Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00240)

Alexis:
>>>. I also aprehend there is a great danger in using a so-called
>>>"psychological" approach to theosophy as it tends to either avoid or
>>>euphemise reality into psychological states of physical human consciousness,
>>>and they, as I see it, are the least important aspects of consciousness.
Jerry S:
>>	Agreed.  But psychogenesis will not replace cosmogenesis or
>>homogenesis but rather supplement them.  This should help avoid this
>>pitfall.
>
Alexis:
>I'll definitely go along with that just so long as it's not based on Freud
>or Jung. They are both far too Judeo-Christian in their value judgements.
>

	I give Freud credit for "discovering" the unconscious and
for emphasizing the importance of dreams, but little else.  However,
I rather like Jung.  Jung realized that value-judgements are
psychological, and that we place them on things according to our
perception of meaning.  In short, he realized their relativity.  But
I agree that if psychogenesis is to work, it must be based on the
"core teachings" of Theosophy as an expansion of the 2 vols of the
SD.  But just as HPB compares her Gupta Vidya with modern
science, so we must compare psychogenesis with modern
psychology.  I have already tried to do this in several areas,
probably the most "stimulating" on theos-l has been ethics
where I compared Kohlberg's moral stages to the traditional
stages of occult development.  This kind of thing simply has
to be done if Theosophy is to survive (I have no doubt that
theosophy will survive just fine with or without us).

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI