- This topic has 41 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Without any doubt it depends on your ability to understand the language / communication which has everything to do with your personal process.
And I see no limitations in this, without any doubt we can communicate with everything in the universe, inner and outer.
Some qigong forms give me access to higher vibrations, some more earth bounded, in that perspective it is all communication, indeed.
And I never considered myself as a Taoist; I use taoist practice because it helps me best to stabilize myself, it serves me best.
In honesty I don’t use drugs because once taken in I have no control about it. Knowing myself and my boundary issues I can’t effort this. If you have plenty of yang force, no problem but in my case not sure where I end up. I worked in an acute psychiatry hospital for a while. I’ve seen plenty to know I can’t effort these trips. And today I work with many clients taking/took drugs and having problems to keep their feet on the ground, having big problems. The ‘etherical’ world loves them, having great fun extracting life force out of them. Those people all carry a giant WARNING sign on their forehead 🙂 Nope, I pass in this life, I guess I had plenty of mushrooms in a former one…
>>And today I work with many clients taking/took drugs and having problems to keep their feet on the ground, having big problems<< Well if it is *addiction* you are talking about, this is another matter entirely. Yes I know those people and it's a passport to hell for them. You lose everything really, you lose your purpose. I suppose I think whether things could be interesting or not, and I think mushrooms maybe could be. It lasted 8 hours and then gradually stopped - no after-effects. Nothing like alcohol or pot, neither of which I ever touch - no 'hangover'. But it was a social situation. It was for fun. I did have interesting meditations because I noticed timing discrepancies all through my system. I looked at things and tried to work out why looking at them caused me to see them. I remember at one point realising that all my thoughts came from a black whole in the centre of the universe - whether the thoughts were worrying or nice. At that point I told everyone to shut up because I had something important to tell them. They all went silent, and I heard myself say: "IF YOU'RE EVER WORRYING - DON'T!" It seemed the most profound thing at the time... All this was before I got into magic though. >>In honesty I don’t use drugs because once taken in I have no control about it<< Yes I understand. I heard that a yogi once took LSD with no effect - just was aware of what it was doing and neutralised it. But I would say this takes a degree of control. I'd love it if Michael could detail his mushroom experiences if any. Likely to be more interesting than mine! best NN
Noonth,
welcome back. I hope you take the vigorous response to your posting as a sign that you’ve been missed. Is it true, as whispered by the elves, that you are Don of the Oxford debate team in the magical realms….? 🙂Your questions:
>1. On the question of the ‘four people’ involved in any relationship – this has been a focus of mine for a while now. Of course Jung I believe referred to the anima/mus and this is the same thing. My question: some of what I am trying to do involves contacting as entities (I’m more inclined to magical procedures, remember) the opposite pole in each partner, and having these entities consciously mate, simultaneously with the physical sex. Does this in your opinion accomplish anything of what you are talking about? Also do you not feel as I do that this is constantly happening anyway – that is, that we project onto a lover our inner opposite sex in an attempt to complete ourselves?reply:
Coupling the yin-within-the-yang and the yang-within-the-yin is the core of the alchemical process, east or west. Using physical sexual intercourse as your medium is one method. It’s useful to keeping the process grounded and in having someone to conscioiusly hold the opposite pole for you, which is usually well hidden from your physically sexed identity.The sensory level of sex can become a distraction at some point, hence karezza-type or what I call subtle body sexual techniques of still soul-sex type meditation with your partner’s energy body become next step beyond vigorouis humping.
Of course, the process of projecting ourselves into our lover is a semi-conscious attempt to couple the hidden polarities. Difficult to make it fully conscious until you can shift your assemblage point to somewhere at the soul level where you can witness both sides simultaneously.
Inner Sexual Alchemy accomlishes the same thing as physical sex without an external physical partner. It has advantages and disadvantages. Mainly, it has the advantage of becoming a process not contingent upon the cooperation and body & soul surrender of another human being. Its often hard to find a suitable partner. The inner sexual alchemical process is more easily extended to participating in the larger/macrocosmic sexual coupling of non-human levels of consciousness.
>2. I’m not clear (apart from convention) why you say: “original human collective *lived* [past tense] in androgynous bodies”. I am still finding out about such ‘realms’, or whatever you would like to call them, but it seems to me that a time-based, historical location of their whereabouts is not quite accurate? I feel that they super-exist and/or simultaneously exist with the here-and-now. In some sense there never has been a separation and this past self is still very much present, it merely depending upon your point of view. But maybe this is because Taoism views everything so much from the down-to-earth and physical perspective.
reply:
The crux of your question lies partlyy in the comment “in some sense there never has been a separation”, and partly in your assumptions about Time itself.From my understanding of the Taoist perspective, only Space “exists” as a fundamental. Time is merely different speeds of Space vibrating. This is why discussions focused mostly on Time, like the one above, tend to get ungrounded and disconnected from Space.
So there is ulitmately a primordial Space which connects everything; we could call that Original Jing, or primordial essence. This is the level at which “in some sense there has never been a separation”. What it connects are all the different Time Zomes in which we simultaneously exist, and in which evolution is occuring.
You run danger of denying the evolutionary process of the Tao, the unique flow of each moment, by trying to reduce it to some original primordial state that somehow invalidates its process of differentiation, i.e. multiplication by polar dividison (yin-yang) and creative expression via the harmonics of the five phases/elements.
I thnk the simplest way to sort the Time confusion-continuum out is to see three major simulttaneous time zones that different levels of our “Self” live in:
physical – linear time
energy body – cyclical time
spirit body – eternal timeAll three co-exist simultaneously.
All three ultimately occupy the same Space, they just vibrate it differently to product different realities or shapes of that underlying space.
From you comments to freeform,I note that you tend to see Spirit as something “above” the phyiscal. The Taoist perspective is that it is Spirit would be “underlying” the physical, i.e. below it, holding the space that allows physical process as the cutting edge of spirit’s exploration of free will and its manifestations. The One is not above the Many, it is below it, its ground, and thus serves rather than rules the Many.
I think my comment the “original human collective *lived* [past tense] in androgynous bodies” is essentially still the most useful perspective for the understanding of physically sexed humans living primarily focused on their linear time frame. I.e. “I need to find a physical lover in time to complete myself as my core drive”. So even seeking a lover to practice magical sex is happening within that linear time frame.
The splitting of the original collective androgynous self into physically sexed beings was/is a real event that reverberated into all Time Zones of consciousness and initiated the ongong process of human reincaration and evolution of those physically sexed bodies/beings. So while your premise that” in some sense there never was a separation” is literally true from the point of original space that still connects us, it is not in my opinion a useful description of the difficulty facing sexed humans and denies their need to evolve.
Yes, the collective androgynous oversoul still exists in the present moment in its own time zone, and is holding that space for humanity to evolve toward – but NOT return to, since we’ve now been forced into a unique evolutionary spiral with separate sexed bodies that did not exist before.
so now our collective androgynous original self is grappling with an aspect of itself in a parallel time zone (physical linear zone) that is NOT consciously androgynous and is effectively missing the functional core of the androgynous self, the neutral third force.
This is why physical humanity is so closely watched in all realms, so see whether this problem can be resolved, and if the solution will be compatible with other types of oversoul consciousness.
This takes us to the War in Heaven, and those naive humans who think that just because they are aligning with something spiritual that it is supporting human evolution. These naive types may be supporting the aspects of spirit that think the human bi-sexed experiment is a bad Luciferian mistake and should be ended as quickly as possible by reverting to a controlled spiritual hierarchy in which no free will fucking around is allowed.
michael
ps. please send me an email at winn@healingdao.com
Heya Michael –
Many many thanks for your detailed answer. I won’t reply in as much detail… you hit many nails on their heads. I will say: if you think I as a magician of the artistic brand could EVER devalue the possibilities of the present moment, the wavecrest of now, and its inherent potential to make a NEW thing, you are very much mistaken. It’s what I live for and the reason magic is my way. On the other hand, I was talking about structures with ff and normally I never do. To get across the dynamicism of the structure as I see it is not something I could do fluently at this stage. Thankfully you don’t seem to have this problem!
Of course I see what you are saying about the past tense you used – it is context. The situation is more complex than a tense structure. I like your three sorts of time. That I do get. So ‘spirit body’ is what I would call post-Saturn? You were going to tell me about Saturn from your angle I remember.
>>and is holding that space for humanity to evolve toward – but NOT return to, since we’ve now been forced into a unique evolutionary spiral with separate sexed bodies that did not exist before.<< I see and I expect that I agree - but elaborate on the 'been forced' part? I would love to hear your take on what forced what to do what, since I know nothing of this. BTW I did say higher for less dense - but I was thinking as in 'higher functions' etc. The direction of spirit I think of as being out and in rather than up and down, with 'all the way out' and 'all the way in' as the same thing. But having read your post maybe that is a bias toward my astral body, which I do naturally have. >>This takes us to the War in Heaven, and those naive humans who think that just because they are aligning with something spiritual that it is supporting human evolution. These naive types may be supporting the aspects of spirit that think the human bi-sexed experiment is a bad Luciferian mistake and should be ended as quickly as possible by reverting to a controlled spiritual hierarchy in which no free will fucking around is allowed<< Well I'm glad to hear you say so. On this I agree 10,000%. Taking refuge from free will and sex within 'the timeless' (!) is a loss of nerve on our part that threatens to destroy everything cool. Many materialists seem to be ahead of alot of spiritual people on this I find - particularly spiritual people who follow an 'old way' as you ?sort of do. (Modern magicians are another kettle.) So you hearten me. Part of the reason I have never got on with any 'organised system' of spirituality is that it seemed to negate precisely the value of life in this way... but Taoists historically, never mind 'the Healing Tao' or whatever it is, seem to be somewhat anarchic. That Chuang Tzu was one motherfucker! So I should not be surprised. >>Is it true, as whispered by the elves, that you are Don of the Oxford debate team in the magical realms….? :)<< No they're way off base. I left school at 17 and have no eJickaysHun at all. I spit upon academe! Burn it down! Anyway thanks again, best NN
>>Many thanks for continuing this! We seem to be actually getting somewhere<< lol - where is it that we're getting to? How will we know when we get there? please tell me the rules of this game. >>Well… but I assure you that I am not misinterpreting you at all, I’m understanding you perfectly, and you may take what I say seriously even if I am not allowed to take what you say seriously! I find this makes the discussion more enjoyable. For me as I say it is far more than theoreticising and all comes directly from what I have experienced. Furthermore I find neither your nor my words in any way clumsy. They seem to be doing just what they should to me!<< Words are like coloured cups placed under the waterfall of experience - you capture some experience in a cup and categorise them by colour - to comunicate you chuck the water out of your cup into someone elses - their cups might be in different colours or shapes and you are likely to lose some of the water when chucking it. Words naturally generalise, distort and narrow down experiential data, otherwise they wouldn't be usefull - that's why I dont take words seriously, playing with words to expand my mental maps is far more usefull and fun. You may not *mis*interpret words, but you do interpret them through your own filters, and the signal deteriorates along its journey - what I mean to comunicate is not necessarily the communication you recieve. >> I know few magicians who don’t engage in some sort of sacred sexual activity and if this doesn’t qualify as ‘body-centred’ what does??<< There is language playing its tricks again - appart from the actual words we use, we also have unsaid contexts or 'frames' of reference - by changing the frame of reference you can easily change the meaning of the words. So I could say that "mathematics is a body-centered practice" (which to many taoists may seem absurd) - but since mathematicians generally have fingers to count with (happen to be 10!) and two hands (goes great with a binary system) and most mathematicians use their brains, which are part of their bodies - without bodies mathematicians couldn't do mathematics - therefore "mathematics is a body-centered practice". I must stress again I dont like to think in terms of 'truths' - I dont think that your model is the 'true model' of conciousness, or that Michael's or Lau Tzu's models are the 'real deal' - I prefer to think in terms of usefullness - Michael's (and I guess One Cloud's) model is pretty usefull for me at this time - The idea that there are three aspects of ourselves (jing, chi, shen - body, mind, spirit etc) is a usefull distinction but I dont really hold these as "truths" - So if I were to answer "*who* sees?" i could say my physical body, my mental body, my spiritual body or a combination of these - but that wouldn't be "the truth" - the reason i used the 'halucinating teddy bears' example was to play with the concept I was trying to explain and communicate it in a specific manner - I was not attempting to get to "the truth of the matter" >>You have to understand what I mean about language. You talk about symbols. You assume you mean something of a graphic nature perhaps with a sound attached.<< at different times I see language as meaning different things - depending on what's most usefull or entertaining at the time. Seeing the interaction of yin and yang as communication, could be fun - saying "everything is communication" may prove usefull (certainly does for me) - but it's not some kind of deep truth - you can see the world as consisting of communication, you can see the world as consisting of constant sexual interaction, you can see the world as waves, you can see the world as particles, as temperatures, as inches - none of these are "the true way of seeing the world" - but they may prove usefull in different contexts. >>BTW you don’t understand about invocation/evocation. It isn’t a game, where you *pretend* something is a person!<< BTW - you dont understand what I understand in the way that I understand it - you take the words that I type and catch them in your own multicoloured cups. It seems 'playing', 'game' and 'imagine' mean different things to you then they do to me - our cups dont match lol... This discussion is starting to seem like a bit of a power struggle - If when you said "We seem to be actually getting somewhere" you meant "finally you seem to be agreeing with me" (which I did do quite a bit of) - then we can get there right now: *I agree with you* - I've got nothing to prove or protect, I enjoy challenging myself and others to see things through as many different perspectives as is fun and usefull - my seeming disagreements are just games/challanges for you to expand your 'reality tunnel' - that's how I treat your posts as well. >>I’ve read new-age bollocks on how ‘you create your own reality’ which is utter nonsense
Please tell me then – who does?<< haha - Although I cant be bothered to find the numerous specific examples I came accross, it's not very difficult to find... have a look here for starters:
Pocket Guide to a Happy Life, You Create Your Own Reality>>>>NN: I know few magicians who don’t engage in some sort of sacred sexual activity and if this doesn’t qualify as ‘body-centred’ what does??<< FF: There is language playing its tricks again - << My dear freeform it was not I who introduced the idea of things being 'body-centred'!! You did and you said magic was not and taoism was. Now correct me if I am wrong: your story is, I have re-filtered everything wrongly and in fact you are playing a game where you *say the words* "taoism is body-centred and magic is not" but in fact this does not mean what I *think* it means (which would be, that you think Taoism is body-centred whereas magic is not). What it *really* means is, although you have put together a form of words that *sounds as if* it contained a belief of yours, this belief is really not representable by words; I am making the strange error of supposing that the words have a literal, interpretable meaning that I can understand, and that this meaning is attached to something you believe true. I am bound to attach different meanings to the words by re-filtering their meanings, and so, although you might say them, their arrangement has only a kind of decorative value - without any substance that can transfer meaning unscathed by egotistical bias. This is what you now are saying? I'll just put it to you again - I am taking your words' meaning fully on board and every bit of liquid in them I am catching! I am not only seeing the words you say, I am entering into empathy with you in order to discover the worldview and emotional content of the person saying them. I see precisely what you mean as well as what you merely type. I am in fact having a *conversation* with you! Is it so impossible to imagine? In my life this is a process that seems to happen a great deal! I do not think it an error to assume that when you said, 'Taoism is body-centred' you meant something like "the practice of Taoism focuses on developing the body', or 'does not neglect the physical body at the mind's expense, unlike Magic, which does.' I could rephrase it many ways but it seems to me your own phrasing was very fine - the meaning was ultra-clear, and you are being over-modest in assuming you did not convey it! I do not really think you meant Taoism was body-centred like mathematics might sophistically be said to be. I accept that is a meaning the words will bear. I do not think it was your meaning. I think your meaning was as I had it. I think I caught not only the cup but the content. >>This discussion is starting to seem like a bit of a power struggle – If when you said “We seem to be actually getting somewhere” you meant “finally you seem to be agreeing with me” (which I did do quite a bit of) – then we can get there right now: *I agree with you*<< You misunderstand me unpardonably. I forgive you again. It is not that I am waiting for you to agree with me, but that you are not saying very much that *I* agree with! So I put my point of view to you instead. Now try to drink the liquid I am giving you and not keep re-arranging the cups. I have traced what may be a significant moment earlier in our 'game'. You said that as long as I am in my body I occupy a world of opposites, and that is where yin and yang come in. I would like to ask, to see not what you say but what you *know* - if you leave the physical body, do yin and yang then no longer exist? Do they only exist in the material world? As for this: >>FF: I’ve read new-age bollocks on how ‘you create your own reality’ which is utter nonsense
NN: Please tell me then – who does?
FF: haha – Although I cant be bothered to find the numerous specific examples I came accross, it’s not very difficult to find… have a look here for starters:<< [etc.] ... you will not get off so lightly as that! You could not *honestly* miss so much of the liquid in my cups! - to think what I said meant 'every book that claims to tell you how to create your reality is an excellent book containing the absolute truth' - no, I don't believe you really thought I meant that. I didn't say that, and I mean what I say! My words are very simple. I am not playing any kind of game. What I did was to ask a question - if you do not create your own reality, who then does? Do you know the answer? Are you willing to give it? Or are you going to pretend to filter out the meaning of the question and be a sophistical word-chopper? love NN
I said yin and yang exist whether we name them or not. You said, how do I know? The true answer is I know! BUT this is not satisfactory conversation.
So – did you read the “Saturn-Slicer” thread? In conversing with Michael it became apparent to me that he is very well-versed in the Hermetic/Kabbalistic model as well as the Taoist one. Why not? They are essentially the same! It is clear. Why else would I be able to say, “What do you call Saturn?” And he be able to reply, “The Yellow Emperor and the Belt Channel”. And I can say, “What do you call the Abyss?”. And he can reply, “The difference between the Earlier and the Later Heavens.”
I know perfectly well that words can inflect meaning. The Taoist and Western models are far from identical. But it must be obvious to you that they both refer to the same thing. They are referring to things that are real and present and there in the universe, whether they are named by humanity or not, and the structures they speak of are the same structures, the regions the same regions. The different cultural inflections on this truth do not hide it but reveal it more fully.
The *practices* involved in Magic or Taoism are different. But the universes involved are identical! Both traditions have a way of describing the universe, but what they describe is there whether they describe it or not. I agree 100% that the ‘usefulness’ of something is important – but that is a question of *practice*. The names given to parts of the universe and the resulting ‘maps’ made do not need to have any particular practices attached to them. That is why I can say that I do not ‘use Kabbalah for enlightenment’. But I still know the map.
love NN
Right – let me rephrase myself adding all the caveats you seem to require…
“my experience of Taoist practices and Taoist practitioners appears, in my estimation, to concentrate on the body far more than my experience of Magick practices and of Magicians – which in my estimation concentrates on the mind more than my experience of Taoist practices and practitioners.”
phew!
…does that work for you?
>>NN: Now correct me if I am wrong:<< I prefer not to think in terms of wrong or right, true or untrue etc... >>NN: your story is, I have re-filtered everything wrongly<< I don’t consider myself to be able to judge whether your particular way of filtering is wrong or right - however I maintain that you have your own way of filtering. >>NN: and in fact you are playing a game where you *say the words* “Taoism is body-centred and magic is not” *but in fact this does not mean what I *think* it means*<< there are only as many meanings as there are people reading this. imo, no one holds "the correct meaning". I believe I already explained and expressed the best I can (with words in a forum) what I mean. >>NN: I am making the strange error of supposing that the words have a literal, interpretable meaning that I can understand…<< Firstly I don’t know if you're making an error or not - there is your way of doing things and there is my way of doing things, any differences in these could be named "error" - but it would not be possible to tell who is "making an error" since I can see no independent objective observer able to decide. Saying that, my way of doing things is believing that words don’t have an objective "interpretable meaning" - imo there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters. You may think to yourself - "Hang on, if there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters - how do people manage to communicate?" - Well just as we might have "error" (differences) - we also have the opposite - let’s call it "correlation" (similarities). Of course we never know the how much error or correlation happens, we can only *assume* - if we speak the same language or have lived in the same country for a similar length of time we can assume a decent level of correlation, but never perfect. ... >>if you do not create your own reality, who then does? Do you know the answer?<< No lol. I don’t believe anyone has "*the* answer" everyone has their own answer or no answer. imo reality works similarly to communication, as I explained it above - my aim in life is to get more correlation with the Tao. I think I've written enough for now, if you have any other questions ask away and I'll chuck some water in your direction :0) PS... I'd find it usefull if you answer the question below (copied from my previous post): ">>NN: Many thanks for continuing this! We seem to be actually getting somewhere<< lol - where is it that we're getting to? How will we know when we get there?" or you could answer this one: "where do you plan to get to?" thanks!
>>NN: So – did you read the “Saturn-Slicer” thread? In conversing with Michael it became apparent to me that he is very well-versed in the Hermetic/Kabbalistic model as well as the Taoist one. Why not? They are essentially the same! It is clear. Why else would I be able to say, “What do you call Saturn?” And he be able to reply, “The Yellow Emperor and the Belt Channel”. And I can say, “What do you call the Abyss?”. And he can reply, “The difference between the Earlier and the Later Heavens.”<< yeah - it's pretty cool how much "correlation" you can find if you look isnt it? >>NN: I know perfectly well that words can inflect meaning. The Taoist and Western models are far from identical.<< yup, some "error" too. >>NN: But it must be obvious to you that they both refer to the same thing.<< well, let's just say I have my own experience of correlation between these two models (and many more appart from these two)... I have to go...
You said –
>>please tell me the rules of this game.<< OK! Of course I'm trying to do that already, by all analogy. The rules of this game are the same as the rules of the universe, if you are familiar with those. To get those across here and now... if you are really asking me to do it, I have to say it is far from easy. You mentioned that instead of 'language' I might have chosen 'sex' or 'inches', etc., as my universal consitiuent of the universe. I do not agree - except in one instance. Sex is a form of communication or language and therefore I agree that I might have chosen sex. Essentially language is sex and sex is language. The realms are different but not the processes. Since we have been trying language I will use sex instead, how about that? The rules of this game are the same as the 'rules of sex', which are the same as the 'rules of the universe'. For example, when you said, 'I already agree with you', it was as if you put on a female body, saying - "fine fuck me, I don't care", turning your face away, going limp, and opening your legs. But you know I am far too much of a gentleman to take advantage of you like that! I want the real you. I know you like to play games but I think you want the real thing too. It isn't just all a game to you is it? Please don't say that! Please say this is real for you. I know it is. I know you want it, just as much as I do. You want the real deal, baby, you don't just want to play around. You're not just going to tease me are you? How can you demean this by saying there is nothing at stake for you? This could be so GOOD... let's do it right. Let's really get it on. This game ends when we are both covered in sweat and completely satisfied. Nobody wins and nobody loses, it's about pleasure and personal exchange. Then we will have a little magical child named Gregory, made of Mutual Understanding. We can keep the relationship going after that, or go our separate ways, it's up to you. Gregory will still have a useful life. Of course I do not agree that 'inches' are going to work instead. (DON'T be naughty!) They are not a process. You could say they are a word in the language of measuring and try to use measuring as the process. However that is not a creative process and we will not have a child or an energy exchange that makes anything/means anything. The universe *is* a creative process and it does exchange energy - or 'words' - and it does make something. Obviously in physical sex there is a man and a woman. (Not always literally of course!...) But here we are both being both the man and both the woman. Why? Because conversation is of the mind and the mind is far more *androgynous* than the body. And here I feel you are making me do all the work! Where is your big penetrating idea? Michael says two words to me and I feel so filled up, I cannot walk for days afterwards. Here I am catching all your water but my cups aren't even a quarter full. Give it to me! love NN PS I apologise.
>>I’d find it usefull if you answer the question below (copied from my previous post):<< Just did, before I read this one. See under 'somebody stop me'. NN
>>well, let’s just say I have my own experience of correlation between these two models (and many more appart from these two)…<< Tell! NN
Ok, I have been thinking a while and I have an idea. Oh shit we’re down to the nature of truth and experience here, even *I* don’t want to go anywhere so sophomoric, but I will try to avoid corniness. It’s not that I don’t understand the things you say freeform, it’s that a) I don’t think you are quite playing fair with me, and b) all the things you say just aren’t connecting up yet in a way that I can grasp as one big idea – as you know I love to have something big to grab hold of!
Anyway, here goes. To avoid Plato’s Cave yet again I came up with a metaphor – the Blue Cafe. Two painters paint two pictures of the same cafe. Of course the pictures are different. The styles are different. Different season, different time of day, etc. But still, if you knew this Cafe and you see the paintings, you recognise the Cafe.
This is like what you say when you say, language contains error and correlation. The two styles and the differences between the paintings, between the flat canvas and the real thing, are ‘error’ and the Cafe – that is the truth to which they nevertheless in their different ways correlate. It really does exist and it’s a real Cafe.
Suppose I am talking to you about the Blue Cafe. I can say it has a blue awning. I can say, you see a fountain when you sit outside. I can say, it is number so-and-so on such-and-such square. If you know the cafe this is enough for you to remember the place I mean. My talk to you represents it sufficiently for you to remember your experience of it. I could love the place and you could hate it, but still it is a real place. When we sit down in it we each experience different versions, through our different senses, etc., but still we know that this is where we are sitting!
This is like the place of the androgynes. I know it, as an actual place – although very limitedly. Michael knows too – hugely better. He knows what I mean when I say it. He draws conclusions. He shows me a different way to see – *his* way. Of course like you say it is not *true* but it is interesting. And it also confirms – yes, I am not going mad, there is such a place! It is the same with time – I say time is different there. I don’t yet understand what exactly is the difference. Michael has a very succinct view of it. He says boom boom boom, eternal cyclical sequential.
But you say this isn’t real! You are saying, no only the earth time is ‘true’. Even though you have been to other places where the time is not the same! Then I say, but Michael’s lecture says this is a real place and it is the reason I am horny!… I am sure that whatever you say and I say it is real… and time runs differently there, or doesn’t run at all. I am not even sure yet!… what do you think? You say, no no it doesn’t work that way.
I am saying the Tree of Life and the Taoist heaven/shen/chi/jing – the ‘map’ or what have you – are like the paintings: they are of somewhere that is actually there whether or not you paint it. Their styles are different but they are plainly paintings of the same fucking Cafe. You are saying, no no nothing is actually there to paint – that is too objective. You can say nothing for sure. Now of course in looking at the place and being there you change it and/or it changes you, this is true also of the Blue Cafe! But still it is a real place, as sure your crotch is a real place. I am not (only) being vulgar.
I don’t think you play fair with me! I say the universe is made of language. Then you say, no no, you could say that to see if it was fun or useful but it is not the truth. But NOW you say, “communication as I explained it above is how the universe works”. So you say it is communication and I say it is language! This means we agree this whole time! I agree with you of course and it seems you always agreed with me. If this is really what you think why not just say so?
Then this whole business of body-centredness. I’m sorry you went through all that rephrasing of the Taoism/Magic on my account when I told you I already understood! You must have thought me very pedantic, but I thought you also were very pedantic. To me it seems that if you say the universe is made of language and you are a magician having sex magic, you ARE using the body as a symbol of the universe – the coupling of it the sex-language of it. You are saying no, no, magic is centred in the mind.
Of course I understand that maybe magic is less important to you than Taoism. But you don’t have to read all the latest chaos magic college stuff to get a different image of magic than the mind-centred one you are talking about – especially with me around to tell you that it is also phsycial centred, just differently so. After all, so much magic uses ritual and what is ritual but physical movement in the physical world – intended to *symbolise* all that is also not physical?
How about Franz Bardon – when he introduces the (4 Hermetic) elements and then he has you breathe them into your body to form the tetragrammaton? He says to use the five fingers for the 4+1 elements – this hand positive, this hand negative. His Kabbalistic practice (not dissimilar from my own non-kabbalistic one, by chance) involves making the letters and keying them to your whole self, chanting them with your voice – your physical voice – your body! It is the same symbolism again. There is more than one way for the physical world and the human body to symbolise and communicate with the universe. I couldn’t do any magic without my body! So how can magic not be body-centred?
And sex magic is precisely the same – the use of the bodies to symbolise the creative act of the whole universe. But when I say this you say no, no, I am just using a language trick. You could *say* magic is centred in the body but then you could *say* anything is – even mathematics! I am saying it is not like that – the symbolism is the same as with the Taoist practices but differently expressed and it is not like mathematics at all!
Anyhow, there it is.
Love NN
Ok – sorry to keep you hanging…
>>Anyway, here goes. To avoid Plato’s Cave yet again I came up with a metaphor – the Blue Cafe. Two painters paint two pictures of the same cafe. Of course the pictures are different. The styles are different. Different season, different time of day, etc. But still, if you knew this Cafe and you see the paintings, you recognise the Cafe.
This is like what you say when you say, language contains error and correlation. The two styles and the differences between the paintings, between the flat canvas and the real thing, are ‘error’ and the Cafe – that is the truth to which they nevertheless in their different ways correlate. It really does exist and it’s a real Cafe.
Suppose I am talking to you about the Blue Cafe. I can say it has a blue awning. I can say you see a fountain when you sit outside. I can say, it is number so-and-so on such-and-such square. If you know the cafe this is enough for you to remember the place I mean. My talk to you represents it sufficiently for you to remember your experience of it. I could love the place and you could hate it, but still it is a real place. When we sit down in it we each experience different versions, through our different senses, etc., but still we know that this is where we are sitting!<< Yes yes yes!! Now we're getting somewhere ;0) Let me extend the metaphor... The Blue Cafe exists in space-time - if someone showed a painting of another cafe you could say that's not the blue cafe! However what we're talking about here is *far* more ambiguous - it doesn't exist in space-time in the same way as the cafe. Let's say that instead of the Blue Cafe we had something like "Love" - not only could you have two painters paint their experience of Love, but you can have musicians, poets, story tellers, neuro-scientists, even mathematicians who could describe Love using their models. Each one of them would be radically different - one painter may paint a dark and lonely painting - a musician may play an overly cheerful tune... these things would bare very little resemblance - but if you were an astute person you could decide that it is all about love. It's the same with thinking about the structure of the universe - magicians, kahunas, shamen, taoist, buddhists, psychotherapists, physicists etc. have their own models of explaining the universe to us - none of them are the *true* explanations. You can explain the universe in terms of colour, sound, feeling taste and smell and everyone will have a different experience. The problem is once you think "I've finally got it! - the universe works like this" that's when the universe will decide to contradict your model. Models are like maps - a map of London could not show every tree, earth worm, sound and smell - in the same way Michael's model cannot show the universe - it can show useful paths, hills and valleys but the experience of them will always be totally different than the map. Joseph Campbell had a brilliant phrase to describe this: "the elusive obvious"... once you try to narrow down the universe into a map, you're gonna miss the point. So, I think it's time to tell you the game I'm playing... The reason I have not been giving you anything you can grab hold of, like Michael does, is because I've been attempting to demonstrate the difference between Taoism and Magick (there is method in my madness). I could tell you all my opinions and ideas about the universe - and you'd be very happy and full, like after a good meal - but I purposely haven’t done that, so that you notice yourself grasping at concepts, explanations, maps and models, and notice your addiction to this mental language - and hopefully realise that that's the function of your *mind* - your upper tantien. I used to do it (and still do sometimes) and I used to practice Magick (big surprise) - so I decided to lead you into a process where you witness the world through your lower tantien, your body - where nothing is 'true' nothing is 'for sure' a place where the elusive obvious is your best friend. Of course for a mind based person such as yourself (and myself) it's very uncomfortable at first - there are no comforting illusions here - you can’t point at something and say "that's X" because as soon as you do, it will turn into "Y". I have been trying to expose the mental games you play constantly but are completely blind to. When I was playing with Magick, I would use my own symbols - create my own pantheon - I'd use all kinds of things from the Power Rangers and the X-Men to art nouveau paintings and I'd use those as models for different aspects of myself/universe - let's just say it worked! and worked well, until I found Taoism, and instead of soaking up all the symbolism and carrying on with playing the mental game of Magick I decided to work from the lower tan tien outwards/inwards and discovered that many of my symbols were alive and well in my body, and I could really get to know them far better as physical manifestations than as mental creations. By using the lower tantien I could experience the universe/body by *feeling*, no longer could I constrain the feelings into models, because the feelings were always greater than the model. So I got a feeling that you will need to go through the same process if you are to understand the Taoist perspective... and now you are reading this, trying to work out what I mean, or at least trying to work out what this means to you - but I say fuck that, get off the computer and explore your body, give your sacrum a squeeze, do a bit of ocean breathing, follow the formulas, and you will feel what I feel - and notice that if you try to explain it, you will always be missing something... make the elusive obvious your best friend. I've never done this kind of thing in a forum before - if I was explaining this in person, you would get it far quicker – I’d be able to see your patterns and deconstruct them far quicker. And now you're probably wondering how I still haven’t understood your experience of Magick and how body centred it is for you etc.. I suggest you just put those doubts to the side for now and give my posts another read... and then read Michael’s Fusion article, and then quit reading and practice something simple like the inner smile...
LOLolol
Had me cracking up all the way… I’m glad Michael gave you a good seeing to – and sorry for teasing you without giving you a good fucking – there is a reason!
I must admit, I am playing hard to get – because once you “get” me you lose the game, and I lose the game and the fun tension we’ve been creating will be blown. I’m suggesting that by playing, and keeping the tension going we’re keeping baby Gregory alive – as soon as we agree and ‘understand’ this magic tension will be broken and baby Gregory will not mature into body-centred understanding. We’re playing with our minds here, finally we broke that down and instead of just intellectual swordplay, I suspect some emotion is involved… if we carry on, this will lead us down into body awareness (and if you read my other post on this thread, you’ll know what I mean) – so even though it may not seem it, there is an alchemical undercurrent in this whole exchange…
>>Of course I do not agree that ‘inches’ are going to work instead. (DON’T be naughty!) They are not a process. You could say they are a word in the language of measuring and try to use measuring as the process. However that is not a creative process and we will not have a child or an energy exchange that makes anything/means anything.<< Come on... you're underestimating your and my ingenuity - want to see how measuring is an alchemical, creative process? Ok. If I was a spiritual ruler - I would say that it all began with the ultimate "no-ruler" a ruler with just one, singular point of measurement (in fact you can't tell if it was singular or not, because there was nothing but that point) - but as an act of orgasmic will, no-ruler split into two, thus creating physical space - and since splitting into two in space means we can measure distance from one bit of space to another, it means we can also measure time - and thus was created space-time (like body and mind, space and time are inseparable!) >>Michael says two words to me and I feel so filled up, I cannot walk for days afterwards.<< Michael is being lazy - he sees your thirst for intellectual knowledge and he gives it to you, he could set up a process for you to get some body-centred understanding, but since it's pretty hard to do so in a forum, he's just giving you your intellectual fix, in the hope that one day you'll overdose and realise what you're doing and get back into your body. I'm not being so easy on you - I'm forcing you to confront your own habits and patterns - your addiction to intellectual illusion... again this is very difficult on a forum - perhaps in person it would be easier. I'm no Michael, I've only a tiny fraction of his experience - but I have recognised a similarity between you and I, so I'm using the same process that got me noticing my own games/illusions/addictions on you... That's my gift - and that's when you win the game!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.