 

Some of the esoteric Buddhism - not zen, more like Nichiren, or pure land will help you in your goals of figuring out your reliance on others.

I don't like Daoism very much, but one ofits primary early thinkers was a guy called Zhuangzi. You'll like him.

Ooh I know - read An Account of My Hut by Kama no Chomei.

 

If you want to read some real sociologists - try Ulrich Beck, C. Wright Mills, Emile Durkheim, Anthony Giddens.

[Dale]

Don't bother with Fresco unless you're into self-serving platitudes.

What do you mean?

 

Also forgot to mention: I'm reading up on some of James Gilligan's work - a retired forensic psychiatrist, 25 years experience. He offers a fresh new perspective on punishment and reforming current penal systems

[Guest fiznuthian]

Jean Paul Sartre i like..

[chenGOD]

I mean the if you read Fresco, you will read things that are presented with a very specific agenda in mind: to push the "resource-based economy" that Fresco espouses, which is very much a fantasy, and not so much about spirituality and psychology.

 

I will not get into another argument in this thread about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the resource based economy, because well, frankly speaking we've done that dance to death, and you haven't come up with any new answers.

[Dale]

I mean the if you read Fresco, you will read things that are presented with a very specific agenda in mind: to push the "resource-based economy" that Fresco espouses, which is very much a fantasy, and not so much about spirituality and psychology.

 

I will not get into another argument in this thread about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the resource based economy, because well, frankly speaking we've done that dance to death, and you haven't come up with any new answers.

Take what you will from the information he provides in his lectures -- For example, I agree when John B Watson (psychologist in early 20th century) said that the environment shapes human behaviour, however I don't necessarily agree with his 'Little Albert' experiment and when he said something along the lines of [and I'm paraphrasing] "people should not have children for years until we're able to formulate a child development plan for all parents to strictly follow" - you take what info is relevant and apply it to your current knowledge on things. I can agree on some things Watson discussed, but don't entirely follow all areas of his work. Is it hard for you to do this when listening to some of Fresco's lectures? Also, some people may appreciate me dropping his name in this thread because there are a lot of videos and info out there on his studies associated with psychology.

 

For anyone interested in psychology: I caught this excellent documentary film recently called "Human Resources" which discusses social engineering in the 20th century - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R85eo2rA70

[Fred McGriff]

Otherwise, I would suggest the writings of Fred McGriff.

 

The first thing I do when I get in the shower is I start washing my dick. I work up a nice lather of soap and then I scrub. Then I wash it some more. Then I rinse off, and then wash my dick some more. Soon after, I get some shampoo and wash my dick. I wash it some more. Then I start washing it even more. Then I scrub it down, rinse it off, and wash it even more. When I'm done with that, I wash my fucking dick some more. Then I wash it some more. After that I get some more lather and I wash my dick even more. Then I wash it again, and again, and again. And then 3 more times. And then I fucking wash it again. And then I get out of the shower. And then I step back in the shower and wash my dick really thoroughly, taking great care to make sure my entire dick is washed. Then I inspect it and get all the square feet that I might have missed. Then I give it a good solid rinse off, turning it over and over, spraying the lather down, and making sure there are no dry spots. I'll stand there for a minute, and then I'll wash my dick one more time. This time I just do a spot check and wash random parts of it. Then I'll wash the whole thing. Then I'll wash it twice more for good measure. And then I get out of the shower. And then I go to sleep and wake up and repeat the next day.

[Guest fiznuthian]

For anyone interested in psychology: I caught this excellent documentary film recently called "Human Resources" which discusses social engineering in the 20th century - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R85eo2rA70

 

awesome! thank you. bookmarked for later.

[chenGOD]

Otherwise, I would suggest the writings of Fred McGriff.

 

The first thing I do when I get in the shower is I start washing my dick. I work up a nice lather of soap and then I scrub. Then I wash it some more. Then I rinse off, and then wash my dick some more. Soon after, I get some shampoo and wash my dick. I wash it some more. Then I start washing it even more. Then I scrub it down, rinse it off, and wash it even more. When I'm done with that, I wash my fucking dick some more. Then I wash it some more. After that I get some more lather and I wash my dick even more. Then I wash it again, and again, and again. And then 3 more times. And then I fucking wash it again. And then I get out of the shower. And then I step back in the shower and wash my dick really thoroughly, taking great care to make sure my entire dick is washed. Then I inspect it and get all the square feet that I might have missed. Then I give it a good solid rinse off, turning it over and over, spraying the lather down, and making sure there are no dry spots. I'll stand there for a minute, and then I'll wash my dick one more time. This time I just do a spot check and wash random parts of it. Then I'll wash the whole thing. Then I'll wash it twice more for good measure. And then I get out of the shower. And then I go to sleep and wake up and repeat the next day.

 

A parable which delves into the very meaning of existentialism.

[Guest fiznuthian]

And then I get out of the shower.

[SR4]

Im late to the psychology game, but I came across one of my favorite Continental philosophers, Herbert Marceuse and his critique of Freudian analysis, called "Eros and Civilization"...its very interesting (from what Ive read so far), and a lot of parallels with his other works, specifically One-Dimensional Man and many elements of Revolution and Counterrevolution.

 

Also if you get a chance, I find some of the existential philosophers have interesting takes on the mind, and I think a lot of them affected the first few waves of psychoanalysts. Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Hegel are very, very interesting fellows...though some of Sartre is like reading diagrams on how to build particle accelerators.

 

Michel Foucault, another one of my favorites was trained in the clinical arts, but later rejected them in favor of a varied, nuanced look at social changes and the basis of history and human desire itself..you could start just about anywhere with him, though I think his biggest works are Archaeology of Knowledge, and Discipline and Punishment.

 

I might warn you though, not all of what he says is to be taken as some great truth; in most of his books he claims this himself...less answers than his "expertise" on analyzing trends inherent in experts, the traditional methodology of a scholarly field...in Birth of the Clinic this refers to many many psychoanalysts....if that makes sense.

 

also, Im very happy to hear you are enjoying Nietzsche as a spiritual guide in some sense...I feel like much of what he says is perverted by other people...a very "uplifting" (if you can call it that) ethos of civilization...and you HAVE to love his writing style...its half hilarity/half profane truth.

[spratters]

In before some clever fuck mentions Hitler

[Guest happycase]

In before some clever fuck mentions Hitler

 

This is ironic.

[Guest happycase]

I find myself returning to Joseph Campbell and Ralph Waldo Emerson year after year...

 

gonna look into Perls and Nisargadatta now. just picked up The Symbols of Man by Jung yesterday.

 

 

Symbols of Man is pseudo-Jung. It was written for the pseudo-layman to help him understand how to relate to his imagination and his dreams. Jung only wrote the introduction to this book, the rest by his colleagues. What he did write is uncharacteristically simple and uninspired. I'd read his essays if you haven't already.

 

Perls had some brilliant experiential techniques for anyone to use that he wrote about in his books to reverse self-interrupting patterns, introjected values, guilt, obligations, and establish a continuum of awareness, similar to the goal of Zen. Very different approach to psychology - almost strictly phenomenological, where Jung was basically an artist of the psyche and its mechanics through symbols.

 

Nisargadatta is in my opinion the most direct and thoroughly completely dead spiritual teacher we know about. He never speaks as a body or as the image others project onto him, nor does he encourage any sort of cat and mouse spiritual game. His purpose was to make clear that there is no way out for the ego. That everything is turns to is ephemeral and a cyclical pain-pleasure dream.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?cls332xbcakx2rd

 

 

 

Also, I think it's a mistake to separate psychology and spirituality. The individual psychology unravels to reveal spirit. The spirit unravels the individual psychology. As a "science," good spirituality is actually far more accurate. I don't consider social psychology and shit like that psychology, though, so we'd have to split the term into (1) the study of human nature and behavior, and (2) exploring the themes and the unknowns of the individual's psyche.

[SR4]

I find myself returning to Joseph Campbell and Ralph Waldo Emerson year after year...

 

gonna look into Perls and Nisargadatta now. just picked up The Symbols of Man by Jung yesterday.

 

 

Symbols of Man is pseudo-Jung. It was written for the pseudo-layman to help him understand how to relate to his imagination and his dreams. Jung only wrote the introduction to this book, the rest by his colleagues. What he did write is uncharacteristically simple and uninspired. I'd read his essays if you haven't already.

 

Nisargadatta is in my opinion the most direct and thoroughly completely dead spiritual teacher we know about. He never speaks as a body or as the image others project onto him, nor does he encourage any sort of cat and mouse spiritual game. His purpose was to make clear that there is no way out for the ego. That everything is turns to is ephemeral and a cyclical pain-pleasure dream.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/?cls332xbcakx2rd

 

 

 

Also, I think it's a mistake to separate psychology and spirituality. The individual psychology unravels to reveal spirit. The spirit unravels the individual psychology. As a "science," good spirituality is actually far more accurate. I don't consider social psychology and shit like that psychology, though, so we'd have to split the term into (1) the study of human nature and behavior, and (2) exploring the themes and the unknowns of the individual's psyche.

 

I dunno if I can agree with you on that. The two often require an intertwining.

 

An example, Foucault's analysis of sexuality contains the premise that, as we expand on public openness and in a sense, celebration of aspects of sexuality, these aspects are yet still controlled by our own social realities, power-structures, and unconscious desire. A great example within this is his analysis of pedophilia, and the history behind that.

 

Another good one is the analysis of the "bio-politics" of the female-male relations, that is to say, our concept of the body has never been a fluid singularity, but rather various evolutions of political structures that force the sexual realm into public sphere's concentration, and therefore expanded (yet ironically limited dialogue).

 

 

Combine this with the influence of the Church on western culture, and the nature of "confession" as a ritual of purification, and you have a massive influx and out-flux of our supposed predispositions of "sexual liberation", or this faulty image of sexuality always having been "repressed".

 

Again, I wouldn't take his word as truth, but there is certainly something to be analyzed there.

[Redruth]

psychology and spirituality are two separate things

this

this

[Dale]

Also, I think it's a mistake to separate psychology and spirituality. The individual psychology unravels to reveal spirit. The spirit unravels the individual psychology. As a "science," good spirituality is actually far more accurate. I don't consider social psychology and shit like that psychology, though, so we'd have to split the term into (1) the study of human nature and behavior, and (2) exploring the themes and the unknowns of the individual's psyche.

Spirituality has no way of being measured whereas psychology utilises the scientific method to arrive at conclusions and results - and it is dependent upon how you would define "spirit", do you define it as beyond the physical? I can see spirituality as being of some use if you approach it from a philosophical point of view whereby claims and hypotetheses are produced because scientific processes start off with claims and questions prior to putting them to the test. Personally I am not interested in discussing spirituality if the information is not measurable in any way, otherwise it is all speculative.

 

I do adopt the view point though that we are all connected to the environment around us - basically meaning (not in a spritual sense, necessarily) that you take oxygen away from me and I die, you take water away from my environment and I die. We live alongside natural laws. I like the George Carlin quote where he mentioned we're just star stuff (or was that Sagan)? "We're all connected, to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically" - I see no metaphysical points about that quote because scientifically it is correct. If you call that spirituality then so be it :)

[Guest happycase]

 

 

I do adopt the view point though that we are all connected to the environment around us - basically meaning (not in a spritual sense, necessarily) that you take oxygen away from me and I die, you take water away from my environment and I die. We live alongside natural laws. I like the George Carlin quote where he mentioned we're just star stuff (or was that Sagan)? "We're all connected, to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically" - I see no metaphysical points about that quote because scientifically it is correct. If you call that spirituality then so be it :)

 

Spirituality is pure phenomenology. It's not the idea of being a "me" connected to the "earth" through our common origin as star dust. It's the direct experience of everything being star dust. No distinction. Concepts become a tool to play around with and not an indication of anything more than a convenience within the dream of consciousness fluctuating before it relaxes and recognizes itself. Call it what you want. I call it Being or Tao or God, or Nothing or It or You, but that doesn't matter. It's reading this, and it is this.

 

 

I also don't think psychology is worth measuring scientifically. I think for the most part psychology is abused or wasted on theoretics. To me it's an art, a means of self-discovery. The human being is good fucking art.