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. .........
No comments:
Post a Comment