yes. that had me rotfl! because it is so so very true, actually. when the truth is spoken this clearly, surely the point is to laugh throw the discomfort.
and oddly enough i used a similar phrase in my work career. in 2005, after the company i worked for successfully broke the union with a five month lock out with the help of an official strikebreaking contractor for hire, i said 'ah, now we return. at the very least please use the lubrication.' or words to that effect. that was a fascinating experience, that actually did have some ambivalence because of my ambivalence about the presence of unions. and that is a whole long other story i researched when i wrote two anti-economics courses: economics debunked and banks skanks.
all the best with what is changing — everything is changing.
"Jung believed withdrawing a projection of the Shadow and owning it as a part of ourselves requires enormous moral courage. He also believed that what we will not face within our psyche we will be forced to confront in the outer world." -- That is so true.
If we can accept that we live in the world we create, then what our experience is on the inside will be expressed on the outside. By owning all of ourselves, we Re - Member ourselves into fullness, this is a difficult task and it does take courage, also a lot of patience.
Thank you, Nef. That quote very much parallels the Course. Before the woman who transcribed it decided to take on the task, she had a long series of recurrent dreams. In each one, there was a bloody sacrifice or battle with an enemy. In some, she was the killer, in others the one killed. The pattern kept repeating and repeating until she finally decided, 'This has to end' and put down the sword.
That's the cycle we're in now. Putting down the sword of judgment lets other people come into focus. As my reading said this morning, recognizing just one person as a part of you changes everything, and becomes a lesson that can be extended to every person you meet. Thanks for providing that clear example!
Isaac, I'm learning so much from your astrology 'reading' which is really an applied lesson after a mini-course in the basic concepts. Other than listening to your personalized video twice, I haven't even gotten to the part that's my birth chart. I'm still slowly and carefully absorbing all the new knowledge about Vedic astrology.
I also think I never fully got your use of 'wholesome' before and how it relates to wholistic and also conveys beneficial and healthy. You have a real gift with words, which I appreciate as a fellow poet. ;-)
And coincidentally (?) Cynthia Chung just reposted a lesson in Chinese astronomy. Her focus seems more on encouraging space exploration but it was another whole study of the heavens I hadn't been taught in my Eurocentric indoctrination.
Searching, questioning, illuminating, dispelling, and understanding reality is the bestest drug. :)
A quick comment about the conversation you had with your reader because I see truth in both your points. I do think art, in general, has a quicker and more direct communication about complex concepts. It’s easier to feel than to comprehend and cogently communicate to others. Having said that, I engage in discourse regarding consciousness and god, and nature and the meaning of life and all that, it’s my favourite subject. I also think that the universe communicates through abstract language and it’s up to us to see the signs and decode the meaning. Very much like astrology, actually. So, in a way creating meaning for our lives is creating reality for them too. Does that make sense?
I’m also share your sentiments regarding the separation from others and the wholeness of consciousness. I see it as an ocean and each of us as drops of water from the same sea. Or if god/nature is electricity, each of us is like an antenna animating a body.
What a lovely conversation to dip into today! I'm so honored that you and Kathleen find what I write worth engaging with deeply. It adds so much to my experience, or to the 'dimension' of me that's brought into focus by both of you.
And I do agree with you, Tonika, about the symbolic languages being ones that create a visceral (!) sense of truth that resonates. That's why what you do, combining music and visuals and laughs, is so powerful.
But then, I think, it also needs to hold up logically or we run the risk of having those symbols that resonate and play our emotions hijacked to drive us to a different destination--like off a cliff. In retrospect, I think that's what Malone did. He used memes and feel-good quotes that hooked us into not seeing his real content, which was authority and DoD driven.
My convo with this guy started with Eisenstein's Sacred Economics, which he was reading. I think that was its appeal too--we love that warm fuzzy feeling of community where people just do things for each other. But when logic is applied to questions like, "Who pays the mortgage?" it doesn't hold up. So it tricks us into something simplistic and unworkable.
The crux of our disagreement was him throwing out complicated references to neo-Platonists and gnostics and post-modernists instead of engaging on the simple logic that the only way a loving God is possible is if we're OneMind Dreaming. I went into more depth but I know you've already heard it. I was trying to get him to answer from his own mind and authority, rather than derivative arguments that what I was saying was just like so-and-so. That was when he took the 'psychedelics' cop-out after he couldn't answer my logic.
The real question is why I feel compelled to pay for dinner and drinks when I'm really not liking the dimension of myself a person brings out? I think it has something to do with ending the obligation.
"Very much like astrology, actually. So, in a way creating meaning for our lives is creating reality for them too. Does that make sense?"
Makes sense to me.
I've thought - in response to Tereza's position that Jesus was a fictional character that in some ways - now - it doesn't even matter. Sure in some contexts it might, but in terms of what Jesus represents there is both deep meaning and subsequent 'reality' to his existence. (And if T is also correct that we're looking at a fragmented mind when we see the world; the projection of separation; then perhaps in a Jesus figure we are looking at a projection of an attempt at healing it. IDK. Frankly it makes me a little tired to think about it. :-)
I like and use the drop/ocean image/metaphor too. Especially in that the drops continually splash back into the whole and remerge as new drops over and over.
I agree, Kathleen, I love that insight of Tonika's. It's not really about the stars, it's about the meaning for our lives that's paradoxically created in the stars BY us finding that meaning. Of course, given my OneMind Dreaming theory, I suspect all history and cosmology is written backwards, created by our current level of understanding that makes an unknown fact suddenly emerge that confirms it. It so often happens that way for me. I realize something and sha-Zam, there's 20 people showing why it's true.
It's interesting that you bring up Jesus when I was just thinking through this in my answer to Tonika with Malone and Eisenstein. It's the same formula, I think. The most dangerous propaganda is taking the truth, that we resonate with, and turning it to another purpose.
My suspicion is that the zealots and Sadducees discovered the truth of OneMind Dreaming when they rejected the Roman empire and the theocratic dynasty and its tax collectors (who I'm now thinking controlled the Roman empire rather than the other way around.) Judas was the Healer, the Nazarene, the Christ. Saduc rejected the superiority of genealogy and race. They included slaves, women and other colonies in their rebellion. What they were up against was torture, pain, fear and death. But they won, setting a precedent for every oppressed people.
The story of Jesus hijacks that truth and makes the moral of it that the empire will always win because the empire's use of torture is condoned by God except for mistaking this one guy, who was innocent. But that was God's will too.
As many people say about money, what a system does is what it was designed to do. Jesus-centric Christianity has always supported empire. Would we have figured out how to end empire without it? Dunno but it's hard to imagine it could have been worse.
I like the ocean meta pho for the same reason. And because it also goes well with Sheldrake’s morphic resonance. How can we not pick up the intelligence of the whole if we’re a drop of the ocean? (Also, nice parallel to fractals)
I LOVE this. Is it shallow of me that I also love her eyebrows? So intense!
Her statement is so cool, that we're drawn to people because of the dimension they bring out in us. I will definitely be linking this, thank you Tonika!
My best friend sent it to me this morning with the line: “I like the reflection of myself that I see through your dimension!” We’re such a bunch of lovely weirdos.
Thanks for link and yes resonates with alchemists message nicely.
"We don't think of ourselves as dimensions" she says and sure enough I don't tend to think that, but rather as having dimensions and/or layers or depth.
And I like this reconfigure of seeing ourselves and others AS dimensions. (And the recognition - sometimes instantaneously) when you find yourself in relation to another 'dimension' who feels 'flat' or 'complex' or whatever else.
I'm gonna wear this descriptor and see how it feels. :-)
jung explores the shadow and projection in relationships in his wonderful short paper 'marriage as a psychological relationship'. for audio of the paper:
I’m a bit backed up on video work, but if you record the poem and send it to me, I’ll try and add some visuals or SFX to it if you’re into that sort of thing.
That is so funny! I was just thinking, "Wouldn't that be cool?" before I read your sweet offer! Fill me in on the logistics of recording and getting it to you, and yes!
Yes, the ocean within the drop is more apt. That’s why I mentioned fractals. Not familiar with Unified Field Theory, but will put it in my notes to tumble down a rabbit hole. Thanks, Nef.
Just because I happen to be reading this at this very moment and it seemed to fit this ‘awesome’ theme …
“The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds” (Biography of William L Pierce) – Robert S Griffin
Chapter 13 “Our Cause”
Pierce:
“Thus [our organisation] helps our people to find their way once again to their right and natural path. It helps them find harmony with the whole. Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos; the purpose for which the first amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned how to live on the land;
[…]
It is the purpose for which Rembrandt painted and Shakespeare wrote and Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is the purpose for which the best, the noblest men and women of our race down through the ages, have struggled and died, whether they were fully conscious of it or not; the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves nature’s mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain and the suffering this choice entailed.”
Pierce goes on to explain theism, atheism and pantheism and in particular his ‘Cosmotheism’, which I found deeply thoughtful and very impressive.
I was loving everything Pierce wrote until he got to "the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain and the suffering this choice entailed."
It's been my experience that the less judgmental I am of other people, the more joyful and easy my path becomes. Giving us a way of viewing ordinary people in a different light seems literally like what Rembrandt did and what Shakespeare did literally ;-)
Last night I was at a birthday party where a neighbor asked what I did when not dancing. I tried to describe Substack and what I wrote about, but it didn't land. And should she check out the link, I'm sure she'd be horrified.
I left early to go home and make this video and the answer to her question hit me. I'm fulfilling my life purpose. After 6.5 decades of thinking "if I can just figure out how to say it, someone will get what I'm saying," I can walk away from the small talk. Instead of 'pushing' my ideas on people, I can 'pull' those asking the same questions. And have! Thank you both for that.
“ Last night I was at a birthday party where a neighbor asked what I did when not dancing. I tried to describe Substack and what I wrote about, but it didn't land. And should she check out the link, I'm sure she'd be horrified.”
Love it. And what a party it ‘wasn’t suddenly. But in reality weren’t you all busy ‘filling in the blanks’ of your respective relationships with each other??
Sounds like reflection will be the cure that pulls you back together again, or it won’t.
And if that’s how it ends, well, that’s how it goes sometimes.
Life is like that.
Personally, I’m metaphorically at the airport regarding this entire discussion/topic……………………………..all I’m hearing is lots of noise……….and everything is going over my head.
But, got to start sometime, and what better group with which to begin this new journey.
No way I’m going to be able to contribute to getting this to 400. LOL
“ This weekend we who live in the temperate climates are being treated to a cosmic spectacle from massive solar storms. The Northern Lights were visible as far south as Florida. I spoke to a ham radio enthusiast who told me that communication has been impossible since these massive storms erupted 93 million miles away from us.
Last month the moon cast a shadow that raced across the U.S. on a Monday afternoon allowing millions to witness a astronomical event called totality. Astrologers tell us solar eclipses signal a shift in our thinking. Says this astrologer:
“Eclipses by nature and astrology are times of the unexpected times of change. They'll show you where in your life you've been holding on to something that is past its prime, trying to force something to go in a direction it's not supposed to…”
Oh - I thought that closing statement was most inspiring - a beautiful crescendo. There are certainly Good and Evil forces and the degenerative, the regressive take the easy path.
The "ism"(s) are mostly disciplines of Thought. The true magisty is in finding the Center of Being, living from within, as the Observer and realizing the Being is also the Observed. Taking up the yoke of the various "isms" as only a form of Dharma in the Justification of Works. For they are only a Means, not a Destination.
Seeking the Beautiful, we Realize Beauty, while approaching our grand Reflection. We can embrace the Fullness of Self, experiencing OF the World that there's nothing that exists outside of the Self. All is One, the Many thoughted All.
In all of the epiphanies, a Beautiful secret becomes the Wholeness of Life, that there's only one thing, and that's Consciousness itself. We are deathless countries within One.
Once again I'll respond here to catch both. On another thread, I described the two of you as having the most productive disagreement on my stack--this was regarding Hitler. You're both such deep thinkers, well-read and even-tempered. What I love about your quotes, Julius, is that they don't act as the authoritative final word but they present an idea in its best-worded light. So I don't know if reading Pierce is necessary, Nef, because it's really the idea that matters.
I was sketching out another episode this morning looking at good vs. evil as the foundational story that set the ground for masters, servants and slaves. I think you're right, Nef, that it goes to the divine justification for authority in monotheism as the supremacist version of polytheism, as Guyenot explains. It's not an inclusive God.
Atheism and evolution substitutes nature for the personified God who determines good vs. evil. Those who succeed, as Darwin showed, are considered to have done so by their merit no matter what means they used.
But Pierce doesn't seem to do that. He seems to be like Salinger, was it in Frannie and Zoey that he has the epiphany God is in the glass of water, the chair? It also seems like what Kathleen is saying. But nature isn't evil or degenerate. Why would people be? I think I'm mostly in agreement until he gets to that.
I'll respond to you here, Julius, to catch you and Nefahotep. Yes, Pierce's closing was a beautiful crescendo, as was the whole quote. I'm having to make a conscious effort to set aside how compelling and masterful his language is and ask, "But do I agree?"
The first question, I think, in any belief system is 'What is my true relationship to you?' Pierce posits a world in which there are evil forces and degenerate and regressive people taking the easy, downward path. He might be right.
I choose the position that any virtue I have in my life--to care for my children, to be fair in my relationships, to stand up for what's right--is what anyone would do if they had the same opportunity. It's our default. And any mistakes I've made have been forgivable, like everyone else's, not the result of an evil or degenerate nature.
In pantheism, the evil forces are part of god, which is indifferent to human suffering. If seems almost like an evolutionary approach to god, as not a creator God but something that just came to be with everything. I'm not sure there's an advantage to believing there's no god or a passive god. It still leaves us with nothing rooting for us, pulling for our success, celebrating our wins.
But maybe Pierce isn't talking about people at all, only forces of degeneration, like entropy.
Tereza, you provide a very astute observation of the short falling of Pierce; he seems to be an Artisan of Intellectual Gymnastics, while he comes off quite smooth, he manages to retain the "Flotsam" of Authoritarianism and the indifference to Life.
I do tend to agree with some aspects here, just not all of it of course.
Since I am not well versed on Pierce, I will defer to your better senses in what this author is expressing. As I am probably more of a Pagan to most Christians, I do not condone some of the things Pagan Pantheist would be accused of, especially being indifferent to Life. I Vehemently stand for and fight for Life.
I think Christian Authors did not have any clue as to exactly what the original Symbolic Meanings and Culture based off of Poly Theist ideas really were.
Pierce is likely talking about forces; while comparing the Mono-Theist to the Pantheist or Poly Theist approach. The biggest fault I have with both is they rely on Belief. I can't relate to Belief.
In ancient cultures, there was a chain of authority in both systems of Belief.
Mono Theist -- Abrahamic Triangle of Insanity, definitely has Authority enshrined inside it's fabric of Social and Political influence. I think we are all aware of this.
Poly Theist -- Many Temples and Many Gods also had a system of Authority enshrined in it as well. As an Example: Some cultures did fights between the Temple of the Sun and Temple of the Moon. As though they should have a squabble. ;-)
Both types of cultural / spiritual infiltrations were Human driven and controlled for the Hijacking of Cultural based Spiritual practices that were original to the indigenous people of an area.
If I can take the time to; I will explore Pierce's work. I hope I don't regret trying.
In The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, Pierce goes on to say:
“In theistic traditions, there is the belief in personal immortality. The faithful will survive death in some form. Death is regrettable to be sure, but that regret is softened by the conviction that the next world will be a better place than this one is. In fact, in theistic traditions existence on earth is in large measure perceived as a time of preparation for the afterlife.
Like theists, pantheists believe in God; pantheism is not a disguised form of atheism or a substitution of naturalism for religious faith. Where the difference lies is that pantheists do not perceive of God as a person or anything like a person. The pantheistic god doesn't have a personality. It doesn't have a mind. It doesn't perceive as does a human being. It doesn't formulate intentions and carry out actions in response to circumstances in the manner of a person. Pantheistic religions tend not to play up the creator-of-the-universe conception of God as do theistic religions. There is more of a tendency in pantheism to attend to God and world—however they/it came to be—simply as realities to be encountered and taken into account at this time and in this life.
Pantheism denies the beyondness, the otherness, of God. God isn't up there, over there, someplace else, transcendent. God is here, a part of all this, immanent. God penetrates everything in the universe. God is in nature. God is in human beings. God and man and nature are not distinct—or at least not totally distinct, or only distinct.”
And in Universal Philosophy (Jacqueline Berger) we read:
“The believers of the Semitic [Abrahamic] religions must participate essentially in the Sacraments, in the Mass to be saved.
For the disciples of the Universal Philosophy, every act, every thought, every desire must be purified, sanctified. Love must be lived. One cannot be saved if one does not have Consciousness, the objective of out earthly incarnations. Man is not of this [**materialistic] world. He is respectful of life in all its forms. Love and Wisdom are his guides.“
** the materialistic world is the one described in Genesis – it is the creation of the Demiurge.
I wrote this comment elsewhere but after watching I feel drawn to the synchronisites with this latest little beauty from you... Keep on keeping on..
The title of the video is you are the king.... I'll add or queen....
We are all sovereign beings, born of the flesh with souls of the spirit. Unfortunately we have allowed ourselves to forget our true nature. We are born into captivity, our parents and those before them forgot or allowed themselves to become captives of an "elitists" class who believes or act as though they have some divine blood right to rule of the rest of us....
Fuck all that, us allowing these cretins to lord and rule over us is responsible for many wrongs in this world, none more pervasive and insidious than taxes. The ruling classes use taxes not to directly fund spending on roads, infrastructure and things... No they use our taxes to pay interest on debts that they are able to create from nothing ( well not exactly nothing, your labour is the collateral ).... Then they use this debt to kill and maime in foreign lands, they use it for the weaponisation of institutions against us all, by spying on us etc... What we have here is, the prisoners funding and allowing our own imprisonment, we must recognise the system for what it is, one giant Ponzi scheme designed to hoover up the labour of the many to fund the disasterous agendas of the few....
We have all the power they have, we've just forgotten that fact, it's beyond time for us to recognise our natural God given strength, power and spirit, so humanity can break free from the chains of enslavement that these bastards are so desperately trying to tighten....
Well, I often say that sovereign is my middle name. I even eventually learned how to spell it.
You're certainly right that coinage and taxation in 'the coin of the realm' was the beginning of our co-opting into the conquest and enslavement of our neighbors. I write about that in my book, borrowing from David Graeber. At this point, I would add that it created the lucrative theocratic dynasties, who minted the coins, collected the taxes and imparted divinity to the kings through intermarriage. Very key to understanding their power.
For the last 100 yrs, however, the mortgage has surpassed taxation as the way in which our labor and sovereignty is usurped. Otherwise, people were able to avoid taxation by primarily living off the land. Housing costs average 25% of income and rise with the money that can be borrowed. They don't need to pretend it's helping the poor--100% of banking profits go to the wealthiest people in the world.
My system recognizes the private creation of money in mortgages, usurping ownership of property, as fraud. It makes it exclusively the right of the commonwealth to create the loans, and issue, tax and determine the exchange rate of the credit to repay the loans for those things that are the community legacy--homes, land, knowledge, infrastructure.
Lol, I feel like that also... Regarding mortgages, for the last 100 years, more so since the 70s to be more precise, the mortgage is a literally debt bond, however what is also happening at the same time as the debt bond is created the equivalent in dollar terms is also created and transferred into the system. So what's effectively happened is, we've all become capable of minting money via bonding ourselves to debt... Mortgages/debt is definitely pervasive however I still believe taxation pips it out as the worst offender, despite what you said regarding home cost... I don't have a mortgage, my housing costs are approximately 10/15% of total income... People don't necessarily have to live with a mortgage or debt, but every penny you spend is taxed, nearly every penny you earn us taxed apart from some tax free allowances, plus if you were to purchase a home, they'd tax you for the lifetime of ownership....
Have you looked into how things work in the UK... There's obviously some US style die hard capitalism to the system, but the division back downwards seems a lot more equitable for the lower classes than in the US...
So I guess in summary I'd say taxation, debt and those controlling both are where the vast majority of our issues lay, if we can as you suggest in your book, extricate that control into smaller groups, then we I believe like you that we have a great chance of creating change... We just need to get a few billion others on board... 😂...
Sorry I just realised you watched a different video from the one I thought you had watched and was replying to 🤦.... However indeed please still do share you thoughts on that one also... 🙏
Ah nice... No not at all, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts of course.....
I'm not sure his ideas are through out to any great depth but my point in sharing was kind of to highlight the requirement for a system that can work for the diametric world we live in, where at one extreme there's billionaires and at the other end there's disabled people that can't work... Because that is the reality we face in my opinion, everything exists in a spectrum so if any system doesn't cater for that spectrum of people, there's very likely to be harm caused somewhere.
The way I describe those are the greed + need models. The first question you need to answer is whether the purpose of gov't is to provide for people's needs or to enable people to provide for themselves. The former requires centralization where people don't own the product of their own labor. I think that our compassion is being used to strip our sovereignty under the guise of helping 'disabled people who can't work.' But it really ends up giving defense contractors $61B for 'Ukraine'. There are other ways to help families and communities care for their own, I think.
Yeah I like that framing.... When soulless demons are in control, our compassion always will and always is used against us... Centralisation in and of itself isn't the overriding issue in my opinion, obviously it allows for a point of failure, which in any system or structure set up can be a major flaw... The issue as I see it, is continuous centralisation, where as we see today megalomaniacs are running a muck absorbing as much as possible into the core of their monopolys to achieve their goals.... If one group/country centralises it's resources for the betterment of that group or country as whole then the benefits are multiplied, so there's absolutely positives to centralisation... Norway is a good example on country level... They have vast natural resources, now no individual could ever benefit from these natural resources without the cooperation and centralisation of already existing resources. As the country extracted these resources and invested the money, the country grew richer in dollar terms and people lives improved, their health improved and they score highly by most metrics out there....
Now having said all that, the ultimate crux of it all is, what is the ultimate goal, because that will absolutely determine the process or structure you would require to create to achieve it...
I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on how a society deals with the spectrum of potential that is with the human condition without some sort of centralisation... I really want to try and crack that nut.
It's special because it's more active than reading or writing a finished fiction work. In astrology, the author uses a loose framework of concepts and describes a story about events or people, and about the past or the present or the future, and the story mutates quickly as needed.
The purpose of the astrologer is mainly to amuse himself. In contrast, in pure and normal fiction, authors write about taboo things from the real world. The purpose can be as simple as to unburden himself. And regular fiction is often very rigid, precisely because it's a fixed message in a bottle, that was written by someone asking for help, maybe thirty years ago.
In a few ways, astrology is the same genre as stand up comedy. But the latter is more ephemeral. There is a sharing of the framework of astrology through the ages.
And comedy is more collective, but astrology is more individual.
I think it's wrong to take guidance from this kind of fiction. Wrong in the same sense as not taking seriously enough the truths hidden in normal fiction.
I have tried being sincere and being astrological: people close up when I tell them the truth. People are a little more receptive to the comedy of astrology. At any rate, they already know. That's one reason why they reject direct speech. But the colorful jumps through the jungle of logic and ontology of the fiction of astrology seems to encourage some individuals to face problems of living.
Then, we have the "latter day realists": those people who argue that regular science is not also a form of fiction. In some of these people I've detected the tendency to believe uncritically any order and any piece of legislation. Any action is morally right if it emanates from the hierarchy. To these captives I explain how the concepts of the natural sciences fail to describe reality, and how the people above them know they are lying. It's always a shock. Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception. But it's best to never realize this.
My conclusion is that these people live so deeply in fiction that they cannot appreciate any other form of fiction.
"Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception." Excellent observation, Roger, and exactly to my point. Our purpose is to heal that split mind, which none of us has fully done or the purpose of the world would have been fulfilled and ended after that brief respite where it becomes the 'good dream' where we can rest awhile before finishing the journey to God/ Reality/ Truth (pick your antidote, not poison ;-)
For decades I followed closely the 'Real Astrology' of Rob Brezsny. I don't think he 'believed' in it, but used it as a medium for introducing specific ambiguity and empowering contradictions (in my words) to break through cognitive prisons. It was very powerful because the core message I tried to give my daughters is "You are the most special person in the universe. And so is everyone else." The sense of a message being directed specifically to you gives it a landing place. And I think that can be used for great good. At least before Rob fell into his own mental construct, imo, as I state here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles
Fiction certainly has that same resonance. It speaks to something very personal, that gives the sense that author would REALLY get you, if they knew you. In that sense, it conveys a false intimacy, hence stalkers. But I agree that they're both forms of symbolic language that might be meaningless, if there is no purpose outside of what we make. If purpose does exist, however, it has to be everywhere or not at all.
" In some of these people I've detected the tendency to believe uncritically any order and any piece of legislation. Any action is morally right if it emanates from the hierarchy. To these captives I explain how the concepts of the natural sciences fail to describe reality, and how the people above them know they are lying. It's always a shock. Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception. But it's best to never realize this."
yes!
my last essay explores morality as the drug pusher enabler of reason as superstious overload that rationalises all death of the 'other' as undeserving.
I do believe that morality is real. And I don't disregard reason or rationality.
I'm very far removed from Buddhism, which you follow and also criticize (I mean, what is not to criticize in Buddhism right? ;-D).
For me, Jesus gave the solution to the problem of life. But the people have come to reject the solution because it's not their solution.
If I believed in the "ego" or in scolding people for the workings of their "ego" then I would have to say that rejecting the True and Living God is the supreme form of egolatry and a very uncool thing to do, but I won't say that because I don't believe in Freud's lexicon and conceptology, and I really think I'm not the one to evangelize anyone, much less to go recovering lost sheep and bring them to their home in God.
In my (yet incomplete) version of Christian morality, the death of others is sometimes undeserved and sometimes deserved. For example, people who kill children because they have a defect in their bodies, like 107 weird symbols in the skin of the plant of their feet, are murderers and deserve death. Even if they repent they still deserve death.
It has always been immoral, and will never cease to be immoral, the action of killing innocent people because doing so is convenient to one's political/economic ideology.
The so called anxiety is unavoidable, even if one manages to convince herself that morality is not a thing. You can put lipstick on a pig, but you still have to kill and roast that bastard before selling ham roast (that's a harsh joke, I'll admit.)
Do Buddhists (of your sort of Buddhism or non-Buddhist Chanism, or of any other type of Buddhism) opine that it's immoral to judge a mass murderer of innocent people?
Now, you may think that's a trick question. But it's not. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to state their opinions or absence of opinion. I would prefer people were more sincere, even though I know they are afraid of repression. But if some group of people think there is nothing immoral about killing the innocent, or another group says that it is a good thing to kill the innocent, then I think I'm better off knowing what their true opinion is, rather than wasting time on rhetorical games.
Why should not there be a political party whose platform is to kill all recipients of welfare money in order to save the finances of the State, and that such party argues for the moral goodness of such genocide? It's probably illegal to create an association of any kind which explicitly advocates for crimes, but I would like to see the reaction of the public. I want to know how many of them would argue against the morality of the proposal of that hypothetical party, and how many would inform them that the real purpose of the welfare State was to bankrupt many Nations in order to establish a Dictatorship. Most people have not realized that yet. To hear that notion causes hurt somewhere between their chest and their gonads, because they have been supporting the enemies of their Nation all their lives.
That's pride, if I'm not mistaken.
On the other hand, I don't see (yet) anyone who would complain about the hypothetical genocide of welfare money recipients doing a moral case against it. They seem to prefer the State to the Nation, even though their words tell a different story.
I think most people use morality wrong in argumentation. But that's not a fault of morality, but of the argumentator.
I just don't think it's okay for Mr. Nameless to run to hide at the feet of Jesus and Mary because Mr. Nameless is afraid of the State, and prefers to endure all its crimes, and simply whistle past the Communist mountain of skulls and bones.
Those people who pretend that reality does not exist, and that morality does not exist, and, at the same time, that they are nonetheless Christians or at least people who believe in moral truths, have a lot of sins to answer to.
But, in my view, the people who don't seek God's Grace, and argue against reality or rationality or morality, live in a much better position than the ones who do seek the Grace of the True and Living God. Or, if you will, that mere Nihilism of any type is much less irrational than acting against God.
Of course, dear M. Duperreault, those are all just my judgements. You can dismiss them with a hand wave if you want. We are just two dudes conversing on a little corner of the internet.
Is there anything more you could say about the Christ-mind and why it needs a feminine alternative, please? Sorry, I didn't quite follow that part.
You may not find this a helpful interjection; but, FWIW, the Egyptian Mystery Schools teach that Jesus always and only referred to the divine in the feminine. It was the patriarchal Romans who made God a "He."
That's very intriguing, Tirion. Do you have some references for the Egyptian Mystery Schools?
If we see Jesus as a historical figure, rather than a fictional character, he would be the person described by the historical markers in the four gospels--name, birth and death, events, quotes. Which of these carry over to the Egyptian narrative, to indicate it's the same person they're talking about? I was surprised to learn that there's no written copy of the gospels until the 4th c under Constantine, and then only in Greek. In those quotes Jesus refers to God as his Father and speaks very harshly to his mother. Also calls the Samaritan woman a dog.
I don't see Jesus and Christ as synonymous because I interpret the Christ as the one who sees the Christ in all of us. But I'm very interested in the clues you provide, thanks for that!
No, no written references, Tereza. As far as I know, the Egyptian Mystery Schools are an oral rather than a written tradition. I heard it many years ago from someone who was an initiate of one of the Schools. She referred to Jesus as Yeshua ben Yosef and could recite The Lord's Prayer in Aramaic, the English translation of which bore only a vague resemblance to the version given to us by the Romans. She claimed that Jesus had spent his missing years at the School in Alexandria, where he became a kundalini yoga master and their High Priest, before returning to Judea to begin his ministry.
As for the Gospels, I think they are based on truth and contain some fine moral teachings; but they were written by, for and on behalf of the political exigencies of patriarchal Rome. Separating fact from fiction, as with all good propaganda, is tricky!
Also interesting to note that Constantine was raised in the British apostolic church founded by Joseph of Arimathea around AD 37 (decades before Christianity reached Rome) by his mother, the British Empress St Helen of The Cross, who herself claimed descent from The Holy Family (as did/do many Ancient British royal/princely families) through her father King Cole, that merry old soul of the nursery rhyme.
Practice of Eastern religion encourages the stillness of the mind where no thought can enter except "I am". There is the starting point. The mind is a washing machine of thought and chaos. We all need a code to live by, as the song says.
Astrology is the original time piece, where business was exacted according to the rising of the stars.
Astrology aids us in addressing the archetypes of our being that may be hidden. Monitoring the transits display the various energies that aid in our personal reflections in our world and aid us in breaking out of the hamster wheel of our thoughts.
If you're granny had balls..... She'd be your grandad.... That's fantasy land talk the Tereza.... We're talking about reality as it is.... The answer is you wouldn't I'm sure.... So in that case you are morally and principly different in your mindset from others, we're all different, because we all walk different paths through life... And evil behaviour will always exist, it is inherent in human nature, it's likely you just haven't met it yet... It just needs a little watering in life to flourish in any of our lives. No you don't have a superior soul, you've had a superior upbringing/life experience, which I noted we all do... Something to note though, even people with good upbringings do evil things and psychopathic brains are born, not nurtured. Nobody can be blamed for the soul and body they are born into of course not, but they can for their personal choices along the way... If you benefit from the good and responsible for it, then the same applies to the bad... I understand extenuating circumstances being a factor, however personally responsibility still applies. ( And the fact it's lacking so much today, is in my opinion one the reasons society is turning to shit ). Nature is what created us, and I noted elsewhere, each of us apply our nature differently throughout our lives depending on the circumstances we face and choices we make. I don't stop asking questions when I say or see people being bad, I ask why that might be the case, I ask how they got here in life, I try to find reasoning logic and empathy within the bad.. I also realise that these people both good and bad create systems... And usually it's the bad minded that rises because they are happy having and exercising authority over others....
It can be the passing on of trauma certainly, in family settings it most certainly is... But there's literally predators out their that will kidnap kids off the streets to rxpe and mxlest... Now of course they may have been subjected to their own abuse sure, but that doesn't give them the right to do as they please to other souls.... This is something I've started thinking about recently, one soul harming another, the consequences and how if at all we humans should deal with this....
Aw dear that's a shame, I hope you had some fun with your friends all the same..
once again there is a lot here for me to respond too, even before i got to your extended citation on 'shadow work'. and shadow work has been to a very large extent what much of my writing in and pre-substack is about, particularly in the last year or so.
in that regards, to shadow work i mean, you may like the last essay which is for me a really deep dive into a collective (imo), as well as my personal, shadow around the 'morals' and 'morality'. it turns out that morality and morals of the enablers and/or even 'drug' pushers in our societal addiction to reason. it is with great morality that we kill people, cultures, animals and the planet.
and i will side with your gnostic in that words are a huge impediment to knowledge. for many, as described by patañjali in the yoga sutras, the path to alignment with the wordlessness of 'god' — however the wordless energisation of life is worded by you — ishvara-pranidhana — is in fact through words and the serious practice of svadyaya, the study of the self (shadow-work of the highest order) that is to be done with the other yamas and niyamas. patañjali also points out that the person who is able to align with god (energisation of life) without words will automatically, wordlessly, be engaged fully with the yamas and the niyamas and no need to study their words to understand the. understanding will have preceded words and words are the very pale, (beyond the pale?) simulacrum of the gnosis. from what i remember from pagels's look at this in her book, 'the gnostic gospels', this was a key part of the reason that the gnostics were considered heretical: that they didn't need words to know the experience of god whereas the official church demanded that the true followers trusted only the words of the apostles and their official designates. i have argued in my substack that that is the narcissistic gaslighting roots of the church - the use of words to separate people from the reality of the energisation of life and to rely solely on the words of the church.
jung made a similar allusion when he described the difficulty of using words to convey the experience of god with another: nope. can't be done. to the one who has had the beyond-word experience of god, there is no possible conversation with someone who has only read about the experience. the experience of gnosis is beyond words.
and for the ‘final’ word on words — rotfl as that is possible! — i'll return again to my second favourite taoist writer, after edward de vere (aka shakespeare): it would be easy for me to cite my favourite aphorism which is that words are for catching ideas, and once the idea is caught we no longer need words. however, for a change of pace, this is fun too:
if words were satisfactory, we could speak the whole day and it would all be about the way; but if words are unsatisfactory, we can speak the whole day and it will all be about things. the way is the delimitation of things. neither words nor silence are satisfactory for conveying it. without words and without silence, our deliberations reach their utmost limits. — chuang-tse. wandering on the way: early taoist tales and parables of chuang tzu. toronto: bantam books, 1994. tr. by victor mair, p. 266.
and yes, to the dogma of the separation of people. the criticism of this idea, hence it as an idea, is very old, of course. it was a key part of the success of hinduism to build and to maintain the caste system, for example. and it was the key argument that gautama made with his pre-heisenberg affirmation of the interdependence of **every thing, including people** with the idea of dependence co-arising. (i think that this was largely removed or 'managed' by de-emphasis in much of 'official' doctrines of so-called buddhism.) every thing, **every** **thing** is so interconnected that the removal of even the smallest gluon-quark would dismantle the entire universe. (and yes, gautama even used the word ‘’gluon-quark! not! lol!) he added if that single idea was understood without the need for words and the intermediary, then we wouldn't need words anymore to use morality to justify caste systems and our killing the undeserving (amoral) others over there.
and william blake also also hinted at this problem of separation from the other with the false split between soul and body, that might be the foundation of the perceived even dogmatically proper morality of the separation of people:
the voice of the devil
all bibles or sacred codes have been the cause of the following errors: —
1. that man has two real existing principles, viz., a body and a soul.
2. that energy, called evil, is alone from the body; and that reason, called good, is alone from the soul.
3. that god will torment man in eternity for following his energies.
i would suggest a slightly more nuanced deepest (moral) dogma that may precede or be concomitant with the idea of the separation of people, which is the separation between the deserving and undeserving because that form of separation is energised by morality and reason even more strongly than the separation of people. i suspect that the separation of soul from body might be the genesis of the idea of people as being separate and undeserving or not.
thank you for the interesting exploration. as usual, you have asked me to look deeply at things in my shadow. all the best with what is changing — everything is changing.
Oh relaxing is much better than a Pavlov dog response of drooling ;-) My middle daughter's doing a deep breathwork meditation class where they burn sage. She has some by her chair at home and said it always puts her back in that frame of mind. I'm glad my intro can do that for you.
This is the third time that amaryllis has come back without me doing anything. And the shirt is actually an art deco dress I picked up at a clothing swap. Score!
Yes, I'm really enjoying Isaac's descriptions. Is Vedic astrology the subject you're interested in? His 90 pp reading plus personalized video came to $100US once the exchange rate was figured in, but that may have been a special he was running. In any case, it's affordable and definitely an education that I'm taking slow.
Isaac also was very interested in your art, I don't know if you saw his comment on it. And my friend Ernest just asked me which program you use, so he's learning from your prompts. Amy's magnanimous school of AI magnificence.
This may have been a mite more disjointed than usual but I figured people would be too busy looking at the pictures to care. I finally gave up my desktop 2D crush with the Celtic man reading runes (since I included him here and know where to find him again). Now my desktop is the spiderweb where every red-rimmed node is like a dragonfly eye. The bigger they get, the better they look.
And I'm doing a leisurely stroll through your latest. The one I keep chuckling about is "Hey, my eyes are up here!" Hahahaha!
Oh! It IS the Isaac I thought it was. I didn't fully realize he was on here. Someone shared a video of his a while back and I subscribed to his you tube channel (under my super secret, not really a secret you tube name) I can't wait to look at his substack now! He is very knowledgeable. I also appreciate anyone who enjoys practicing music (or dancing to it :)
Yes, I am interested in the skyclock and the ancient understandings. Here is Crow777's latest title, it's just funny because it rolled in just as I was seeing this comment. " When Sun- Based Calendars Replaced the Skyclock, Reality Receded" I didn't see Isaac's comment but I am going to check out his work. Maybe I already have.....I am wondering if maybe I have seen something of his. I will let you know after I seek it out. I saw a few good references here in your comment section that I want to look at as well. And to Ernest, I use Bing Image Creator. If you have a Microsoft account, you can use it for free. I don't consider having a Microsoft account true freedom, so I can't just say it's free. I don't feel like this presentation was disjointed at all. I found it highly enjoyable.
Part of reclaiming the sky is reclaiming the calendar as moon-based, the one on the back of the turtle--13 months of 28 days. Yes, our current church-authority based calendar leaves us out of sync. The only downside of the turtle calendar is if you were born on a Monday, your birthday will always fall on a Monday, which doesn't seem fair. But when we reclaim our labor and all work for ourselves, that will be moot.
I LOVED the intro music. A combination of HU, do you know the Mongolian throat singing band? and Celtic with pipes. Very masculine. I also loved the discussion, which hit on some of my favorite topics. I have it saved in a draft for a future episode.
I also have a secret new comment for you but I'm saving it for your next post, so it gets more eyeballs ;-)
Oh, compelling. Your comments are already fun when they are NOT secret :) Haha. I am glad you liked the intro. I am very familiar with the Mongolian throat singing by HU. I am a subscriber :). I am glad you liked it, I haven't listened to the podcast yet. I shall. I used to have a subscription but I had to cancel when I "scaled back" and only hearing one hour rather than two makes me sad. :) I will get a new subscription soon. If I find out anything more in hour two, I will let you know.
As an aside, the Freemasons/Jesuits use Astrology to time their events and in many ways create the world around us. Did Jesus really exist? The thing is "God" is ideology and we can create the gods or have them imposed on us with violence. Within this kernel of information lies a whole possibility of creating a different world if we can see ourselves and how "Jesus" as an ideology of Imperialism is not beneficial and how "Jesus" as an expansion of our potential can change our reality. Reality is much more fluid and death just a cycle of adventure than we can imagine.
Thanks for responding, Marcella. And yes! You're absolutely right. My first connection with Isaac was on his tracking of these blood sacrifice events with the Shemitahs, every seven years, and the Jubilee, every 50, and looking at the astrology of Trump and whether he's being positioned as the coming Messiah. I would have thought this crazy, had I not been tracking the same events: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-a-smoke-and-wombat-holes. This one includes Isaac's video from a year ago but his recent work delves more into those connections.
However, does their use of astrology to detonate their destruction make it invalid, or a tool they're using that we should take back? I'm considering the latter but definitely using the former to make sense of their man-made crises and how they want to make them look divinely ordained.
It's a big question whether we create reality/ truth/ god or whether those exist independent of our belief in them. The former essentially says that I am god and create myself and any meaning that exists. I don't dismiss that as a possibility that we're just making up stories--some prettier than others--that give us the illusion of comfort and purpose when, in truth, death is the only certainty.
But I also leave room for the possibility that reality/ truth/ god exists and I can be closer or further away but I don't create it. However, if there is no god, my only dogma still stands--we come into the world morally equal and therefore the moral differences after that are the result of our life circumstances. We are either created by god or the sum of nature and nurture, neither of which we choose or control. So pride and shame are equally irrelevant.
"Jesus" is a story of one person who was exclusively the Christ, innocent where we are sinful, worthy of being a sacrifice to redeem us from our sins. We are guilty. If you want to write a different story, I think we need to go back before the concept of the Christ became exclusive as a single personality better than all the rest of us put together. I don't think you can accept that Jesus was the Christ but then reinvent his story. Just my opinion.
My advice to you is to study Astrology yourself and not necessarily Vedic Astrology but Western Astrology so you develop a different framework for understanding the world and reality and don't get stuck in Patriarchal Monotheism and the ideology of imperialism. You don't solve a problem by using the same set of tools that creates the problem.
Think of it this way: we create the gods and the beings that visit Earth manifesting in human form are ETs, i.e. Jesus, Jehovah/Satan. The whole business of being forgiven for your sins is mind control to the maximum and essentially switches out "God" for the "State" and a limited set of options. Patriarchy is not a successful adaptation.
Interesting perspective, Marcella. I've been doing a lot of research on Rome and ancient Greece, in combination with the supremacism of the Yahweh cult (now falsely called Judaism) and it seems like patriarchy emanated from Greece. That would also be the home of Western astrology, isn't it? Or does it go further back?
The Vedic seemed much less patriarchal, actually not at all with Isis as the key figure. If you've been reading for awhile, you know that much of my research is on Judeo-Christianity as a psyops that enabled rulers to force populations into enslaving and conquering their neighbors, along with the money system and taxation. Women and their economic system didn't exist within these ideologies. So yes, I agree with you but it seems to me that Western astrology is stepping back towards that, from the little I've gleaned.
Isis is an Egytptian goddess not Hindu. You're perhaps thinking of Kali who also a Sirius based energy.
Hinduism is an immanent based belief system, which means you become the gods as a stepping stone towards non-duality. Except these are older beliefs and more recent texts like the Bhagavad Gita are about maintaining the caste system and not so much about energy teachings.
Jesus taught reincarnation but it was removed in the first 500 years of Christianity as it was shaped into a political doctrine.
Sure, Patriarchy started 5000 years ago with the Age of Aires but my point about Western Astrology is it's used to time events and Vedic Astrology uses a different system.
Thanks for that reply, Marcella. You and I are very much in agreement on not getting "stuck in Patriarchal Monotheism and the ideology of imperialism." And that "The whole business of being forgiven for your sins is mind control to the maximum and essentially switches out "God" for the "State" and a limited set of options. Patriarchy is not a successful adaptation."
My understanding of astrology and of Hindu/ Egyptian pantheons is paper-thin. Nefahotep has been deepening it some from his knowledge, so I thought the Egyptian names for Isis/ Osiris were Auset and Ausir: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-temple-of-auset-isis.
That's very interesting that 'Jesus taught reincarnation.' I've been looking at the gnostics for evidence that the zealots/ Sadducees taught that resurrection was inclusive but Jesus was a story to say it was only one person, and not everyone.
And patriarchy starting 5000 yrs ago with the Age of Aries fits well with my last episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/parasites-the-first-5000-years. Parasites are patriarchs and I almost put that as the title. I appreciate your knowledge on this and would love to hear a conversation with yourself and Nef on the mystical texts. May I draw his attention to this exchange?
I read this piece largely due to the mention of Gnosticism.
I'm often humored by what people claim regarding Gnostics, especially in the sense of projecting a thoroughly abrahamic air when it comes to the laundry list of assumed beliefs. Most likely this is due to constant assertions by scholars and their like that Gnosticism was some type of proto christianity, which to my sensibilities is like claiming that iceburgs are antecedent to ice cream.
The reason why no one understands the Gnostic scripture is because they don't have visions.
They don't dream.
The man who claimed that Gnosis is derived from psychedelics is quite a bit closer to the truth than he probably realizes. Of course there are some huge caveates here that qualify this statement. Nobody today understands a visionary praxis. Tripping balls is probably as close as moderners can get.
Its a time-effort-calling-dedication thing.
But I know the modern psyche is available for trance, so perhaps all is not lost.
There is enough sacred literature extant from the Gnostics, despite the repeated genocides, mostly perped by fucking christians, to actually illustrate the visionary praxis, if one bothers to look.
Its immense.
So sure Gnosis is about knowledge, a very specific form of knowledge.
My rules of argument, Mike, is to define the question, why it's important, and what the terms in the question mean to you. In regards to definition, etymology wins. If a word that was created to mean one thing later becomes attached to only a specific meaning, that word has been usurped--it's dead to everyone who doesn't bow to the authority inherent in that meaning. And with the death of that word is the death of imagination as applied to that question. It becomes fixed and is taken out of our vocabulary so that that channel is forever blocked.
Both you and my dinner partner agree that you are the authorities on what gnostic means. So we are left with traditional authoritarian scriptures, which you and I would both describe as Abrahamic, or one particular set of visionary scriptures that, imo, don't challenge the fundamental Abrahamic story of good vs. evil. We can't see ourselves as gnostics or believe that truth is both knowable and communicable. The word's been taken.
In the five volumes I have on 'gnostic scriptures,' there's some commonalities--and some that fit a proto-Christianity, by which I'd say before the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' became usurped as one and the same. But they also diverge wildly. I'd say that the term 'gnostic scripture' refers to any alternative to the Abrahamic from a particular era and place. Ones that fit a particular subset should be distinguished by a word that describes their commonality.
Your work, from glancing at it, has a lot of overlap with questions others are asking here--particularly Nefahotep with runes and their significance. It seems like an important realm of knowledge that might add new information to this conversation: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs
Turning gnosticism into another field of authority vs heresy seems contradictory to the mindset that developed it.
There are definitions for words, and there are meanings. If we look at the word "gay", or " gaiety" the definition of the word has been destroyed, yet the meaning still refers to a positive attainable state. So, no I don't perceive words as bound to strict definitions. I think that you are fully within your own sphere to demand strict definitions in coversations and debates you hold, yet I don't find that language actually functions this way in a broader context.
Runes, clearly are manifestations of language where meaning trumps definition.
Language is important for emanation science. Indispensible even. If you read actual inscriptions, some of the devices used are so clever it makes me laugh. Language as play, making manifest from the unmanifest.
There is more, maybe later, maybe not.
If you do not allow for the decentralized fire of vision and energy to follow it to its final breath, then you are excluding a part of the human experience, based on what? Taste?
We aren't talking about beliefs because beliefs are definitions, and they rigorously direct the flow. Vision is instructive.
Belief is didactic.
So, okay the christians ripped off the Gnostics before murdering them. They took the shiny things from their theft. Maybe the real shiny was the Healer, or as folks like to say, Jesus.
Funny that, if judaism is the great devastator then christianity is the Borg, and Islam is the clean up crew.
I suppose you think enough of my statements to give them a little time, and for that I thank you. You have a formidable intellect, Ms. C.
Thanks, Mike. I don't demand strict definitions, I just need to know what the word means to you and vice versa, if we're going to have a conversation about the ideas themselves. Otherwise, we can spend hours arguing about the gnostics, for instance, only to find that we actually agree about the ideas but merely have different definitions for what a gnostic is.
By your meaning, what is a gnostic? Is it only someone who lived and wrote long ago or can a contemporary person be a gnostic? As an originator or only a follower? Is it a form of practice or a set of parameters for beliefs? Is it anyone who has a vision? And how do you define vision?
Moreover, what word would you use to describe someone who believes we each have equal access to divine knowledge, that truth/ reality/ god is something we can each experience and talk about with equal authority to those who lived 2000 years ago? If agnostics are those who believe god isn't knowable, what is their opposite, who doesn't adhere to an authoritarian theology?
Yes, understood, regarding the issue with definitions. Forgive me, but I have lost the ability to look at anything simply anymore, and language is a huge key to this entire reality.
So, Gnostic, in order to truly live, must have application to the here and now. Therefore, I subscribe to the notion that Gnosticism is available to people today. Further, I hold the view that the reveal of ancient Gnosticism was precisely timed, and ordained by what the ancients referred to as the Great Power. In other words, the call went out
Its weird, okay, but Crowley actually had something to do with this, and maybe Gurdjief as well, for different reasons. The wave of pre-christian allegiance also figures prominently here.
So, a Gnostic then, is a living person who has heard the call.
So far so good. But now the explanation gets especially demanding. To get to the explanation one must work upon levels, and at certain points some of the levels can seem to be quite baffling, even contradictory.
First off, we need to understand that the beliefs are lava. They are molten and shifting, and indeed, the scripture is written for this intentionally. So, when Pistis Sophia describes the vision of the Healer, they are conveying both a practice and an exercise. Foundationally, it is to open the doors of perception as Blake instructs us, to withstand the sheer power of the encounter with the numinous.
This is so different from establishing a concept-which is what we are trained to do, build associations upon it, and then separate it from ourselves so that it can be seen and recognized.
Where we almost always go wrong is the resultant notion that Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely bizarre beliefs.
No.
Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely volatile units of meaning that are masterfully coordinated to burn the living shit out of the supplicant, and replace all that fodder inside with an energetic that builds its own purpose, one which is often unknowable to the conscious mind.
In order to create a modern view on Gnosticism we tend to expect it to play by our rules, but Gnosticism doesn't play ball like that. So, when the modern mind describes a set of premises and beliefs, it believes that it can then compare them to others, and frankly, this is exactly where Gnosticism is today in scholarly circles, in revitalized religion, and in popular fiction. Cyberpunk is all about taking a Gnostic structure and building a dystopian fantasy around it.
So, I suppose at this point someone might say-well who the fuck do I think I am to question this?!?
And like, okay, I'm nobody so whatever.
But there is just one little tiny thing.Gnosticism works so well on the visionary level that its beyond just some coincidence.
So, there are all kinds of visions. My best example, because its practical was when I kept getting these intense, absorbing visual phenomenon of my place burning to ash. So, a vision can be just a connection of sorts, this time it was the guvcorp frying my place, which they really did, BTW.
Vision can also be when you walk into a room and you just know something is up, and you find out you're right.
But the kind of vision Gnosticism was originally about was the one from higher power, and this one is the most intense of all They are unmistakable.
The Gnostics were all about developing this state. I don't know what other conclusion makes any sense, from the Book of Iao, for example.
Why all this is incredibly hard to understand goes to the gaping holes in modern language, because without words, we only have images, and music, and there is no modern lexicon for the state of vision.
If one applies this to your last question, then Source, God, the Great Power is unknowable until one develops the inner muscle to withstand the encounter...thus if one must know, then they must experience, that is the Gnostic way.
Personally, I'm all for the experience of deeper states. I knew this was going on at rock concerts, not everybody, but you know some people would just trance out, and it was beautiful.
Hope this reply isn't too long, and I hope I did the topic some justice.
Well now you've done it. You've sent me down another rabbit hole! Intriguing answers that leave me with more questions. I just read the intro to The Gnostic Bible and I think it needs to be expanded into a post. I'd like to also include your post on runes because I think that fits into some questions we've been asking about deciphering the words. May I link it?
Yes, I would be honoured if you link to my post on Runes.
Your questions were quite good. I do believe for anyone interested in the topic, these were the type of questions they would want to be asked...and answered, of course.
I hope your readers found this discussion interesting.
"The word ‘symbology’ itself contains logos or word. It’s a language of symbols. When symbols in art are detached from meaning in words, like ‘Abstract #3,’ they merely obscure through snobbery, I think. The word ‘theology’ means words discussing the divine, something that’s been relegated to Church-sanctioned scholars but really belongs to all of us. It’s substituted authority for our own thoughts."
I think I understand your point, though I don't agree fully with your interpretation.
I think there are things we can know that don't translate to words and language and this is not about being special - not an instance of snobbery. (Though of course that can be the case.)
We likely don't hear about them, because, well, there IS nothing to say. Best.
Thank you, Kathleen. I agree with you about private knowing, which the Course would describe as revelation. It induces a sense of peace and courage in your convictions, but it doesn't last and isn't communicable. What it describes as the medium of communication is the miracle. It's recognizing that other person as not separate from you and sharing the same purpose, even when their actions might seem to be at odds. That sends a message through words or actions, that might seem to have nothing to do with 'truth' or 'reality' that lets them let go of their self-judgment, breathe a little easier, not feel so alone.
This is a miracle you embody. No matter what different words we use, you and I live the same way in our relationships to others, I feel. Is there a value to coming to agreement on the words? Yes, I think so. But it's not a real point of disagreement (as I felt with this person who was not engaging in a real conversation but imposing his 'knowledge' over mine.)
"The dildo of consequences rarely comes lubed... " Ain't that the truth... 😁🙏
yes. that had me rotfl! because it is so so very true, actually. when the truth is spoken this clearly, surely the point is to laugh throw the discomfort.
and oddly enough i used a similar phrase in my work career. in 2005, after the company i worked for successfully broke the union with a five month lock out with the help of an official strikebreaking contractor for hire, i said 'ah, now we return. at the very least please use the lubrication.' or words to that effect. that was a fascinating experience, that actually did have some ambivalence because of my ambivalence about the presence of unions. and that is a whole long other story i researched when i wrote two anti-economics courses: economics debunked and banks skanks.
all the best with what is changing — everything is changing.
I love the message and the art.
"Jung believed withdrawing a projection of the Shadow and owning it as a part of ourselves requires enormous moral courage. He also believed that what we will not face within our psyche we will be forced to confront in the outer world." -- That is so true.
If we can accept that we live in the world we create, then what our experience is on the inside will be expressed on the outside. By owning all of ourselves, we Re - Member ourselves into fullness, this is a difficult task and it does take courage, also a lot of patience.
Thank you, Nef. That quote very much parallels the Course. Before the woman who transcribed it decided to take on the task, she had a long series of recurrent dreams. In each one, there was a bloody sacrifice or battle with an enemy. In some, she was the killer, in others the one killed. The pattern kept repeating and repeating until she finally decided, 'This has to end' and put down the sword.
That's the cycle we're in now. Putting down the sword of judgment lets other people come into focus. As my reading said this morning, recognizing just one person as a part of you changes everything, and becomes a lesson that can be extended to every person you meet. Thanks for providing that clear example!
To see the Self in all existences and all Existence within the Self.
In realizing our Oneness, through that unity we find Truth, Liberation and Love.
Now, I know that I'm going to have a good day today. These conversations put a smile on my face. 🙂
Love this Tereza: can’t wait to see the direction you take these “Astro” concepts!
Isaac, I'm learning so much from your astrology 'reading' which is really an applied lesson after a mini-course in the basic concepts. Other than listening to your personalized video twice, I haven't even gotten to the part that's my birth chart. I'm still slowly and carefully absorbing all the new knowledge about Vedic astrology.
I also think I never fully got your use of 'wholesome' before and how it relates to wholistic and also conveys beneficial and healthy. You have a real gift with words, which I appreciate as a fellow poet. ;-)
And coincidentally (?) Cynthia Chung just reposted a lesson in Chinese astronomy. Her focus seems more on encouraging space exploration but it was another whole study of the heavens I hadn't been taught in my Eurocentric indoctrination.
Searching, questioning, illuminating, dispelling, and understanding reality is the bestest drug. :)
A quick comment about the conversation you had with your reader because I see truth in both your points. I do think art, in general, has a quicker and more direct communication about complex concepts. It’s easier to feel than to comprehend and cogently communicate to others. Having said that, I engage in discourse regarding consciousness and god, and nature and the meaning of life and all that, it’s my favourite subject. I also think that the universe communicates through abstract language and it’s up to us to see the signs and decode the meaning. Very much like astrology, actually. So, in a way creating meaning for our lives is creating reality for them too. Does that make sense?
I’m also share your sentiments regarding the separation from others and the wholeness of consciousness. I see it as an ocean and each of us as drops of water from the same sea. Or if god/nature is electricity, each of us is like an antenna animating a body.
What a lovely conversation to dip into today! I'm so honored that you and Kathleen find what I write worth engaging with deeply. It adds so much to my experience, or to the 'dimension' of me that's brought into focus by both of you.
And I do agree with you, Tonika, about the symbolic languages being ones that create a visceral (!) sense of truth that resonates. That's why what you do, combining music and visuals and laughs, is so powerful.
But then, I think, it also needs to hold up logically or we run the risk of having those symbols that resonate and play our emotions hijacked to drive us to a different destination--like off a cliff. In retrospect, I think that's what Malone did. He used memes and feel-good quotes that hooked us into not seeing his real content, which was authority and DoD driven.
My convo with this guy started with Eisenstein's Sacred Economics, which he was reading. I think that was its appeal too--we love that warm fuzzy feeling of community where people just do things for each other. But when logic is applied to questions like, "Who pays the mortgage?" it doesn't hold up. So it tricks us into something simplistic and unworkable.
The crux of our disagreement was him throwing out complicated references to neo-Platonists and gnostics and post-modernists instead of engaging on the simple logic that the only way a loving God is possible is if we're OneMind Dreaming. I went into more depth but I know you've already heard it. I was trying to get him to answer from his own mind and authority, rather than derivative arguments that what I was saying was just like so-and-so. That was when he took the 'psychedelics' cop-out after he couldn't answer my logic.
The real question is why I feel compelled to pay for dinner and drinks when I'm really not liking the dimension of myself a person brings out? I think it has something to do with ending the obligation.
"Very much like astrology, actually. So, in a way creating meaning for our lives is creating reality for them too. Does that make sense?"
Makes sense to me.
I've thought - in response to Tereza's position that Jesus was a fictional character that in some ways - now - it doesn't even matter. Sure in some contexts it might, but in terms of what Jesus represents there is both deep meaning and subsequent 'reality' to his existence. (And if T is also correct that we're looking at a fragmented mind when we see the world; the projection of separation; then perhaps in a Jesus figure we are looking at a projection of an attempt at healing it. IDK. Frankly it makes me a little tired to think about it. :-)
I like and use the drop/ocean image/metaphor too. Especially in that the drops continually splash back into the whole and remerge as new drops over and over.
I agree, Kathleen, I love that insight of Tonika's. It's not really about the stars, it's about the meaning for our lives that's paradoxically created in the stars BY us finding that meaning. Of course, given my OneMind Dreaming theory, I suspect all history and cosmology is written backwards, created by our current level of understanding that makes an unknown fact suddenly emerge that confirms it. It so often happens that way for me. I realize something and sha-Zam, there's 20 people showing why it's true.
It's interesting that you bring up Jesus when I was just thinking through this in my answer to Tonika with Malone and Eisenstein. It's the same formula, I think. The most dangerous propaganda is taking the truth, that we resonate with, and turning it to another purpose.
My suspicion is that the zealots and Sadducees discovered the truth of OneMind Dreaming when they rejected the Roman empire and the theocratic dynasty and its tax collectors (who I'm now thinking controlled the Roman empire rather than the other way around.) Judas was the Healer, the Nazarene, the Christ. Saduc rejected the superiority of genealogy and race. They included slaves, women and other colonies in their rebellion. What they were up against was torture, pain, fear and death. But they won, setting a precedent for every oppressed people.
The story of Jesus hijacks that truth and makes the moral of it that the empire will always win because the empire's use of torture is condoned by God except for mistaking this one guy, who was innocent. But that was God's will too.
As many people say about money, what a system does is what it was designed to do. Jesus-centric Christianity has always supported empire. Would we have figured out how to end empire without it? Dunno but it's hard to imagine it could have been worse.
Weirdly I just saw this little short about projection and relationship ships right before reading your comment and I thought it was a bit relevant: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6mCC3Nx41P/?igsh=MzRweHBpMGtod294
I like the ocean meta pho for the same reason. And because it also goes well with Sheldrake’s morphic resonance. How can we not pick up the intelligence of the whole if we’re a drop of the ocean? (Also, nice parallel to fractals)
I LOVE this. Is it shallow of me that I also love her eyebrows? So intense!
Her statement is so cool, that we're drawn to people because of the dimension they bring out in us. I will definitely be linking this, thank you Tonika!
My best friend sent it to me this morning with the line: “I like the reflection of myself that I see through your dimension!” We’re such a bunch of lovely weirdos.
And no, her eyebrows were en pointe.
Thanks for link and yes resonates with alchemists message nicely.
"We don't think of ourselves as dimensions" she says and sure enough I don't tend to think that, but rather as having dimensions and/or layers or depth.
And I like this reconfigure of seeing ourselves and others AS dimensions. (And the recognition - sometimes instantaneously) when you find yourself in relation to another 'dimension' who feels 'flat' or 'complex' or whatever else.
I'm gonna wear this descriptor and see how it feels. :-)
Yes, I’m trying it on for size as well. :)
jung explores the shadow and projection in relationships in his wonderful short paper 'marriage as a psychological relationship'. for audio of the paper:
https://youtu.be/tNjIwOgLXGs
Thanks, Guy! I’ll add it to my cue!
You are not just a Drop in the Ocean, you are The Ocean within a Drop.
An expression of Oneness can also be found in very advanced math.
According to Osho, the Part and the Whole are one Energy. Even though, the Part appears to be separate from the Whole.
This concept can be expressed by the Unified Field Theory, found in the Planck Equation.
Ah, I've said the same, even in a poem I have somewhere called Drops of God. Maybe I'll bring that out and record it. Thanks for the reminder!
I’m a bit backed up on video work, but if you record the poem and send it to me, I’ll try and add some visuals or SFX to it if you’re into that sort of thing.
That is so funny! I was just thinking, "Wouldn't that be cool?" before I read your sweet offer! Fill me in on the logistics of recording and getting it to you, and yes!
I’ll email you.
I always look forward to your video presentations, especially your poetry. 😎
Yes, the ocean within the drop is more apt. That’s why I mentioned fractals. Not familiar with Unified Field Theory, but will put it in my notes to tumble down a rabbit hole. Thanks, Nef.
Just because I happen to be reading this at this very moment and it seemed to fit this ‘awesome’ theme …
“The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds” (Biography of William L Pierce) – Robert S Griffin
Chapter 13 “Our Cause”
Pierce:
“Thus [our organisation] helps our people to find their way once again to their right and natural path. It helps them find harmony with the whole. Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos; the purpose for which the first amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned how to live on the land;
[…]
It is the purpose for which Rembrandt painted and Shakespeare wrote and Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is the purpose for which the best, the noblest men and women of our race down through the ages, have struggled and died, whether they were fully conscious of it or not; the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves nature’s mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain and the suffering this choice entailed.”
Pierce goes on to explain theism, atheism and pantheism and in particular his ‘Cosmotheism’, which I found deeply thoughtful and very impressive.
I was loving everything Pierce wrote until he got to "the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain and the suffering this choice entailed."
It's been my experience that the less judgmental I am of other people, the more joyful and easy my path becomes. Giving us a way of viewing ordinary people in a different light seems literally like what Rembrandt did and what Shakespeare did literally ;-)
Last night I was at a birthday party where a neighbor asked what I did when not dancing. I tried to describe Substack and what I wrote about, but it didn't land. And should she check out the link, I'm sure she'd be horrified.
I left early to go home and make this video and the answer to her question hit me. I'm fulfilling my life purpose. After 6.5 decades of thinking "if I can just figure out how to say it, someone will get what I'm saying," I can walk away from the small talk. Instead of 'pushing' my ideas on people, I can 'pull' those asking the same questions. And have! Thank you both for that.
“ Last night I was at a birthday party where a neighbor asked what I did when not dancing. I tried to describe Substack and what I wrote about, but it didn't land. And should she check out the link, I'm sure she'd be horrified.”
Love it. And what a party it ‘wasn’t suddenly. But in reality weren’t you all busy ‘filling in the blanks’ of your respective relationships with each other??
Sounds like reflection will be the cure that pulls you back together again, or it won’t.
And if that’s how it ends, well, that’s how it goes sometimes.
Life is like that.
Personally, I’m metaphorically at the airport regarding this entire discussion/topic……………………………..all I’m hearing is lots of noise……….and everything is going over my head.
But, got to start sometime, and what better group with which to begin this new journey.
No way I’m going to be able to contribute to getting this to 400. LOL
Another option is to just tell friends that you bounce between Danzworld dance and (in the case of this article) ‘dancing with the stars’.
From Madhava Setty’s Substack:
https://madhavasetty.substack.com/p/are-the-skies-portending-inevitable?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1279410&post_id=144542282&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=rc3yr&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
“ This weekend we who live in the temperate climates are being treated to a cosmic spectacle from massive solar storms. The Northern Lights were visible as far south as Florida. I spoke to a ham radio enthusiast who told me that communication has been impossible since these massive storms erupted 93 million miles away from us.
Last month the moon cast a shadow that raced across the U.S. on a Monday afternoon allowing millions to witness a astronomical event called totality. Astrologers tell us solar eclipses signal a shift in our thinking. Says this astrologer:
“Eclipses by nature and astrology are times of the unexpected times of change. They'll show you where in your life you've been holding on to something that is past its prime, trying to force something to go in a direction it's not supposed to…”
Oh - I thought that closing statement was most inspiring - a beautiful crescendo. There are certainly Good and Evil forces and the degenerative, the regressive take the easy path.
Also see my response to Nefahotep
The "ism"(s) are mostly disciplines of Thought. The true magisty is in finding the Center of Being, living from within, as the Observer and realizing the Being is also the Observed. Taking up the yoke of the various "isms" as only a form of Dharma in the Justification of Works. For they are only a Means, not a Destination.
Seeking the Beautiful, we Realize Beauty, while approaching our grand Reflection. We can embrace the Fullness of Self, experiencing OF the World that there's nothing that exists outside of the Self. All is One, the Many thoughted All.
In all of the epiphanies, a Beautiful secret becomes the Wholeness of Life, that there's only one thing, and that's Consciousness itself. We are deathless countries within One.
Once again I'll respond here to catch both. On another thread, I described the two of you as having the most productive disagreement on my stack--this was regarding Hitler. You're both such deep thinkers, well-read and even-tempered. What I love about your quotes, Julius, is that they don't act as the authoritative final word but they present an idea in its best-worded light. So I don't know if reading Pierce is necessary, Nef, because it's really the idea that matters.
I was sketching out another episode this morning looking at good vs. evil as the foundational story that set the ground for masters, servants and slaves. I think you're right, Nef, that it goes to the divine justification for authority in monotheism as the supremacist version of polytheism, as Guyenot explains. It's not an inclusive God.
Atheism and evolution substitutes nature for the personified God who determines good vs. evil. Those who succeed, as Darwin showed, are considered to have done so by their merit no matter what means they used.
But Pierce doesn't seem to do that. He seems to be like Salinger, was it in Frannie and Zoey that he has the epiphany God is in the glass of water, the chair? It also seems like what Kathleen is saying. But nature isn't evil or degenerate. Why would people be? I think I'm mostly in agreement until he gets to that.
I'll respond to you here, Julius, to catch you and Nefahotep. Yes, Pierce's closing was a beautiful crescendo, as was the whole quote. I'm having to make a conscious effort to set aside how compelling and masterful his language is and ask, "But do I agree?"
The first question, I think, in any belief system is 'What is my true relationship to you?' Pierce posits a world in which there are evil forces and degenerate and regressive people taking the easy, downward path. He might be right.
I choose the position that any virtue I have in my life--to care for my children, to be fair in my relationships, to stand up for what's right--is what anyone would do if they had the same opportunity. It's our default. And any mistakes I've made have been forgivable, like everyone else's, not the result of an evil or degenerate nature.
In pantheism, the evil forces are part of god, which is indifferent to human suffering. If seems almost like an evolutionary approach to god, as not a creator God but something that just came to be with everything. I'm not sure there's an advantage to believing there's no god or a passive god. It still leaves us with nothing rooting for us, pulling for our success, celebrating our wins.
But maybe Pierce isn't talking about people at all, only forces of degeneration, like entropy.
Tereza, you provide a very astute observation of the short falling of Pierce; he seems to be an Artisan of Intellectual Gymnastics, while he comes off quite smooth, he manages to retain the "Flotsam" of Authoritarianism and the indifference to Life.
I do tend to agree with some aspects here, just not all of it of course.
Since I am not well versed on Pierce, I will defer to your better senses in what this author is expressing. As I am probably more of a Pagan to most Christians, I do not condone some of the things Pagan Pantheist would be accused of, especially being indifferent to Life. I Vehemently stand for and fight for Life.
I think Christian Authors did not have any clue as to exactly what the original Symbolic Meanings and Culture based off of Poly Theist ideas really were.
Pierce is likely talking about forces; while comparing the Mono-Theist to the Pantheist or Poly Theist approach. The biggest fault I have with both is they rely on Belief. I can't relate to Belief.
In ancient cultures, there was a chain of authority in both systems of Belief.
Mono Theist -- Abrahamic Triangle of Insanity, definitely has Authority enshrined inside it's fabric of Social and Political influence. I think we are all aware of this.
Poly Theist -- Many Temples and Many Gods also had a system of Authority enshrined in it as well. As an Example: Some cultures did fights between the Temple of the Sun and Temple of the Moon. As though they should have a squabble. ;-)
Both types of cultural / spiritual infiltrations were Human driven and controlled for the Hijacking of Cultural based Spiritual practices that were original to the indigenous people of an area.
If I can take the time to; I will explore Pierce's work. I hope I don't regret trying.
Thank you Nefahotep
In The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, Pierce goes on to say:
“In theistic traditions, there is the belief in personal immortality. The faithful will survive death in some form. Death is regrettable to be sure, but that regret is softened by the conviction that the next world will be a better place than this one is. In fact, in theistic traditions existence on earth is in large measure perceived as a time of preparation for the afterlife.
Like theists, pantheists believe in God; pantheism is not a disguised form of atheism or a substitution of naturalism for religious faith. Where the difference lies is that pantheists do not perceive of God as a person or anything like a person. The pantheistic god doesn't have a personality. It doesn't have a mind. It doesn't perceive as does a human being. It doesn't formulate intentions and carry out actions in response to circumstances in the manner of a person. Pantheistic religions tend not to play up the creator-of-the-universe conception of God as do theistic religions. There is more of a tendency in pantheism to attend to God and world—however they/it came to be—simply as realities to be encountered and taken into account at this time and in this life.
Pantheism denies the beyondness, the otherness, of God. God isn't up there, over there, someplace else, transcendent. God is here, a part of all this, immanent. God penetrates everything in the universe. God is in nature. God is in human beings. God and man and nature are not distinct—or at least not totally distinct, or only distinct.”
And in Universal Philosophy (Jacqueline Berger) we read:
“The believers of the Semitic [Abrahamic] religions must participate essentially in the Sacraments, in the Mass to be saved.
For the disciples of the Universal Philosophy, every act, every thought, every desire must be purified, sanctified. Love must be lived. One cannot be saved if one does not have Consciousness, the objective of out earthly incarnations. Man is not of this [**materialistic] world. He is respectful of life in all its forms. Love and Wisdom are his guides.“
** the materialistic world is the one described in Genesis – it is the creation of the Demiurge.
I wrote this comment elsewhere but after watching I feel drawn to the synchronisites with this latest little beauty from you... Keep on keeping on..
The title of the video is you are the king.... I'll add or queen....
We are all sovereign beings, born of the flesh with souls of the spirit. Unfortunately we have allowed ourselves to forget our true nature. We are born into captivity, our parents and those before them forgot or allowed themselves to become captives of an "elitists" class who believes or act as though they have some divine blood right to rule of the rest of us....
Fuck all that, us allowing these cretins to lord and rule over us is responsible for many wrongs in this world, none more pervasive and insidious than taxes. The ruling classes use taxes not to directly fund spending on roads, infrastructure and things... No they use our taxes to pay interest on debts that they are able to create from nothing ( well not exactly nothing, your labour is the collateral ).... Then they use this debt to kill and maime in foreign lands, they use it for the weaponisation of institutions against us all, by spying on us etc... What we have here is, the prisoners funding and allowing our own imprisonment, we must recognise the system for what it is, one giant Ponzi scheme designed to hoover up the labour of the many to fund the disasterous agendas of the few....
We have all the power they have, we've just forgotten that fact, it's beyond time for us to recognise our natural God given strength, power and spirit, so humanity can break free from the chains of enslavement that these bastards are so desperately trying to tighten....
Peace, power and freedom to ✌️🙏
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Rl8iOiVkIpU&si=MGLrlsPEmvUizAEA
Well, I often say that sovereign is my middle name. I even eventually learned how to spell it.
You're certainly right that coinage and taxation in 'the coin of the realm' was the beginning of our co-opting into the conquest and enslavement of our neighbors. I write about that in my book, borrowing from David Graeber. At this point, I would add that it created the lucrative theocratic dynasties, who minted the coins, collected the taxes and imparted divinity to the kings through intermarriage. Very key to understanding their power.
For the last 100 yrs, however, the mortgage has surpassed taxation as the way in which our labor and sovereignty is usurped. Otherwise, people were able to avoid taxation by primarily living off the land. Housing costs average 25% of income and rise with the money that can be borrowed. They don't need to pretend it's helping the poor--100% of banking profits go to the wealthiest people in the world.
My system recognizes the private creation of money in mortgages, usurping ownership of property, as fraud. It makes it exclusively the right of the commonwealth to create the loans, and issue, tax and determine the exchange rate of the credit to repay the loans for those things that are the community legacy--homes, land, knowledge, infrastructure.
Here's my book that explains it further: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607.
Lol, I feel like that also... Regarding mortgages, for the last 100 years, more so since the 70s to be more precise, the mortgage is a literally debt bond, however what is also happening at the same time as the debt bond is created the equivalent in dollar terms is also created and transferred into the system. So what's effectively happened is, we've all become capable of minting money via bonding ourselves to debt... Mortgages/debt is definitely pervasive however I still believe taxation pips it out as the worst offender, despite what you said regarding home cost... I don't have a mortgage, my housing costs are approximately 10/15% of total income... People don't necessarily have to live with a mortgage or debt, but every penny you spend is taxed, nearly every penny you earn us taxed apart from some tax free allowances, plus if you were to purchase a home, they'd tax you for the lifetime of ownership....
Have you looked into how things work in the UK... There's obviously some US style die hard capitalism to the system, but the division back downwards seems a lot more equitable for the lower classes than in the US...
So I guess in summary I'd say taxation, debt and those controlling both are where the vast majority of our issues lay, if we can as you suggest in your book, extricate that control into smaller groups, then we I believe like you that we have a great chance of creating change... We just need to get a few billion others on board... 😂...
🙏
I did watch the video, Winston, and have some disagreements with him. Would you object to me explaining that in a future video?
Sorry I just realised you watched a different video from the one I thought you had watched and was replying to 🤦.... However indeed please still do share you thoughts on that one also... 🙏
Ah nice... No not at all, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts of course.....
I'm not sure his ideas are through out to any great depth but my point in sharing was kind of to highlight the requirement for a system that can work for the diametric world we live in, where at one extreme there's billionaires and at the other end there's disabled people that can't work... Because that is the reality we face in my opinion, everything exists in a spectrum so if any system doesn't cater for that spectrum of people, there's very likely to be harm caused somewhere.
The way I describe those are the greed + need models. The first question you need to answer is whether the purpose of gov't is to provide for people's needs or to enable people to provide for themselves. The former requires centralization where people don't own the product of their own labor. I think that our compassion is being used to strip our sovereignty under the guise of helping 'disabled people who can't work.' But it really ends up giving defense contractors $61B for 'Ukraine'. There are other ways to help families and communities care for their own, I think.
Yeah I like that framing.... When soulless demons are in control, our compassion always will and always is used against us... Centralisation in and of itself isn't the overriding issue in my opinion, obviously it allows for a point of failure, which in any system or structure set up can be a major flaw... The issue as I see it, is continuous centralisation, where as we see today megalomaniacs are running a muck absorbing as much as possible into the core of their monopolys to achieve their goals.... If one group/country centralises it's resources for the betterment of that group or country as whole then the benefits are multiplied, so there's absolutely positives to centralisation... Norway is a good example on country level... They have vast natural resources, now no individual could ever benefit from these natural resources without the cooperation and centralisation of already existing resources. As the country extracted these resources and invested the money, the country grew richer in dollar terms and people lives improved, their health improved and they score highly by most metrics out there....
Now having said all that, the ultimate crux of it all is, what is the ultimate goal, because that will absolutely determine the process or structure you would require to create to achieve it...
I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on how a society deals with the spectrum of potential that is with the human condition without some sort of centralisation... I really want to try and crack that nut.
For me, astrology is only a form of literature.
It's special because it's more active than reading or writing a finished fiction work. In astrology, the author uses a loose framework of concepts and describes a story about events or people, and about the past or the present or the future, and the story mutates quickly as needed.
The purpose of the astrologer is mainly to amuse himself. In contrast, in pure and normal fiction, authors write about taboo things from the real world. The purpose can be as simple as to unburden himself. And regular fiction is often very rigid, precisely because it's a fixed message in a bottle, that was written by someone asking for help, maybe thirty years ago.
In a few ways, astrology is the same genre as stand up comedy. But the latter is more ephemeral. There is a sharing of the framework of astrology through the ages.
And comedy is more collective, but astrology is more individual.
I think it's wrong to take guidance from this kind of fiction. Wrong in the same sense as not taking seriously enough the truths hidden in normal fiction.
I have tried being sincere and being astrological: people close up when I tell them the truth. People are a little more receptive to the comedy of astrology. At any rate, they already know. That's one reason why they reject direct speech. But the colorful jumps through the jungle of logic and ontology of the fiction of astrology seems to encourage some individuals to face problems of living.
Then, we have the "latter day realists": those people who argue that regular science is not also a form of fiction. In some of these people I've detected the tendency to believe uncritically any order and any piece of legislation. Any action is morally right if it emanates from the hierarchy. To these captives I explain how the concepts of the natural sciences fail to describe reality, and how the people above them know they are lying. It's always a shock. Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception. But it's best to never realize this.
My conclusion is that these people live so deeply in fiction that they cannot appreciate any other form of fiction.
"Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception." Excellent observation, Roger, and exactly to my point. Our purpose is to heal that split mind, which none of us has fully done or the purpose of the world would have been fulfilled and ended after that brief respite where it becomes the 'good dream' where we can rest awhile before finishing the journey to God/ Reality/ Truth (pick your antidote, not poison ;-)
For decades I followed closely the 'Real Astrology' of Rob Brezsny. I don't think he 'believed' in it, but used it as a medium for introducing specific ambiguity and empowering contradictions (in my words) to break through cognitive prisons. It was very powerful because the core message I tried to give my daughters is "You are the most special person in the universe. And so is everyone else." The sense of a message being directed specifically to you gives it a landing place. And I think that can be used for great good. At least before Rob fell into his own mental construct, imo, as I state here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles
Fiction certainly has that same resonance. It speaks to something very personal, that gives the sense that author would REALLY get you, if they knew you. In that sense, it conveys a false intimacy, hence stalkers. But I agree that they're both forms of symbolic language that might be meaningless, if there is no purpose outside of what we make. If purpose does exist, however, it has to be everywhere or not at all.
hola, ar23ds.
" In some of these people I've detected the tendency to believe uncritically any order and any piece of legislation. Any action is morally right if it emanates from the hierarchy. To these captives I explain how the concepts of the natural sciences fail to describe reality, and how the people above them know they are lying. It's always a shock. Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception. But it's best to never realize this."
yes!
my last essay explores morality as the drug pusher enabler of reason as superstious overload that rationalises all death of the 'other' as undeserving.
Dear Guy, my comment was more modest than that.
I do believe that morality is real. And I don't disregard reason or rationality.
I'm very far removed from Buddhism, which you follow and also criticize (I mean, what is not to criticize in Buddhism right? ;-D).
For me, Jesus gave the solution to the problem of life. But the people have come to reject the solution because it's not their solution.
If I believed in the "ego" or in scolding people for the workings of their "ego" then I would have to say that rejecting the True and Living God is the supreme form of egolatry and a very uncool thing to do, but I won't say that because I don't believe in Freud's lexicon and conceptology, and I really think I'm not the one to evangelize anyone, much less to go recovering lost sheep and bring them to their home in God.
In my (yet incomplete) version of Christian morality, the death of others is sometimes undeserved and sometimes deserved. For example, people who kill children because they have a defect in their bodies, like 107 weird symbols in the skin of the plant of their feet, are murderers and deserve death. Even if they repent they still deserve death.
It has always been immoral, and will never cease to be immoral, the action of killing innocent people because doing so is convenient to one's political/economic ideology.
The so called anxiety is unavoidable, even if one manages to convince herself that morality is not a thing. You can put lipstick on a pig, but you still have to kill and roast that bastard before selling ham roast (that's a harsh joke, I'll admit.)
Do Buddhists (of your sort of Buddhism or non-Buddhist Chanism, or of any other type of Buddhism) opine that it's immoral to judge a mass murderer of innocent people?
Now, you may think that's a trick question. But it's not. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to state their opinions or absence of opinion. I would prefer people were more sincere, even though I know they are afraid of repression. But if some group of people think there is nothing immoral about killing the innocent, or another group says that it is a good thing to kill the innocent, then I think I'm better off knowing what their true opinion is, rather than wasting time on rhetorical games.
Why should not there be a political party whose platform is to kill all recipients of welfare money in order to save the finances of the State, and that such party argues for the moral goodness of such genocide? It's probably illegal to create an association of any kind which explicitly advocates for crimes, but I would like to see the reaction of the public. I want to know how many of them would argue against the morality of the proposal of that hypothetical party, and how many would inform them that the real purpose of the welfare State was to bankrupt many Nations in order to establish a Dictatorship. Most people have not realized that yet. To hear that notion causes hurt somewhere between their chest and their gonads, because they have been supporting the enemies of their Nation all their lives.
That's pride, if I'm not mistaken.
On the other hand, I don't see (yet) anyone who would complain about the hypothetical genocide of welfare money recipients doing a moral case against it. They seem to prefer the State to the Nation, even though their words tell a different story.
I think most people use morality wrong in argumentation. But that's not a fault of morality, but of the argumentator.
I just don't think it's okay for Mr. Nameless to run to hide at the feet of Jesus and Mary because Mr. Nameless is afraid of the State, and prefers to endure all its crimes, and simply whistle past the Communist mountain of skulls and bones.
Those people who pretend that reality does not exist, and that morality does not exist, and, at the same time, that they are nonetheless Christians or at least people who believe in moral truths, have a lot of sins to answer to.
But, in my view, the people who don't seek God's Grace, and argue against reality or rationality or morality, live in a much better position than the ones who do seek the Grace of the True and Living God. Or, if you will, that mere Nihilism of any type is much less irrational than acting against God.
Of course, dear M. Duperreault, those are all just my judgements. You can dismiss them with a hand wave if you want. We are just two dudes conversing on a little corner of the internet.
Is there anything more you could say about the Christ-mind and why it needs a feminine alternative, please? Sorry, I didn't quite follow that part.
You may not find this a helpful interjection; but, FWIW, the Egyptian Mystery Schools teach that Jesus always and only referred to the divine in the feminine. It was the patriarchal Romans who made God a "He."
That's very intriguing, Tirion. Do you have some references for the Egyptian Mystery Schools?
If we see Jesus as a historical figure, rather than a fictional character, he would be the person described by the historical markers in the four gospels--name, birth and death, events, quotes. Which of these carry over to the Egyptian narrative, to indicate it's the same person they're talking about? I was surprised to learn that there's no written copy of the gospels until the 4th c under Constantine, and then only in Greek. In those quotes Jesus refers to God as his Father and speaks very harshly to his mother. Also calls the Samaritan woman a dog.
I don't see Jesus and Christ as synonymous because I interpret the Christ as the one who sees the Christ in all of us. But I'm very interested in the clues you provide, thanks for that!
No, no written references, Tereza. As far as I know, the Egyptian Mystery Schools are an oral rather than a written tradition. I heard it many years ago from someone who was an initiate of one of the Schools. She referred to Jesus as Yeshua ben Yosef and could recite The Lord's Prayer in Aramaic, the English translation of which bore only a vague resemblance to the version given to us by the Romans. She claimed that Jesus had spent his missing years at the School in Alexandria, where he became a kundalini yoga master and their High Priest, before returning to Judea to begin his ministry.
As for the Gospels, I think they are based on truth and contain some fine moral teachings; but they were written by, for and on behalf of the political exigencies of patriarchal Rome. Separating fact from fiction, as with all good propaganda, is tricky!
Also interesting to note that Constantine was raised in the British apostolic church founded by Joseph of Arimathea around AD 37 (decades before Christianity reached Rome) by his mother, the British Empress St Helen of The Cross, who herself claimed descent from The Holy Family (as did/do many Ancient British royal/princely families) through her father King Cole, that merry old soul of the nursery rhyme.
It's a big rabbit hole.
Practice of Eastern religion encourages the stillness of the mind where no thought can enter except "I am". There is the starting point. The mind is a washing machine of thought and chaos. We all need a code to live by, as the song says.
Astrology is the original time piece, where business was exacted according to the rising of the stars.
Astrology aids us in addressing the archetypes of our being that may be hidden. Monitoring the transits display the various energies that aid in our personal reflections in our world and aid us in breaking out of the hamster wheel of our thoughts.
If you're granny had balls..... She'd be your grandad.... That's fantasy land talk the Tereza.... We're talking about reality as it is.... The answer is you wouldn't I'm sure.... So in that case you are morally and principly different in your mindset from others, we're all different, because we all walk different paths through life... And evil behaviour will always exist, it is inherent in human nature, it's likely you just haven't met it yet... It just needs a little watering in life to flourish in any of our lives. No you don't have a superior soul, you've had a superior upbringing/life experience, which I noted we all do... Something to note though, even people with good upbringings do evil things and psychopathic brains are born, not nurtured. Nobody can be blamed for the soul and body they are born into of course not, but they can for their personal choices along the way... If you benefit from the good and responsible for it, then the same applies to the bad... I understand extenuating circumstances being a factor, however personally responsibility still applies. ( And the fact it's lacking so much today, is in my opinion one the reasons society is turning to shit ). Nature is what created us, and I noted elsewhere, each of us apply our nature differently throughout our lives depending on the circumstances we face and choices we make. I don't stop asking questions when I say or see people being bad, I ask why that might be the case, I ask how they got here in life, I try to find reasoning logic and empathy within the bad.. I also realise that these people both good and bad create systems... And usually it's the bad minded that rises because they are happy having and exercising authority over others....
It can be the passing on of trauma certainly, in family settings it most certainly is... But there's literally predators out their that will kidnap kids off the streets to rxpe and mxlest... Now of course they may have been subjected to their own abuse sure, but that doesn't give them the right to do as they please to other souls.... This is something I've started thinking about recently, one soul harming another, the consequences and how if at all we humans should deal with this....
Aw dear that's a shame, I hope you had some fun with your friends all the same..
hola, tereza.
once again there is a lot here for me to respond too, even before i got to your extended citation on 'shadow work'. and shadow work has been to a very large extent what much of my writing in and pre-substack is about, particularly in the last year or so.
in that regards, to shadow work i mean, you may like the last essay which is for me a really deep dive into a collective (imo), as well as my personal, shadow around the 'morals' and 'morality'. it turns out that morality and morals of the enablers and/or even 'drug' pushers in our societal addiction to reason. it is with great morality that we kill people, cultures, animals and the planet.
and i will side with your gnostic in that words are a huge impediment to knowledge. for many, as described by patañjali in the yoga sutras, the path to alignment with the wordlessness of 'god' — however the wordless energisation of life is worded by you — ishvara-pranidhana — is in fact through words and the serious practice of svadyaya, the study of the self (shadow-work of the highest order) that is to be done with the other yamas and niyamas. patañjali also points out that the person who is able to align with god (energisation of life) without words will automatically, wordlessly, be engaged fully with the yamas and the niyamas and no need to study their words to understand the. understanding will have preceded words and words are the very pale, (beyond the pale?) simulacrum of the gnosis. from what i remember from pagels's look at this in her book, 'the gnostic gospels', this was a key part of the reason that the gnostics were considered heretical: that they didn't need words to know the experience of god whereas the official church demanded that the true followers trusted only the words of the apostles and their official designates. i have argued in my substack that that is the narcissistic gaslighting roots of the church - the use of words to separate people from the reality of the energisation of life and to rely solely on the words of the church.
jung made a similar allusion when he described the difficulty of using words to convey the experience of god with another: nope. can't be done. to the one who has had the beyond-word experience of god, there is no possible conversation with someone who has only read about the experience. the experience of gnosis is beyond words.
and for the ‘final’ word on words — rotfl as that is possible! — i'll return again to my second favourite taoist writer, after edward de vere (aka shakespeare): it would be easy for me to cite my favourite aphorism which is that words are for catching ideas, and once the idea is caught we no longer need words. however, for a change of pace, this is fun too:
if words were satisfactory, we could speak the whole day and it would all be about the way; but if words are unsatisfactory, we can speak the whole day and it will all be about things. the way is the delimitation of things. neither words nor silence are satisfactory for conveying it. without words and without silence, our deliberations reach their utmost limits. — chuang-tse. wandering on the way: early taoist tales and parables of chuang tzu. toronto: bantam books, 1994. tr. by victor mair, p. 266.
and yes, to the dogma of the separation of people. the criticism of this idea, hence it as an idea, is very old, of course. it was a key part of the success of hinduism to build and to maintain the caste system, for example. and it was the key argument that gautama made with his pre-heisenberg affirmation of the interdependence of **every thing, including people** with the idea of dependence co-arising. (i think that this was largely removed or 'managed' by de-emphasis in much of 'official' doctrines of so-called buddhism.) every thing, **every** **thing** is so interconnected that the removal of even the smallest gluon-quark would dismantle the entire universe. (and yes, gautama even used the word ‘’gluon-quark! not! lol!) he added if that single idea was understood without the need for words and the intermediary, then we wouldn't need words anymore to use morality to justify caste systems and our killing the undeserving (amoral) others over there.
and william blake also also hinted at this problem of separation from the other with the false split between soul and body, that might be the foundation of the perceived even dogmatically proper morality of the separation of people:
the voice of the devil
all bibles or sacred codes have been the cause of the following errors: —
1. that man has two real existing principles, viz., a body and a soul.
2. that energy, called evil, is alone from the body; and that reason, called good, is alone from the soul.
3. that god will torment man in eternity for following his energies.
i would suggest a slightly more nuanced deepest (moral) dogma that may precede or be concomitant with the idea of the separation of people, which is the separation between the deserving and undeserving because that form of separation is energised by morality and reason even more strongly than the separation of people. i suspect that the separation of soul from body might be the genesis of the idea of people as being separate and undeserving or not.
thank you for the interesting exploration. as usual, you have asked me to look deeply at things in my shadow. all the best with what is changing — everything is changing.
I am so relaxed as soon as you introduce yourself. 😊
Your space is gorgeous and warm. Nice greens and reds today.
I love your red flower and your shirt.
AH, “bursting through the skyclock,…………. “the energetic imprint of the luminaries
in that moment!” Issaacs poetic description is so beautiful.
AAAAAHHH! I Love it. I am also interested in this subject.
I stopped in my notes half way through and thought
“I am going to have to watch this twice.” Then I thought “why am I having a hard time following?”
And the answer was “you know how smart she is, you never get through
one of her presentations without having to look something up in order to
even be able to take part in the conversation.”
I thank you for that.
I call it the inner connectedness of all things but that’s a mouthful and a mindful.
I learned a thing or two about astrology from Crow777. I am new to the subject as well.
And yes, you can bring up the universal SHE Hahaha. Suck it up buttercup!!
The dildo of consequences rarely comes lubed?.......hmmmmm.................
Golly…..lemme write that down. PAHAHAHAHAHahahah
Oh relaxing is much better than a Pavlov dog response of drooling ;-) My middle daughter's doing a deep breathwork meditation class where they burn sage. She has some by her chair at home and said it always puts her back in that frame of mind. I'm glad my intro can do that for you.
This is the third time that amaryllis has come back without me doing anything. And the shirt is actually an art deco dress I picked up at a clothing swap. Score!
Yes, I'm really enjoying Isaac's descriptions. Is Vedic astrology the subject you're interested in? His 90 pp reading plus personalized video came to $100US once the exchange rate was figured in, but that may have been a special he was running. In any case, it's affordable and definitely an education that I'm taking slow.
Isaac also was very interested in your art, I don't know if you saw his comment on it. And my friend Ernest just asked me which program you use, so he's learning from your prompts. Amy's magnanimous school of AI magnificence.
This may have been a mite more disjointed than usual but I figured people would be too busy looking at the pictures to care. I finally gave up my desktop 2D crush with the Celtic man reading runes (since I included him here and know where to find him again). Now my desktop is the spiderweb where every red-rimmed node is like a dragonfly eye. The bigger they get, the better they look.
And I'm doing a leisurely stroll through your latest. The one I keep chuckling about is "Hey, my eyes are up here!" Hahahaha!
Oh! It IS the Isaac I thought it was. I didn't fully realize he was on here. Someone shared a video of his a while back and I subscribed to his you tube channel (under my super secret, not really a secret you tube name) I can't wait to look at his substack now! He is very knowledgeable. I also appreciate anyone who enjoys practicing music (or dancing to it :)
Yes, I am interested in the skyclock and the ancient understandings. Here is Crow777's latest title, it's just funny because it rolled in just as I was seeing this comment. " When Sun- Based Calendars Replaced the Skyclock, Reality Receded" I didn't see Isaac's comment but I am going to check out his work. Maybe I already have.....I am wondering if maybe I have seen something of his. I will let you know after I seek it out. I saw a few good references here in your comment section that I want to look at as well. And to Ernest, I use Bing Image Creator. If you have a Microsoft account, you can use it for free. I don't consider having a Microsoft account true freedom, so I can't just say it's free. I don't feel like this presentation was disjointed at all. I found it highly enjoyable.
Ooooh, I like that. Do you have a link?
Part of reclaiming the sky is reclaiming the calendar as moon-based, the one on the back of the turtle--13 months of 28 days. Yes, our current church-authority based calendar leaves us out of sync. The only downside of the turtle calendar is if you were born on a Monday, your birthday will always fall on a Monday, which doesn't seem fair. But when we reclaim our labor and all work for ourselves, that will be moot.
Glad you enjoyed it!
https://www.crrow777radio.com/574-when-sun-based-calendars-replaced-the-skyclock-reality-receded-free/ I haven't listened to it yet. His opening song is in 432hz and was put together by a guy that does a lot of cool music, enjoy the intro :)
I LOVED the intro music. A combination of HU, do you know the Mongolian throat singing band? and Celtic with pipes. Very masculine. I also loved the discussion, which hit on some of my favorite topics. I have it saved in a draft for a future episode.
I also have a secret new comment for you but I'm saving it for your next post, so it gets more eyeballs ;-)
Oh, compelling. Your comments are already fun when they are NOT secret :) Haha. I am glad you liked the intro. I am very familiar with the Mongolian throat singing by HU. I am a subscriber :). I am glad you liked it, I haven't listened to the podcast yet. I shall. I used to have a subscription but I had to cancel when I "scaled back" and only hearing one hour rather than two makes me sad. :) I will get a new subscription soon. If I find out anything more in hour two, I will let you know.
As an aside, the Freemasons/Jesuits use Astrology to time their events and in many ways create the world around us. Did Jesus really exist? The thing is "God" is ideology and we can create the gods or have them imposed on us with violence. Within this kernel of information lies a whole possibility of creating a different world if we can see ourselves and how "Jesus" as an ideology of Imperialism is not beneficial and how "Jesus" as an expansion of our potential can change our reality. Reality is much more fluid and death just a cycle of adventure than we can imagine.
Thanks for responding, Marcella. And yes! You're absolutely right. My first connection with Isaac was on his tracking of these blood sacrifice events with the Shemitahs, every seven years, and the Jubilee, every 50, and looking at the astrology of Trump and whether he's being positioned as the coming Messiah. I would have thought this crazy, had I not been tracking the same events: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-a-smoke-and-wombat-holes. This one includes Isaac's video from a year ago but his recent work delves more into those connections.
However, does their use of astrology to detonate their destruction make it invalid, or a tool they're using that we should take back? I'm considering the latter but definitely using the former to make sense of their man-made crises and how they want to make them look divinely ordained.
It's a big question whether we create reality/ truth/ god or whether those exist independent of our belief in them. The former essentially says that I am god and create myself and any meaning that exists. I don't dismiss that as a possibility that we're just making up stories--some prettier than others--that give us the illusion of comfort and purpose when, in truth, death is the only certainty.
But I also leave room for the possibility that reality/ truth/ god exists and I can be closer or further away but I don't create it. However, if there is no god, my only dogma still stands--we come into the world morally equal and therefore the moral differences after that are the result of our life circumstances. We are either created by god or the sum of nature and nurture, neither of which we choose or control. So pride and shame are equally irrelevant.
"Jesus" is a story of one person who was exclusively the Christ, innocent where we are sinful, worthy of being a sacrifice to redeem us from our sins. We are guilty. If you want to write a different story, I think we need to go back before the concept of the Christ became exclusive as a single personality better than all the rest of us put together. I don't think you can accept that Jesus was the Christ but then reinvent his story. Just my opinion.
My advice to you is to study Astrology yourself and not necessarily Vedic Astrology but Western Astrology so you develop a different framework for understanding the world and reality and don't get stuck in Patriarchal Monotheism and the ideology of imperialism. You don't solve a problem by using the same set of tools that creates the problem.
Think of it this way: we create the gods and the beings that visit Earth manifesting in human form are ETs, i.e. Jesus, Jehovah/Satan. The whole business of being forgiven for your sins is mind control to the maximum and essentially switches out "God" for the "State" and a limited set of options. Patriarchy is not a successful adaptation.
Interesting perspective, Marcella. I've been doing a lot of research on Rome and ancient Greece, in combination with the supremacism of the Yahweh cult (now falsely called Judaism) and it seems like patriarchy emanated from Greece. That would also be the home of Western astrology, isn't it? Or does it go further back?
The Vedic seemed much less patriarchal, actually not at all with Isis as the key figure. If you've been reading for awhile, you know that much of my research is on Judeo-Christianity as a psyops that enabled rulers to force populations into enslaving and conquering their neighbors, along with the money system and taxation. Women and their economic system didn't exist within these ideologies. So yes, I agree with you but it seems to me that Western astrology is stepping back towards that, from the little I've gleaned.
I don't know if you saw this one I did since: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/luna-plots-a-revolution and this on a woman's pov: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/changing-our-story. Thanks for reading!
Isis is an Egytptian goddess not Hindu. You're perhaps thinking of Kali who also a Sirius based energy.
Hinduism is an immanent based belief system, which means you become the gods as a stepping stone towards non-duality. Except these are older beliefs and more recent texts like the Bhagavad Gita are about maintaining the caste system and not so much about energy teachings.
Jesus taught reincarnation but it was removed in the first 500 years of Christianity as it was shaped into a political doctrine.
Sure, Patriarchy started 5000 years ago with the Age of Aires but my point about Western Astrology is it's used to time events and Vedic Astrology uses a different system.
Thanks for that reply, Marcella. You and I are very much in agreement on not getting "stuck in Patriarchal Monotheism and the ideology of imperialism." And that "The whole business of being forgiven for your sins is mind control to the maximum and essentially switches out "God" for the "State" and a limited set of options. Patriarchy is not a successful adaptation."
My understanding of astrology and of Hindu/ Egyptian pantheons is paper-thin. Nefahotep has been deepening it some from his knowledge, so I thought the Egyptian names for Isis/ Osiris were Auset and Ausir: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-temple-of-auset-isis.
That's very interesting that 'Jesus taught reincarnation.' I've been looking at the gnostics for evidence that the zealots/ Sadducees taught that resurrection was inclusive but Jesus was a story to say it was only one person, and not everyone.
And patriarchy starting 5000 yrs ago with the Age of Aries fits well with my last episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/parasites-the-first-5000-years. Parasites are patriarchs and I almost put that as the title. I appreciate your knowledge on this and would love to hear a conversation with yourself and Nef on the mystical texts. May I draw his attention to this exchange?
I read this piece largely due to the mention of Gnosticism.
I'm often humored by what people claim regarding Gnostics, especially in the sense of projecting a thoroughly abrahamic air when it comes to the laundry list of assumed beliefs. Most likely this is due to constant assertions by scholars and their like that Gnosticism was some type of proto christianity, which to my sensibilities is like claiming that iceburgs are antecedent to ice cream.
The reason why no one understands the Gnostic scripture is because they don't have visions.
They don't dream.
The man who claimed that Gnosis is derived from psychedelics is quite a bit closer to the truth than he probably realizes. Of course there are some huge caveates here that qualify this statement. Nobody today understands a visionary praxis. Tripping balls is probably as close as moderners can get.
Its a time-effort-calling-dedication thing.
But I know the modern psyche is available for trance, so perhaps all is not lost.
There is enough sacred literature extant from the Gnostics, despite the repeated genocides, mostly perped by fucking christians, to actually illustrate the visionary praxis, if one bothers to look.
Its immense.
So sure Gnosis is about knowledge, a very specific form of knowledge.
My rules of argument, Mike, is to define the question, why it's important, and what the terms in the question mean to you. In regards to definition, etymology wins. If a word that was created to mean one thing later becomes attached to only a specific meaning, that word has been usurped--it's dead to everyone who doesn't bow to the authority inherent in that meaning. And with the death of that word is the death of imagination as applied to that question. It becomes fixed and is taken out of our vocabulary so that that channel is forever blocked.
Both you and my dinner partner agree that you are the authorities on what gnostic means. So we are left with traditional authoritarian scriptures, which you and I would both describe as Abrahamic, or one particular set of visionary scriptures that, imo, don't challenge the fundamental Abrahamic story of good vs. evil. We can't see ourselves as gnostics or believe that truth is both knowable and communicable. The word's been taken.
In the five volumes I have on 'gnostic scriptures,' there's some commonalities--and some that fit a proto-Christianity, by which I'd say before the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' became usurped as one and the same. But they also diverge wildly. I'd say that the term 'gnostic scripture' refers to any alternative to the Abrahamic from a particular era and place. Ones that fit a particular subset should be distinguished by a word that describes their commonality.
Your work, from glancing at it, has a lot of overlap with questions others are asking here--particularly Nefahotep with runes and their significance. It seems like an important realm of knowledge that might add new information to this conversation: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs
Turning gnosticism into another field of authority vs heresy seems contradictory to the mindset that developed it.
There are definitions for words, and there are meanings. If we look at the word "gay", or " gaiety" the definition of the word has been destroyed, yet the meaning still refers to a positive attainable state. So, no I don't perceive words as bound to strict definitions. I think that you are fully within your own sphere to demand strict definitions in coversations and debates you hold, yet I don't find that language actually functions this way in a broader context.
Runes, clearly are manifestations of language where meaning trumps definition.
Language is important for emanation science. Indispensible even. If you read actual inscriptions, some of the devices used are so clever it makes me laugh. Language as play, making manifest from the unmanifest.
There is more, maybe later, maybe not.
If you do not allow for the decentralized fire of vision and energy to follow it to its final breath, then you are excluding a part of the human experience, based on what? Taste?
We aren't talking about beliefs because beliefs are definitions, and they rigorously direct the flow. Vision is instructive.
Belief is didactic.
So, okay the christians ripped off the Gnostics before murdering them. They took the shiny things from their theft. Maybe the real shiny was the Healer, or as folks like to say, Jesus.
Funny that, if judaism is the great devastator then christianity is the Borg, and Islam is the clean up crew.
I suppose you think enough of my statements to give them a little time, and for that I thank you. You have a formidable intellect, Ms. C.
Thanks, Mike. I don't demand strict definitions, I just need to know what the word means to you and vice versa, if we're going to have a conversation about the ideas themselves. Otherwise, we can spend hours arguing about the gnostics, for instance, only to find that we actually agree about the ideas but merely have different definitions for what a gnostic is.
By your meaning, what is a gnostic? Is it only someone who lived and wrote long ago or can a contemporary person be a gnostic? As an originator or only a follower? Is it a form of practice or a set of parameters for beliefs? Is it anyone who has a vision? And how do you define vision?
Moreover, what word would you use to describe someone who believes we each have equal access to divine knowledge, that truth/ reality/ god is something we can each experience and talk about with equal authority to those who lived 2000 years ago? If agnostics are those who believe god isn't knowable, what is their opposite, who doesn't adhere to an authoritarian theology?
I appreciate the compliment, Mr. K ;-)
Yes, understood, regarding the issue with definitions. Forgive me, but I have lost the ability to look at anything simply anymore, and language is a huge key to this entire reality.
So, Gnostic, in order to truly live, must have application to the here and now. Therefore, I subscribe to the notion that Gnosticism is available to people today. Further, I hold the view that the reveal of ancient Gnosticism was precisely timed, and ordained by what the ancients referred to as the Great Power. In other words, the call went out
Its weird, okay, but Crowley actually had something to do with this, and maybe Gurdjief as well, for different reasons. The wave of pre-christian allegiance also figures prominently here.
So, a Gnostic then, is a living person who has heard the call.
So far so good. But now the explanation gets especially demanding. To get to the explanation one must work upon levels, and at certain points some of the levels can seem to be quite baffling, even contradictory.
First off, we need to understand that the beliefs are lava. They are molten and shifting, and indeed, the scripture is written for this intentionally. So, when Pistis Sophia describes the vision of the Healer, they are conveying both a practice and an exercise. Foundationally, it is to open the doors of perception as Blake instructs us, to withstand the sheer power of the encounter with the numinous.
This is so different from establishing a concept-which is what we are trained to do, build associations upon it, and then separate it from ourselves so that it can be seen and recognized.
Where we almost always go wrong is the resultant notion that Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely bizarre beliefs.
No.
Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely volatile units of meaning that are masterfully coordinated to burn the living shit out of the supplicant, and replace all that fodder inside with an energetic that builds its own purpose, one which is often unknowable to the conscious mind.
In order to create a modern view on Gnosticism we tend to expect it to play by our rules, but Gnosticism doesn't play ball like that. So, when the modern mind describes a set of premises and beliefs, it believes that it can then compare them to others, and frankly, this is exactly where Gnosticism is today in scholarly circles, in revitalized religion, and in popular fiction. Cyberpunk is all about taking a Gnostic structure and building a dystopian fantasy around it.
So, I suppose at this point someone might say-well who the fuck do I think I am to question this?!?
And like, okay, I'm nobody so whatever.
But there is just one little tiny thing.Gnosticism works so well on the visionary level that its beyond just some coincidence.
So, there are all kinds of visions. My best example, because its practical was when I kept getting these intense, absorbing visual phenomenon of my place burning to ash. So, a vision can be just a connection of sorts, this time it was the guvcorp frying my place, which they really did, BTW.
Vision can also be when you walk into a room and you just know something is up, and you find out you're right.
But the kind of vision Gnosticism was originally about was the one from higher power, and this one is the most intense of all They are unmistakable.
The Gnostics were all about developing this state. I don't know what other conclusion makes any sense, from the Book of Iao, for example.
Why all this is incredibly hard to understand goes to the gaping holes in modern language, because without words, we only have images, and music, and there is no modern lexicon for the state of vision.
If one applies this to your last question, then Source, God, the Great Power is unknowable until one develops the inner muscle to withstand the encounter...thus if one must know, then they must experience, that is the Gnostic way.
Personally, I'm all for the experience of deeper states. I knew this was going on at rock concerts, not everybody, but you know some people would just trance out, and it was beautiful.
Hope this reply isn't too long, and I hope I did the topic some justice.
Best-M.
Well now you've done it. You've sent me down another rabbit hole! Intriguing answers that leave me with more questions. I just read the intro to The Gnostic Bible and I think it needs to be expanded into a post. I'd like to also include your post on runes because I think that fits into some questions we've been asking about deciphering the words. May I link it?
Thank you Ms. C.
Yes, I would be honoured if you link to my post on Runes.
Your questions were quite good. I do believe for anyone interested in the topic, these were the type of questions they would want to be asked...and answered, of course.
I hope your readers found this discussion interesting.
Best-M.
😂😁🤭😅🎯
Rich topics as always, Tereza. Thank you.
"The word ‘symbology’ itself contains logos or word. It’s a language of symbols. When symbols in art are detached from meaning in words, like ‘Abstract #3,’ they merely obscure through snobbery, I think. The word ‘theology’ means words discussing the divine, something that’s been relegated to Church-sanctioned scholars but really belongs to all of us. It’s substituted authority for our own thoughts."
I think I understand your point, though I don't agree fully with your interpretation.
I think there are things we can know that don't translate to words and language and this is not about being special - not an instance of snobbery. (Though of course that can be the case.)
We likely don't hear about them, because, well, there IS nothing to say. Best.
Thank you, Kathleen. I agree with you about private knowing, which the Course would describe as revelation. It induces a sense of peace and courage in your convictions, but it doesn't last and isn't communicable. What it describes as the medium of communication is the miracle. It's recognizing that other person as not separate from you and sharing the same purpose, even when their actions might seem to be at odds. That sends a message through words or actions, that might seem to have nothing to do with 'truth' or 'reality' that lets them let go of their self-judgment, breathe a little easier, not feel so alone.
This is a miracle you embody. No matter what different words we use, you and I live the same way in our relationships to others, I feel. Is there a value to coming to agreement on the words? Yes, I think so. But it's not a real point of disagreement (as I felt with this person who was not engaging in a real conversation but imposing his 'knowledge' over mine.)