Dear aa_nerut,
Thank you for your comments. I will endeavor to make some meaningful comments
Llyod,
I was hoping this would have spurred more discussion, I think when I get the chance to read more into it I will start a PM with you, but I came across this on wikipedia (so it must be true!) Now I know this is about Freud and not Jung's ideas here, but it is an interesting thought when it comes to Set.
Feel free to PM or email me anytime.
"Freud believed that the ego itself takes shape as a result of the conflict between the id and the external world. The ego, therefore, is inherently a conflicting formation in the mind." from the section on criticism on
Ego Psychology
So thinking about this the egos entire existence and formation is due to struggle, conflict. The Id following the pleasure principle (will to pleasure) smashes up against the external world (I would say objective universe in "Setian Talk") attempting of course to seek its will be fulfilled. The Ego partaking of the reality principle comes into formation as a means to more correctly acquire the desires of the Id and it's will to pleasure.
I just wanted to add this little bit before addressing your comments below. For Jung the ego complex (since there is no one thing called "ego" but rather a myrad of psychic attributes) was the centre of
consciousness. "It" tends toward inflation and the assumption that it is the centre of the
psyche. The various persona that we use on a daily basis are also closely linked to the notion of "I". While both Freud and Jung seat the notion of personal identity with the ego complex they found the ego functioned very differently within their respective models.
I find the conflict idea obviously very present in Setian imagery, I would say it is struggle that drives Set's existence. Though this Xeper can only happen after the Id attempts to insatiably satisfy its will to pleasure (or we could say Indulgence).
In Jung's model, in my opinion, the Setian struggle is similar, though not identical, to Jung's notion of Individuation. This would be the struggle to become psychological whole or, in terms I prefer, it is the process of psycho-spiritual maturation or psychological Initiation. I doubt that Jung would approve though! To me Xeper, in a Lloydian Jungian interpretation is: the process of Becoming more than we were; it is understanding that there is more to the human condition than the objective universe (imagination is a vital psychic power); the process of individuation engaged in a willed manner (Thelema). What starts the process would be an innate dissatisfaction with one's view of the universe. Indulgence might prompt Xeper, lack of Runa, I think it really would depend on the individual. Xeper, in my understanding, can
be explained many different ways. Freud's model, Jung's, any number of philosophers, occultists, or whatchyamahoosits will have an angle to it. It is a very dynamic Word to be sure! I was once told, while discussing Jung and Xeper than Jung can be a useful tool but does not provide the whole story. I agree!
I profess I am very limited in my knowledge of psychology so I will throw this one out to you, see if you could give me some pointers on my little thought here. Though I see I have a lot of homework on my plate here, I can see that Setian philosophy can be touched upon in psychology and doesn't have to be some "wwoooohh-yeeee-ooooooo" mystical experience nor explanation, or at least could be interpreted as such.
If one is interested in Xeper I'm not sure Jung or Freud are necessarily the best approach...unless they are! For me Jung has been a long time area of research. It makes sense that I would try and use tools I already posses to understand Setian (in this specific usage Setian refers to the ToS) Aeonic Words and Setian Philosophy. I think now it is perhaps more important to have a good grounding in the way the brain works, how perception exists, how we are programmed to think, feel and live.
An important factor in Jung's model not in Freud is that Jung talked about the "religious function" as being a positive thing (read "religion" here is a very loose way). It was his assumption that humans have a drive toward expressing our spirituality. He was not interested in institutionalising the religions experience. He was interested in individual experiences of the Self which is usually quite disruptive to the ego complex (as I mention in my paper). I refer to that feeling as the "Holy **** Factor". When it happens any discussion or debate of deity or scripture or truth takes a back seat to how we can Remanifest from the experience. I suppose when the Prince of Darkness speaks, you listen!
I feel I'm on a bit of a rant here. I think positing specific questions is a great way to explore these issues (keeping in mind of course that what I say is my opinion! lol) so please, post other questions or comments. Let's work in a playful manner with these ideas.
Xeper,
Lloyd
