relationShip with light and shadow
I believe that our species has forgotten far more
than we modernly ‘know’. Most of the things we’ve
forgotten are crucially important to comprehending our place and
in the living universe, and thus, our potentials have become incredibly
limited by the specious form of understanding we refer to as ‘knowledge’.
If we take the letter ‘L’ in knowledge,
as meaning ‘light’ we
get a poetic construct: know light’s edge. If we further
examine the basic concept of letters, we become aware that letters
and retrieved in light, and essentially, they are created by making
edges (angles and curves) that reflect light differently from
the background they exist upon.
The essential message I want to get across here is
simple. Imagine the very first animal which made a marking on something,
and came back to it later. What was it doing? It was traveling
How? With light. The essential idea of a marking is to
change light reception in a viewer, in such a way as to be able
to retrieve something of the original intention which led to the
marking, later. The first symbol probably
belong to a formal alphabet. It was likely a very simple thing,
ownership, or possibly danger — but it was a transport
light to cross time.
Eventually, the standardization of symbols (and later
letters) led to an even more amazing function: to use light
to cross time and space into other minds.
The most general message of a sign or symbol is easily overlooked: In
light, I created this message, and in light you will receive it.
time and space — and achieve connectivity.
Suppose with me that light is the expression of a
living being, but one who exists in a dimension outside of
time and space, and expresses itself into time and
space. In this case we can see symbols and letters as having the
that are communicated into us through light and our immersion it.
They would of necessity share elemental aspects of the character
of this being
— whether or not we ‘intended’ or ‘noticed’ this.
Truly, on Earth, light is life — for without it there would
be no science, no time,
to forget all of this, and pretend that our star is merely a big
explosion going off millions of miles away. I suggest the sun is
an organ in a being, and Earth is an organ in the sun. We, in turn,
are organs of Earth — in a way similar to how we ourselves
are comprised of trillions of cells.
We must realize that the characters
we make — our symbols and letters, partake directly of the transcendental
character of light. It is impossible for this not to be so.
They are made with light, in light, and read in light
— and they are formed by us — who are in truth the
children of light. Light is the
of our eyes, and the energetic progenitor of life on Earth. Not
even braille can entirely escape this, for it is formed to be read
by the fingers of beings who are born of and in the living light
of the local star.
When we make
little marks that ‘show their edges uniquely’ we
are actually changing reflective character of a surface. This
means we are ‘making
light’ — symbols and letters absorb more light than
they reflect. They are light absorbers. The first
symbols and letters were not as significantly absorptive as those
which came with the advent of writing with charcoal or staining,
but the basic principle was the same: by changing the reflective
character of a surface we could communicate across time and space
— into multiple minds. We could cross not only physical space,
but mindspace — with a light toy.
I say to you that light is alive, and that the letters
we make are formed from the living characters of the source of
light — not in the dimensions we understand and acknowledge — but
instead in and from a unified living dimension we have not the
vaguest idea of the true nature of — the firstGarden — where
the unityBeing dwells.
Aside — The Stroke from Above
Another extremely simple and vastly overlooked aspect
of ‘making marks’ is ‘the stroke from above’. Nearly all our letters
begin with ‘a downward stroke’ when written by hand. This, it can
be somewhat justly argued, is a result of the peculiar qualities
of our manual writing instrument and our common writing surfaces.
Yet there is more going on here than meets the eye. Throughout
history there has been an nearly universal mythos implying that
language was a gift from a divine source. The ‘descent’ of this
potential into humanity is remembered every time we ‘make a mark’.
From the first markings, to writing, and even today as typing —
the creation of a mark or letter begins with a downward stroke
in at least two dimensions: the physical dimension — such as a
pencil beginning a letter — or fingers descending to keys — and
the creative dimension — from mind, into manifestation.
create written language, we are analogously re-enacting this
‘descent’ of mind into matter. The actions required
marks’ resignify the genesis of the material universe,
progenitor. A process of emanation, where ‘intention’ ‘from above’
descended into manifestation — the physical universe of time,
space and ‘location’..
• Illuminal Elements — Celestial
Our modern and ancient languages contain
clues to their real sources — but they exist in dimensions
of relation we are rarely exposed to and taught to not believe
in. These are poetic and spiritual dimensions, where shape, sound
and pun have more meaning than our abstract relations
with sounds, particles and letters. Throughout history, various
wisdom traditions including the
Pythagoreans, Hermetics, Gnostics and Kabbalists have gone
to great pains to attempt to illuminate and systematize these
aspects of language, presenting them as
a way to achieve direct contact with the Divine.
I believe that seeking an intimate understanding of
the meanings and functions of each letter leads to something
entirely unexpected. With time, curiosity, passion and practice,
we approach an extremely unusual understanding — the sort
of understanding an
have — about
how everything is connected to an accessible and living source
which is beyond the sum of human knowledge. Eventually, we will
‘stumble’ on an experience that very few living persons
ever glimpse. We will discover that to make or understand language
actively connect to its source — ‘God’ — and
the divine beings peculiarly associated with the linguistic
evolution of our species.
If we limit ourselves to modern ‘academic’ understandings
of letterforms, their histories and meanings, we achieve an abstract
or ‘rational’ relationship with these dimensions,
which is entirely insufficient to illuminate them to our deeper
selves. Most of what is true and important is intentionally
discarded by the features of character inherent
in our academic perspectives. The goal of pursuing these matters
from a more
spiritual perspective is to
of wisdom — which
is playful and hyperpoetic in its approach to the entire panoply
relation. It is a game appropriate to the curiosity of precocious
children, but whose character will not admit ‘adults’.
The adult mind is far too filled with ‘knowledge’ to
see past its own absurd collection of artifacts into the highly
terrains of their true sources.
In deeply exploring the roots of the alphabet, we may come to
see — directly — that each letter is an alpharecursive
element — and
poetically represents a being, object, action, or relation — all
three, and more. From this perspective a word is actually more
of a story or song than
it is an abstract token. It terms of alphabets, seeing what was
recorded in them is
of ‘ladder’ of the important phases in our cognitive
evolution according to the order of the letters and concepts
For example, the letter C can mean ‘something
particularly that ‘light comes into vessels’ in a
peculiar way — a form of travel which is sublime
and somewhat alien in its common activities. Thus we might understand
C to reveal something about the sources and ‘way of movement’ of
light, regarded as a celestial and spiritual transport. Then
we might notice that, seemingly incidentally, this letter
by physicists to indicate ‘the speed of light’ — now
we have poetic linkage across two domains of human knowledge
and expression. ‘C’ has a relation to light and its
movement — but then the word ‘see’ which
sounds the same (a pun) is also entirely about our relations
In our common academic understandings none of
these aspects of ‘C’ are credentialed — we pretend they
are ‘arbitrary’ and have no intrinsic meaning at all, nevermind
a spiritual meaning. Yet there is no possibility of arbitrariness
— in truth, when humans make language, they must first touch
the living source of language, and that results in the initial
character and momentum we apply in our ‘creation’.
We do not
‘invent’ — we uniquely reflect that
which we acquire in this connectivity, and that means that what
we create contains the
nature of its sources, in real precedence to our own intentions.
There are two ‘cross-letters’ in English alphabets — t
and x. The ‘t’ commonly indicates some form of tree
(a ‘branching’ symmetry of related emergent elaborations),
and the x some form of crossing, identity, ‘sign’ (a
recursive or self-referencing identification) or positional indicator.
example, to safely cross a gap, one can lay an x-cross over it,
and this will create a stable structure which acts as a bridge.
‘Across’ contains no ‘x’ but is the
pun-like ‘word’ that indicates the same concept.
The inclusion of punning in these seemingly ‘playful’ examples
is a result of my own direct contact with a non-human linguistic
entity, and accords in general with various modes of understanding
that were revealed to my during that contact. It’s not
my intention to illustrate the many examples of this here, but
I wish to demonstrate that there is a lot more going on in written
and spoken language than meets the modern eye. Long ago, these
matters were deeply and commonly explored, particularly in mystical
traditions who held that language and writing were gifts to humanity
from a celestial being — an idea with which my own experience
and exploration agrees.
Alphabetic characters are united in small, wordlike
portions (called morphemes) that
comprise roots which are then extended or combined into
entire book could be written on this subject, and perhaps should
simply give one example which I find illuminating. One of these
word-particles that is of particular interest to me is the ion (or
a-t-ion) suffix common to many english terms, such as ‘communication’.
In exploring this playfully and generally, I understand this
to mean at once ‘an
eye, on’ and
also ‘a way of connecting’ or ‘the particle
that crosses gaps to connect us’. These connectivities
make ‘trees’, which the ‘t’ indicates.
A poetic (spiritual) interpretation would be ‘at the tree
where all eyes are unified in emanation, communication, source
and activity’. Academically, the ion suffix is considered
to indicate process or motion.
The ‘en-’ particle often is used to mean ‘to enclose’
or cover outwardly. The ‘-ment’ particle means ‘a concrete result’,
‘process’ or place. ‘Viron’ is from the french word meaning ‘circle’.
we get the term ‘environment’ — ‘to be enclosed in the circle’.
Yet there is another aspect of this complex term which we do
not credential as real, which is to be encircled by a living
mind — as in the term mentality. And the greek term for green
is virid — granting us the possibility of a ‘green mind’.
A final example is more playful, and perhaps telling:
the term industrial. The ‘in-’ prefix usually
‘not’ or ‘un’. Yet in this case the word
is humorously apt: ‘An
‘I’ — self) in a dust trial.’ The ‘punny’ perspective
is decidedly non-academic, yet clearly present when the proper
is adopted. Consider also the term ‘imagination’ which can be
translated to ‘i magi, nay-shun’ — I, the magi, do not shun —
or alternately ‘eye mage, eye nation’. Perhaps most overlooked
is the structure of the word for ‘a paid friend’: therapist —
literally: the rapist.
This form of linguistic understanding will only very rarely
arise from study because the nature of this mode of
relation is essentially spiritual, creative, and playful. A living
awareness of these dimensions is acquired by succeeding in an
quest to experience direct contact with the
sources of human languaging and intelligence. Such success is
an incredibly uncommon event. The ‘correct way’ to
understand the general meaning-character of the letters is not
about it, but through having a transcendental experience of contact
with a ‘celestial’ (or hyperconnective) being who
exposes us to them in an experience whose character is decidedly
Cognitive activism is directly concerned with illuminating the ‘secret’ correspondences
of alphabets to our personal experience and with providing inroads
to a deep exploration of their significance, because without
them we are left with an extremely impoverished understanding
of language and its real natures. This impoverishment leads to
a dumbified and mechanical interaction with knowledge in general,
a danger which has drawn our species into various forms of slavery
that threaten the entire planet, and all of our human cultures — as
well as our intelligence.
• A deeper game than meets the aye•eye•I
Let’s take some words and play with the concept
that letters have meanings. Not in such a way that each occurrence
of the letter always means the same thing, but using an approach
which depends, essentially, on a poetic understanding of the
most important meanings for each letter.
Suppose that ‘F’ means frequency and/or
fractioning. That ‘I’ means a self, eye, entity,
thing or being. That ‘R’
means to radiate, transmit, or receive, and that ‘E’ means
energy or emanation. Now examine the word ‘fire’.
Frequency/fractioning (of an) Identity (results in) Radiation
(of) Energy. A unique
mode of ‘fractioning’ process radiates energy.
It’s important to realize that this is a very general
property of language; my assertion is not that ‘people designed
language this way’, but rather that it is the nature of language
formed of letters — in general — to represent a process like
this, in a dimension we refuse to properly explore or credential
as worthy of consideration.
Consider the ‘self-referencing’ word: tree.
‘T’ indicates ‘structures which rise (or fall)
and gain complexity (branches)’ — particularly ‘trees’. ‘R’,
in this case means both
‘radiate’ and ‘receive’.
‘E’ will be ‘energy’ again. This word
is fascinating because it references itself with the first letter,
but also because
‘trees’ are double-trees — there
is a radiating tree underneath the ground — the ‘roots’ —
and a similar but often more complex structure above. Both beneath
above the ground,
trees ‘radiate and receive’ energy — thus
the ending ‘ee’ represents
two forms of the preceding‘R’ — radiate/receive.
Poetically, this word signifies both the thing,
and the processes we commonly
it — in multiple simultaneous dimensions.
Let’s examine the words ‘light’ and ‘life’.
Both begin with ‘L’ — which can be translated
a variety of ways, including
‘light’, and ‘the way to cross a gap by traveling ‘over’’ —
as in ‘a light-bridge’ which is at once a transport
living emanation. Then we come to ‘I’ — meaning ‘to
and also ‘identity/insight’ — a living entity
which is at once extremely general (an instance
of all beings) and very specific — ‘a unique expression
Here, the words diverge, and we will take them separately, beginning
with ‘light’. ‘G’ indicates ‘a
drawing inward or gravity’ — an
‘inhalation’. From this inhalation, energy is transformed
‘expressed’ with ‘H’. The result is‘T’ — a
tree of reflections, reactions, and radiance — which literally ‘begets
it ‘is a source of life’. In ‘life’ we
come to the ‘F’ — a fraction/function
— also ‘a flow which fruits’ — an instance
of all living beings, in a specific being. And then ‘E’ — emergence/energy — and
also educaré (Latin) — to nurture in learning.
The universe is a song, whose verses grow ever-more
unified while appearing ever more distinct. Our world is a transentient
solar nursery — a universe-city where the children struggle
together to achieve the remembrance and embodiment of their divinely
Here, humanity does not ‘create’ languages
— we instead uniquely reflect and embody them from a living
source, into the flat terrains of ‘recording’ (making
windings, such as in strings or threads). We freeze portions
of character which
are alive, and make shaped marks against backgrounds — using
light to cross space, time, and mind. But we should seek the
sources of these matters personally and directly, and never settle
for a merely ’academic’ or ‘rational’ perspective.
The truth is far beyond our wildest imaginings, and will deliver
an experience of joy and prodigy which is beyond the entire sum
of the knowledge our species appears to ‘possess’.
of the English Majuscules:
Parenthesis indicate a question about whether or not a given character
formally complies with the mode indicated.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
A B D O P Q R
Crossing over between reflections or poles:
A H (M) N (V) (W) Z
B C D G (J) O P R Q S U
L M N V W Z
B D E F H (J) K L M N P R T
I (J) T Y
H M N
B D E F H K L M P R
A H I M O T U V (W) X Y
A K M N (Q) R V W X Y Z
Letters whose miniscule is very close to the shape
of their majuscule:
C c O o P p S s U u V v W w X x Z z
Letters often implying Division or Reflection:
(C) D F K P Q S
Letters often implying Unification:
A (B) E I O U Y Z
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
Note that 4 letters essentially ‘reflect’ each
other: b and d (with c between them) and p and q. b is q rotated
180 degrees. d is p rotated 180 degrees. e is very similar to an
upside-down a in many fonts.
m is essentially a doubled
w is essentially a doubled v.
only a d and q have leftward or ‘west of the pillar’ loops.
The theopoetic progenitor of many modern languages
I was introduced to the qualities of Hebrew during
my experience of the teaching spirit. In ‘their world’ letters are
alive, and each time you encounter one, it is at once entirely
new, and also recognizable. Thus, one could recognize the
Aleph or A each time one encountered it, even though its being,
purpose and function were almost entirely unique from the last
encounter. Although Hebrew is not entirely like the language of
God and the divine beings, it preserves crucial likenesses which,
though reductions, are spectacularly profound to us, here, in the
universe of manifestation.
We consider Hebrew to be a ‘primitive’ language,
and yet in truth it is more ‘futuristic’ than ‘primitive’ because
in its use and form it is ‘more like us’ and ‘more
like what we may become, and came here to be’. It is hyperpoetic,
such that each
character has a meaning, and the meaning changes according to the
context — the letters it is close to in a word. Each word
becomes a doorway to a complex series of understandings, which
with one’s knowledge of the language. This is extremely sophisticated
(especially compared to English), and difficult to explain overtly
— yet one who is devoted can acquire a direct experience
of it through studying the letters and the ‘roots’ — from
are formed. It
is a theopoetic language in that it was founded as a sacred tongue
— one of its primary purposes was to act as a vessel of
teaching and remembrance of direct contact between the human
the divine universe is alien to our common ways of thinking and
understanding, a language that internally preserved this was
crucial for the recording of the histories of contact, and the
the ‘learning-ways’ that resulted. The letters themselves
had to become strangely living vessels, to sustain and recall
‘impossible’ grandeur and profundity of the living library
of the unityBeing.
The hidden complexities of this language have many
aspects which are nearly certain to be overlooked, especially by
secular scholars. For example, if ‘each letter has a set of recombinant
meaning-bases’ — Hebrew letters have ‘multiple simultaneous scales
of this’ — because each letter has ‘a spelling’ and is thus formed
of other letters in an extremely complex
and practically recursive way. This means that ‘the meaning’ of a single Hebrew letter is
in fact an extremely complex story.
Hebrew is based on a tri-consonantal system of root-words,
and each of
a poetic precursor to words. The necessity of ‘supplying’ vowels
is also important — vowels (vow-el — a vow to God)
are spiritual letters, each having a unique relationship to the
Because they are not ‘written in’, the reader must
have a deep enough understanding of the language to supply them.
a variety of amazing purposes, one of which is that it causes the
linguistic intelligence to be exercised in such a way so as to
insure its ongoing growth. Consider the difference between a language
fully written out, such as English, and one in which vowels must
be supplied by context — the reader is constantly urged to
actively participate not only in the reading — but in the ‘writing’ as
well, each time any word is read. This amazing mode of ‘encouraging
the linguistic imagination’ might be considered anachronistic
in our age, and yet there are powers of this form of ‘leaving
something out’ which are profoundly useful to the growth
of the mind and imagination. Contrast, for example, a video game
where all interaction
takes place in text — such as a ‘mud’ (multi-user
dimension) where room descriptions and creature descriptions are ‘all
a video game where these are imaged. In the text-game, the user’s
imagination is enlivened and constantly exercised— in the
video game, everything is being fed to them as images. The text
grows the imagination, while the image-game deadens it.
The lack of supplied vowels also supports another
Hebrew tradition — the rejection of idolatrous images, particularly
including images of God. The vowels are commonly understood as spirit-letters, in part because of their relationships to breath and thier lack of sonic ‘edges’ (hard, definite sounds). Their changeable nature, and their useful function in providing sonic space within words contributes to their interpretation as spirit-sounds. Since the vowels most uniquely represent
God (of all the letters), symbolizing
would be idolatrous. By leaving them out, the sacred aspect of
‘unknowable grace and profundity’ is preserved.
Although my own understanding of Hebrew is limited,
I have a great appreciation for the partial descent of English from Hebrew,
a fact of which I am certain. Many of the obvious features
of this lineal relationship have been overlooked. A small example is the use of the
’ character to indicate ‘possession’. This character in English
is not even a letter, but it is essentially the same as the Hebrew
character yoad — which is often used to indicate ‘mine’, ‘belonging
to’, etc. It is also the only character that exists entirely above
the baseline (God lives in a supernal dimension, though omnipresent
in ours), and the first character of the ‘name of God’, YHVH (or
contain yoad — and both are common sounds of yoad. Israel and Judah
both begin with yoad.
I invite the wise reader to see the many amazing
correspondences between these two languages, and to understand
that English is (in many observable ways) actually a sort of ‘flattened’ reflection
of its Hebrew source. More complex material on Hebrew on this site
can be found here.
An excellent and recommended translation of the allegory
of the Hebrew letters approaching God with the desire to become
the one upon whom Creation is founded can be read here (scroll down to ‘The Alphabet’).
A • B • C • D • E • F • G • H • I • J • K • L • M
N • O • P • Q • R • S • T • U • V • W • X • Y • Z
Aleph • Beit • Geemel • Dalet • Hay • Vahv • Zaiyin • Chait • Tait
Yoad • Kaf • Lahmed • Mame • Nune • Sahmek • Aiyin • Pay
Tzahday • Qoaf • Raysh • S(h)een • Tahv