1 Jun 2010

Voipici: An Individual Connection

"Wake-Up Exercises For Little Kittens", France, 2007*

The time was the 1980s, an Eastern European, Communist country. This means we had no tv or radio to bring us news from "the outside". Such things were considered "subversive", a threat to the system. No-one was allowed to see, hear or read anything that implied the world could be any different. Thinking for oneself was dangerous. But most people created their own isolated inner sanctuaries, and got by. Nowadays, I admire many of them very much, for living their artistic dream during such a difficult time.

I was around 4 years old and I loved to draw and paint. My earliest deliberate "creations" consisted of filling up entire sheets of paper with brushes of different colours interwoven until there was no more white showing between. This was my eager response to the suggestion that "a true painting leaves no white space" (as opposed to a drawing, which must have white space complementing the drawn elements).

One day I sat down and, very deliberately, established a black dot on paper, and then carefully circled it. I was very pleased. "What is that?", asked my parents. "It is a Voipici...", I answered.

A Voipici [voy-`pitch]

The image above is, of course, the universalized version of the Circled Dot. I do not have the original drawing now (though I do have the subsequent development of the Voipici - seen below). I must explain how I perceived this act: to me, the circled point on the paper was a real place. The fact that I had put it there made it into a "door". It was also a creature - it was alive, hence giving it an imaginary Species name. I wanted to convey the feeling that this was something benign and very funny; but I also wanted others to realize what it was, without asking me (self-evidence).

More of these Voipici started appearing afterwards, varying from the simple to the complex (by the way, given the nature of my native language, the name Voipici is both singular and plural). This, for example, is still a Voipici. [x]

(to be continued)


* I loved the French children's book-cover because the "visionary" morning exercise implied there was also a spiritual pun in this "waking up". Coincidentally, one of my nicknames is Little Kitten.

The Alphabet Doorway

"I am glad that it was through me that you discovered your Red Fire", a friend of mine once told me.
Why this person (who has had no interest in the worlds of symbolism beyond what I brought to the table) would choose the term Red Fire, I am yet to figure out. Many people in my country seem to know things intuitively, and hold on to ancestral idioms even if this is not a conscious choice. She was referring to having indirectly caused one of my initiations. The way these work for me is they cause a psychological uproar which keeps me glued to my path of finding out about spiritual truths. Another word for it is obsession, which is a negative energy I have nevertheless learned how to use for receiving large quantities of information within a short period of time. This in turn balances me out to the point where the obsession fades out, and I have my spiritual truths.  

But back then I had not yet seen the ancient symbol for "Red Fire", and I did not look it up for a long while. That changed, however, with my purchase in 2006 of a New Zealand locally-made, paua inlay pendant which attracted me. I interpreted the circular opening within the solid triangle as a female energy within a male-dominated perspective. I then began to look further into it, and the results were quite amazing.

Here we can see how the symbol, if we take just the triangle and circle, represents the alchemical Fire and Water, respectively. The union of these is called the Secret Fire, which is also known by other names that try to suggest its ambiguous nature: Watery Fire, Fiery Water, etc.
But also notice how the two shapes are actually the Greek letters Delta and Omicron (I will also explore a connection of the latter with Theta).

What we know today as the Greek Alphabet was derived from the Phoenician one, replacing three previous writing systems for versions of the "Greek" language: Linear A, Linear B and the Cypriot syllabary. The Phoenician letters are ideograms, having evolved into both hieroglyphs and the modern phonetic-only alphabet. Here it is, as found on phoenician.org:

My letters therefore stand for "Door" and "Eye". (As a point of amusement, the "Camel" following right after "Door" reminds me of Jesus' quip, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven").

In his book The Spell of the Sensuous - Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World, David Abram highlights a process whereby humans lost touch with nature and thus began feeling "exiled" by becoming overly involved with abstract thinking, to the detriment of direct sensory experience. This was brought about through the powerful magic of writing, which works by displacing attention - from the world around us to a world of ideas. However, he says, while the letters were still largely pictures of animals, elements, etc, writing still reminded people of interconnectedness, rather than creating an illusion of separation within a linear and ever more fragmented (specialized) perception.

In Tarot, the two letters stand for the Empress (Daleth) and the Devil (Ayin), respectively - though it is worth remembering that these Roles are never what they appear to be.
Note: this decoding seems to reverse the male & female forces I had perceived in the beginning, embodied in the symbol. Or, more precisely, the perception of the truly dominant and the truly submissive aspect is turned on its head. Here we find that the male "genius" (also known as a demon or devil), while perceived as a freak occurrence with no connection to anything else in existence, has his true source in the subtle creative "muse" whose reign is supreme (also known as Nature). The role of the devil is to challenge all preconceptions which cause stagnation.


Alfons Mucha: Halo

Alfons Mucha is my favourite designer. He identified with the Czech nation although his most famous work was achieved in Paris. He is best known for his Art Nouveau commercial work featuring beautiful women who pose against stylized backgrounds represented by elaborate halos.
He lived in a time characterized by an extraordinary impulse in society to learn the science of persuasion, alongside numerous developments in the study of psychology and spirituality. Much of our modern communication media was developed in that time: the use of ads, posters, packaging, titles and by-lines is essentially unchanged.

But Mucha wanted to use these tools for a different purpose: he was a very spiritual and religious person and he infused his work with the ideals that he held. This was not obvious to people in his time: they criticized him for "selling out", saying that this went against his spirituality and that his non-commercial work is the only valuable one he produced. On the other hand, his non-commercial work was also heavily criticized for other reasons - especially his work depicting the Slavic people's spiritual origins as he saw them.

At present, through the work of surviving members of Mucha's family in terms of books and exhibitions, his true intentions were brought to light and we can get a better understanding of how he made his designs work, and of how the separate areas he explored actually make one whole: 'selling' Awakening instead of material goods.

I would like to concentrate on "The Mucha Woman" and propose a connection with new scientific data which holds that the world... is a simulation.

This theory was developed through the study of subatomic particles.

[to be continued]


On this page I try to answer a few of the questions I have come across in relation to the overall information/theory in this blog. You can add to these Q&A by sending me yours, or ask for more clarification on answers already posted.

Definitions and reasons for terms I use:
Stargate: generic term describing the concept of spiritual doors, windows, or any other passage which connects one form of reality to another (one state of being to the next).
Sync: short for synchronicity, a term coined by C.G. Jung to describe events/phenomena which are grouped together by the subjective meaning their proximity evokes in the onlooker, rather than by the usual cause-effect relationship. Synchronicity (as an explanatory principle) is the usual way of looking at the world in the Native American culture, as well as being scientifically explained in the I-Ching (Jung's original source).
Nowadays, this explanatory principle is being rediscovered. I was initiated into the experience at 17, when I took off with it in an enthusiastic way. Since then, I have been bumping into lots of different people from around the world who are converging on this path.

Questions and Answers:
1. Is it coincidence, human-made, or is there a higher power?
2. Aren't you reading too much into things, and doesn't that impair your ability to enjoy them?
3. Do you think it's possible for imagination (which you make extensive use of) to be misleading? Isn't it better to be realistic?
4. "I don't buy this a-causal mysticism thing. You forget about manipulation. That's the only reason things appear to 'synchronize'."
5. You use a lot of examples from mass-media, such as books and television. Don't you miss out on the real world?
6. Choosing a path means that you must value it above everything else (i.e. exclusively). No-one can truly appreciate something unless they disregard the value of other paths.

1. Is it coincidence, human-made, or is there a higher power?
We could say that all of these three levels are true. Coincidence is, etymologically, the word for two events intersecting in some way (regardless of the interpretation). Likewise, humans can make many things happen, and have the power to affect reality in ways which other humans may not fully understand. The higher power explanation is a bit more thorny to expand upon, but it is best expressed by something entirely unexpected which crops up into consciousness (especially "good from bad"). Just be careful not to confuse something which has "more power" with somehing which is a "higher power", as there is an essential difference of attitude between the two.

2. Aren't you reading too much into things, and doesn't that impair your ability to enjoy them?
The most important thing in my life is my ability to enjoy it, so I am very careful not to damage that ability with my actions. For example, a true scientist spends his entire life analysing phenomena, and this makes him very happy. That's because he dedicates his life to something bigger than him: to always being in touch with that which has touched him. He doesn't use his mind to dissect things, but to free himself from his own preconceptions which cloud things over.
What is 'impaired' in this process is my ability to desire the using of things, which is a moral result (see my Voipici section). Using (exploiting) something is very limiting for the individual, whereas enjoyment is a sense of unrestricted expansion. "Reading too much into something" is a form of exploitation, so I avoid it as best I can.

3. Do you think it's possible for imagination to be misleading? Isn't it better to be realistic?
There is a confusion of terms where 'realism' is concerned. I am in favour of realism, but I disagree with the general misuse of the term (made by people who are too comfortable simply repeating what they have heard). What many call realism are in fact their own obsessions - which are hardly as 'all-encompassing' as 'realism' would need to be. Realism means that one is able to see past one's own limitations, and accepts that growth and evolution are present in all things (including one's own perceptions). Imagination is neither opposed to, nor denying realism. It's not possible to be realistic without using one's imagination, which is the ability to "think outside the box". As for it being "misleading", I believe this was just a fear set in place by those who wish to keep themselves and others from evolving. In reality, everything is a risk, not just imagination.

4. "I don't buy this a-causal mysticism thing. You forget about manipulation. That's the only reason things appear to 'synchronize'."
So... what do you propose to do?
If we spend our life in fear that we're being objectified, we are prevented from developing ourselves. This is a totally similar result to that of direct manipulation. Everyone is capable of both things, sincerity and manipulation. We each have our own dark side. By not knowing ourselves, we become as sheep and allow this dark side to manifest as if coming from others. But we are also part of the same levels which we fear: we have the potential to be the oppressors.
There is this trend now, to show one is 'awakened' by pointing out conspiracies everywhere and how not to trust anyone. This is good in principle (as when you wake up, you do see that a lot has been influencing you), but to take it seriously leads to serious error - demonizing what is merely the Unknown (including parts of yourself). You have to realize that everything you project on the external world, you have within you. But what would you like, or choose to have within? That will be the thing you cultivate, attracting more of the same.
A-causal mysticism, as you call it, creates an opening through which one is able to discern what makes us tick. So it isn't something that needs you to "buy it" - only a tool for grounding yourself in your own soil, without being "caused" (manipulated) by others. The latter is the normal state, but we don't have to fear this - just take it as an opportunity for learning.

5. You use a lot of examples from mass-media, such as books and television. Don't you miss out on the real world?
The "real" world? What is it, exactly? Here people make the same assumptions as they do about imagination. You know, just because something "appears" real doesn't mean it bears closer examination.
But to answer the question: I have often wondered why my path became such, but I have discovered many others who are very much into the same thing: giving a dynamic context to what is produced in terms of mass-media, while others are likewise giving a dynamic context to "real-world" events. So both are accepted/acceptable.
Art has always influenced Life in a profound way, even as Life has influenced Art. For me I guess the explanation lies in the fact that Art can sometimes reach people much faster, and on a deeper level. Where politicians and diplomats, and even formal education fail, we already have the cultural achievements of others close by - inspiring and influencing us everyday - connecting us to those we would have never been connected to. Not merely entertainment, things disseminated through mass-media represent philosophies - and philosophies effect real-life transformations (think of the ancient Greeks who lived by the myths they made, and for whom theatre was an emotional therapeutic). So it's an asset to be able to read these intentions correctly, which I have trained myself to do: read the dreams and aspirations of others, through what they produce artistically. This is connected with the a-causality discussed above.

6. Choosing a path means that you must value it above everything else (i.e. exclusively). No-one can truly appreciate something unless they disregard the value of other paths.
Not so... This is in relation to religion and any form of organized groups. It has everything to do with being made to feel special. I have come to understand that every great good and every great evil in the world are essentially inspired by the same Spirit of love, but the difference lies in how the recipient interpretes it, i.e. deals with that energy. This Spirit of love organizes one's own centre around it: a person begins to gravitate around it and it is the main reason behind all of one's (seemingly disparate and illogical) actions. But if you can see that everyone has their own special connection which inspires them personally, their own Principle by which their world is organized (just as you have yours), doesn't mean that you are "morally relativistic" or anything like that. .........