The Higher Self and HGA = Super Ego

[Dindin]

I've got the longest thought the HGA was some type of idealistic personified version of ones full potential. Like a Tupla built to represent you in your highest level of development . That then is given life and takes over the slot of the indoctrinated super ego in freuds model.

And the Higher Self is just the general term for anyone's psyche which is configured and functioning at its higher potential .

Higher Self is the perfected concept.
HGA is the internalized archetypal form we can interface with that represents the higher self.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ?

 

[HoldAll]

I think the danger here is creating an idealized image of oneself (what Freud called the '

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

') that will still retainn some flaws one mistakenly regards as one's strengths or virtues, only now hypertrophied to supernatural proportions. In fact, if I ever occupied myself with HGA work seriously, I'd first look into tulpomancy and then try hard as hell not to create such a custom-built entity unwittingly because my own specifications for such a being would be inevitably limited by my preconceptions as to what such a being could (or should) be like. I wouldn't want to create a 'mega-me' but encounter something completely different.

In my mind, the main advantage of considering your guardian angel an external and separate entity is that it could offer you perspectives completely different from your own. It'd be like talking to a close friend, a good therapist, or reading a brilliant book - you receive input from an outside source which you'd have never thought of yourself coming from totally unfamiliar angles. In other words, I'd want my HGA to surprise me instead of going over the same familiar old ground defined by me in circles. I tend to take the guardian angel concept quite literally: for me, it is an angel, i.e. neither me nor a perfected version of myself. Angels are said to be a superior being by nature, with quite different motives than humans and infinitely wise; on the other hand, I wouldn't entirely trust my own Higher Self because I'd still consider it slightly tainted by my own personal opinions, petty likes and dislikes, etc., although it should be above all those things in theory.

From a practical side, an externalized HGA could be conjured up like any other spirit, which adds another layer of 'insulation' against involuntary narcissism. I was very impressed with Damon Brand's "Magickal Destiny" where you invite your guardian angel into your life and befriend it; I love his approach. However, the more you try to define the HGA in psychological terms, the more you disenchant it and conceptually constrict its nature, retaining control at all times where it's better relinquished from a certain point onwards.

 

[sahgwa]

I've got the longest thought the HGA was some type of idealistic personified version of ones full potential. Like a Tupla built to represent you in your highest level of development . That then is given life and takes over the slot of the indoctrinated super ego in freuds model.

And the Higher Self is just the general term for anyone's psyche which is configured and functioning at its higher potential .

Higher Self is the perfected concept.
HGA is the internalized archetypal form we can interface with that represents the higher self.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ?

Short answer, in my opinion and learning, 'no, not at all'
the HGA is more than your idealised self. It is more than your self, your small s self is just your ego and current incarnation in this body and time.
The HGA is your Higher Self, and is thus outside of time and reincarnation.
It is a more developed, higher dimensional being, that is you because it is linked to you.
Like you are the HGA's foot. In a manner of speaking.

 

[Jonathan Strange]

Can I direct you to Internal Family Systems? In this model of psychology we divide the person in many parts, one is ego, called self, there are child parts with other parts that protect them that could be called the superego. On the subject of the HGA, there are parts that do not indentify as you at all, some are guides, that could be understood as the HGA, or a personal Daimon. (There are parts that could be seen as evil and be exorcized as well). I recommend "The Other Within Us" by Robert Falconer.

 

[Beyond Everything]

I've got the longest thought the HGA was some type of idealistic personified version of ones full potential. Like a Tupla built to represent you in your highest level of development . That then is given life and takes over the slot of the indoctrinated super ego in freuds model.

And the Higher Self is just the general term for anyone's psyche which is configured and functioning at its higher potential .

Higher Self is the perfected concept.
HGA is the internalized archetypal form we can interface with that represents the higher self.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ?

Yes, the HGA (when not some external entity taking you for a ride) can be described as a thoughtform, and often one also molded by religious collectivist energies- which is a big problem.

(Freud has zero validity -he provably dissimulated about his patients' results, for one thing, so I see zero benefit incorporating him into any esoteric model you might have)

I don't see the fantastic results people claiming their HGA are getting, from my years of observation. And an interesting aside- two of the individuals other than crowley who popularized the concept were Regardie and CS Hyatt. Regardie ended up stating he wouldn't have even been involved in magic if he could live his life over again, and CS Hyatt in his radical undoing program pretty much dismissed the HGA's value (this despite earlier writing books about it).

There are unknown parts of the self that need to be tapped and brought onboard for the highest magical development, but the discourse around the 'higher self' is really quite mediocre. As well as the techniques (like imagining things above your head) are the weakest of the weak sauce. More profoundly, there isn't an already perfected self somehow waiting for you. You have to develop that, and it is achieved post-mortem.

 

[sahgwa]

Yes, the HGA (when not some external entity taking you for a ride) can be described as a thoughtform, and often one also molded by religious collectivist energies- which is a big problem.

(Freud has zero validity -he provably dissimulated about his patients' results, for one thing, so I see zero benefit incorporating him into any esoteric model you might have)

I don't see the fantastic results people claiming their HGA are getting, from my years of observation. And an interesting aside- two of the individuals other than crowley who popularized the concept were Regardie and CS Hyatt. Regardie ended up stating he wouldn't have even been involved in magic if he could live his life over again, and CS Hyatt in his radical undoing program pretty much dismissed the HGA's value (this despite earlier writing books about it).

There are unknown parts of the self that need to be tapped and brought onboard for the highest magical development, but the discourse around the 'higher self' is really quite mediocre. As well as the techniques (like imagining things above your head) are the weakest of the weak sauce. More profoundly, there isn't an already perfected self somehow waiting for you. You have to develop that, and it is achieved post-mortem.

To quote Lebowski, that's like, your opinion, man.

And Regardie practised magick till he died.

 

[Beyond Everything]

To quote Lebowski, that's like, your opinion, man.

And Regardie practised magick till he died.

He said if he lived his life over again, he wouldn't. I heard that from a different source, but you can read it right in the book Israel Regardie and the Philosopher's Stone.

 

[Magickal Bee]

I'm no expert but can say that when i am consistent in doing the LBRP (and middle pillar) I am able to ask questions and get very clear answers that feel both external (not passing thoughtforms) and yet somehow from within at the same time. It does not feel like mere intution, it does not feel like I am talking to myself, rather a clear voice/guidance/response that i trust profoundly. I lose access to this when not practicing LBRP regularly.

 

[ahathoor]

Okay, let me try to gather my immediate thoughts on this...

So first off, about Freud and the super ego.... I really don't like it when people dismiss of belittle Freud's work; i don't hear people doing the same to Newton or Aristotle, even though they also had thoughts and observations we now consider obsolete or invalid. Maybe his theories about sexuality did hit a bit too close for some? /j Anyway, Freud's threefold model of the personality is about as valid as any other historical, overly simplified model of the world; if we think within it, the super ego and the id should be thought of as Nifel and Muspel, with the Midgard of the ego synthesizing them into order in the middle; ie. there is nothing "super" about the super ego, it's simply the thing opposing the id, nurture against nature. Any "highly developed and perfected self" in the threefold model belongs in Midgard, in the middle; it is an unfortunate happenstance that the word "ego" has been hijacked and identified with the Buddhist idea of ahamkara (the creation of a false self-concept), and linked to pride and narcissism. In the threefold model "ego" is simply Midgard.

Then... the HGA and the "higher self"... the way I think about it is very much in line with what @sahgwa and @HoldAll have said; my human existence and perspective are like a leaf on a tree that I could call the "holy guardian angel". The idealized thoughtform version of "you" is as much a risk in this type of working as being taken for a ride by external beings (whether human or spiritual). Ie. what you @Dindin described is not the goal, but a failure state.

I find the misgivings expressed by @Beyond Everything are very much well founded on observational data, unfortunately... I don't think it should be seen as a reason to wholesale dismiss everything about this type of working, but definitely and certainly a reason for immense caution. That failure state is pretty easy to fall into, and let's be honest, it's one of the less bad failure states one can end up in.

I am not in a place to be able to give guidance on how to avoid those, as I believe anything I say could be misinterpreted and misapplied, so I'll close it with some poetic advice.

It is impossible for a leaf to take control of the roots, but the tree can realize its own totality.

 

[Beyond Everything]

Okay, let me try to gather my immediate thoughts on this...

So first off, about Freud and the super ego.... I really don't like it when people dismiss of belittle Freud's work; i don't hear people doing the same to Newton or Aristotle, even though they also had thoughts and observations we now consider obsolete or invalid. Maybe his theories about sexuality did hit a bit too close for some? /j Anyway, Freud's threefold model of the personality is about as valid as any other historical, overly simplified model of the world; if we think within it, the super ego and the id should be thought of as Nifel and Muspel, with the Midgard of the ego synthesizing them into order in the middle; ie. there is nothing "super" about the super ego, it's simply the thing opposing the id, nurture against nature. Any "highly developed and perfected self" in the threefold model belongs in Midgard, in the middle; it is an unfortunate happenstance that the word "ego" has been hijacked and identified with the Buddhist idea of ahamkara (the creation of a false self-concept), and linked to pride and narcissism. In the threefold model "ego" is simply Midgard.

Then... the HGA and the "higher self"... the way I think about it is very much in line with what @sahgwa and @HoldAll have said; my human existence and perspective are like a leaf on a tree that I could call the "holy guardian angel". The idealized thoughtform version of "you" is as much a risk in this type of working as being taken for a ride by external beings (whether human or spiritual). Ie. what you @Dindin described is not the goal, but a failure state.

I find the misgivings expressed by @Beyond Everything are very much well founded on observational data, unfortunately... I don't think it should be seen as a reason to wholesale dismiss everything about this type of working, but definitely and certainly a reason for immense caution. That failure state is pretty easy to fall into, and let's be honest, it's one of the less bad failure states one can end up in.

I am not in a place to be able to give guidance on how to avoid those, as I believe anything I say could be misinterpreted and misapplied, so I'll close it with some poetic advice.

It is impossible for a leaf to take control of the roots, but the tree can realize its own totality.

Post automatically merged: Today at 4:39 PM

Regarding Freud, it's not being 'outdated'- it is documented that he lied about the cases he worked on. He claimed cures that didn't occur. The book The Unauthorized Freud proves this. There are an abundance of other problems that I don't feel like going into. His model doesn't work for magic anyway. Which part of his tripartite schema is one implanting a sigil in, for example? The Id has a boiling cauldron of the most primitive desires and graspings doesn't fit.

There are unknown parts of the self that can be activated through a combination of intense work on creating a true inner I, using sexual energies in very specific and sophisticated ways, and energetically eliminating/transmuting personal thoughtforms and other energy factors people are unaware of. Devoting yourself emotionally with religiously inclined energies and creating a thoughtform is not the way to do it, and as I said, I don't see what should be the overwhelming evidence of superb results there to justify how the HGA is talked about.

 

[ahathoor]

dude, who are you so angry at? Freud, Regardie, or us?

we're not even talking about the validity of Freudian analysis, or whether the whole bloody Abramelin complex is a particularly productive to devote yourself to... i'm fully on the standpoint that one's magical workings will always benefit from a wider range of viewpoints and references, so why shouldn't we think about the tripartiate model or the f'n HGA... just to be clear, i'm not telling you (or anyone) to use either...

you're free to use or throw out any working that you feel useless or problematic, but appearing unbidden only to communicate dissent is unlikely to make anyone agree with you...

and i'm glad you found a book that drags Freud through the mud; he was certainly no saint, i'll abide by that... but come on, does that mean it's now forbidden to refer to his ideas?

 

[Beyond Everything]

dude, who are you so angry at? Freud, Regardie, or us?

Any emotion you perceive here is on your end.

you're free to use or throw out any working that you feel useless or problematic, but appearing unbidden only to communicate dissent is unlikely to make anyone agree with you...

Truth is not a function of popularity.

and i'm glad you found a book that drags Freud through the mud; he was certainly no saint, i'll abide by that... but come on, does that mean it's now forbidden to refer to his ideas?

It's not a question of sainthood. Again, the book has documentation that he lied about curing patients.

 

[ahathoor]

It's not a question of sainthood. Again, the book has documentation that he lied about curing patients.

okay, so does THAT mean that it's now forbidden to refer to his ideas?

 

[Beyond Everything]

okay, so does THAT mean that it's now forbidden to refer to his ideas?

No, but it is very helpful to have the real context of how his work developed. I had read a good deal of Freud , and as he was a master rhetorician, I put some stock into it. Learning more put quite a dent in that stock. His ideas were supposed to have been developed from his first hand observations of patients, which turned out to be alternately sloppy, hastily generalized, and most damningly, fabricated.