4:
proGenesis: The unityBeing:
They who Are — across the veil
— are primarily emergent from of somethingOne we might
call ‘the Living Waters’. Modern human cultures
don’t have a metaphor for anything like this, it is a
swarming dimension of ‘feminine’ creative potential
— a ‘dimension(un)’ which ‘always appears
as void’ except in manifestation.
It’s a mistake to decide this place is one ‘of spirit’,
because our common ideas of this don’t fit what we will
encounter, and will cloud the matter badly. We could... perhaps
later — but before we do it might be useful to have a
direct and experiential understanding of what this term can
point toward, as opposed to what it is commonly used in service
of — for the difference is ‘most of what is there’,
in this case.
So in our toylike representation of this (impossible to clearly
represent) place — there was(is) a sort of an elemental
circle. From one perspective this
‘Ammah’ or ‘Mother’ was ‘present
first’ — and yet in the Other Bubble the meaning
of first and last is entirely distinct from our common
understandings of them.
During an event that somewhat correlates
to our rather simplistic understanding of ‘the big bang’,
the masculine polarity of this sentient dimension ‘arose
into selfNess’. This masculine element (of a trinity)
was ‘self-created’ — (emergent) but was also
as a child — with(in) the Living Waters. It was, so to
speak, a ‘masculine’ person of energies —
child and father (maker) — emanating from with(in) a feminine
substrate.
The moment of emergence of this polarity
with(in) the Living Waters was the birth of
a triune being in a dimension that is something like
‘pure living sentience’. Where ‘her’
potential is generative through ‘attraction’, his
is ‘action’, and his action is not entirely unalike
with ‘intricately braiding her hair’ in such a way
that each braid results in more kinds of hair, and vast new
dimensions of possible braiding.
So, essentially, a ‘vast mother’
who is very ‘slow’ gave birth with(in) herself to
an autoemergent ‘childSuitor’ who is at once her
child and her ‘father’ and her ‘suitor.
This masculine aspect of the unityBeing being was also ‘here
before his mother was’, and thus could be said to be ‘first’
— because before his arrival there was ‘no way to
reflect’ and thus ‘no position’ (such as first
or second) at all. Our common metaphors
of first and last are as they have always been
transposable — and our insistence that this is
not in fact the case is a curse to every aspect of our relations
with language — and in many other dimensions of reltion
as well.
In the Other Bubble, the stuff we call
Time, is nothing like our models of it on this side. ‘Over
there’ — Time is simultaneously ‘all completely
present’ and ‘uniquely arriving’ in swarms
of dimensions of new emergences and expressions. In other words,
it is alive.
Over there the timeBeing is — and the way of
its being is a division that multiplies unique universes of
itself — into material, organismal, and cognitive manifestation.
An idealized model of the
Living Waters (firstMother).
In English, this is symbolized
primarily by the letter M, as in ‘Ma’.
The letter O is different,
and related, but is a referent for a ‘more physical’
(thus ‘more static’) metaphor of what M refers to.
M is not static at all
it is ‘humming’ with energy, movement, and potential.
If one directly encounters
some cognitive or experiential (or semantic) aspect of the Living
Waters directly ‘it seems or feels void’ because
it has neither character nor identity — and this, to our
metaphoric consciousness — ‘feels alien’ and
‘feels like void’ or ‘a pulling’. This
happens regularly during events before and at the end of dreams,
but we are rarely able to recall them.
In and around such an experience
we will come away with a nearly unmistakeable apprehension which
forms itself into a metaphoric likeness of the ‘near presence
of Death’ upon reflection — because a part of us
remembers that ‘something like this’ is ‘something
like where we came here from’ and ‘to be near it
is to be in danger of passing through’. This is due to
‘how incredibly attractive’ the Living Waters (and
thus cognitive or experiential reflections of it) are. In experience
this is commonly recounted as a feeling of a sort of ‘impossible
gravity’. We were each intimate with travel to and from
this ‘pulling place’ however, as children. It was
confused adults who convinced us that ‘the strange stuff
that happened in our dreams’ was ‘largely meaningless’.
o:O:o
In this phase it could be
said that the ‘masculine’ spirit of the unityBeing
is ‘hovering over the living waters’. Neither ‘mother’
nor ‘childSuitor’ is fully ‘arrived’
until they are united and this union is actively manifest
If
you see Her She is Nought.
When you do not see Her, Nothing is not Her.
Do
you see, little her-O?
The Mother has given birth
to a child: —
with(in) ‘M’ there is now ‘A’.
The ‘big bang’
— the emergence of the childSuitor (maker) with(in) the
Living Waters. This is ‘the birth of the Hero’ —
which actually means something more akin with ‘her O’
than it does with ‘warrior’ — yet it does
relate with victory, but not the kind arising from competition
against something. This is the birth of a unityGame
where any action of any participant — will always
more adeptly benefit all participants.
We can find an analog for
this in the incredibly generative
moment of the sperm’s penetration of the egg — and
the result is a positively catastrophic explosion of diversifying
complexity. In the psyche, this is the moment of the arisal
of ‘identity’. What was (more or less) uncharactered
has become (rather explosively) intrinsically generative
of character.
In semantics, this could
be seen as an icon representative of the first precursor to
‘metaphor’. The ‘reflective’ stage and
the subject are established.
This is a symbol of something
moving — the birth of singularity — with(in)
generality.
o:O:o
4A:
The Fountain and the
Cherub
An image which is as initially
puzzling as it is common is that of an angel, or a child-angel
— a cherub — playfully or expressively posed above
a ‘shell-shaped’ fountain. The angelChild may be
pouring waters from a vessel into a fountain, or may be urinating
into the fountain. I suggest this is, in reality, a metaphoric
representation of ‘matters across the veil’. In
many Christian icons* there is a mysterious symbol
of a vessel with holes at both ends — and from one end
flows a constant regenerating water — into a pool, or
river. The water-metaphor here is pointing at something more
than liquid, it is speaking of the generative and sentient movement
that enlivens the physical dimension from an impossible fountain
— which is really the living foundation from which our
universe and character emerge.
*images
of scenes from scripture painted according to a venerable tradition
What is emanating from that
fountain is energetic — yes — but it is not mechanical
or physically energetic before is is emotionally so.
This is fundamentally a matter of character — first. Our
infants and children are exceptionally expressive of unique
and individual character — which is yet alike in schema,
one to the other. This is a garden of diversity, and sentience
— of character and emotion. The mechanical aspects of
it, or those that may be applied post facto are rendered tedious
at best when compared in equal light with their sources.
When an infant says ‘Ma’
they are simultaneously referring to the Living Waters, and
‘Mother’ — as well as something alive, which
is like this metaphor represented in the fountain — and
is a unity of both of them. A game of you pouring into me pouring
more into you.. If an ‘anciently
experienced alien’ were listening — such a one would
first sense the emotional and poetic contexts and content
of the child’s activity — and these would be valued
far above form, expertise and content in the child’s speech.
This ‘alien’ might then interpret the child’s
utterance (far more correctly than the common Western interpretation)
as a reference to something alike with ‘the living-water
mother-eye’ with whom ‘my eye’ is in ‘water-unity’.
To our common mindset this seems perhaps too poetic and science-fictiony
— but the realities of our own nature and potential put
both poetry and science-fiction largely to shame with their
flagrant and continual embodiment and expression of impossible
ability, formative lineage, and active prowess. It is the flatness
and anti-imaginal qualities and characters of our common and
academic understandings that are blinding us to something of
truly unransomable value — and it is free to any who would
drink of it. Strangely, this draught is such that none can drink
unless we all can drink together, for this is the nature of
‘the gifts beneath the Tree’. They arise and prosper
only in unison.
o:O:o
The Living Waters are the feminine polarity,
which we would call ‘attractive’. This quality could
also be compared to energetic negativity — in that it
‘attracts inward’ and ‘manifests on surfaces’.
In the Other Bubble, it is the biggest of the big. The bigness
that it is engenders whole new universes of forms of bigness
each instant. It is like an impossible vessel into which an
impossible water is ‘always flowing more quickly’
— and the vessel of waters, as well as ‘that which
is pouring more nothing’ are all ‘more being’
than they are ‘thing’.
This symbol above could
also be seen as the ‘dividing’ of the Living Waters
into her unityChild — an energetic dance within
her results in a kind of transentient vortice — where
once there was no ‘One’ (and thus no ‘many’)
now there is ‘The One’ who is also the generative
source of the ‘many’. And he in turn ‘magnifies
her’ by changing the characters of these waters and pouring
them back into her as new domains of pure generative potential.
Even though she has no form, quality, boundary or shape `—
she is diversely complexifying as the result of their active
marriage and intercourse. Her potential is being ever more uniquely
folded into new universes of discrete embodiment, relation and
co-emerging ‘children’.
This model — circleDot(circle)
— can be played as the ‘before of the arisal’
of Zero and One — not merely as conceptual markers of
numerism, but as essentially linked and highly charged generative
polarities. In this case, not ‘things’ at all but
something even more than ‘beings’. In our position,
1 is the marker of dividing, manifestation and unity. 0 is the
marker of transgenerative potential.
The result of this ‘virgin
birth’ is a momentum-chain (wavelets of wave-makers) of
emergently habitable new (sentient) dimensions for ‘mother
and child’. She was not penetrated — nor will she
ever be, yet her and her suitor give birth to whole universes
of sentient dimensions — and children — merely by
being what they most elementally are: movement, in a place more
like emotion, than like spaceTime.
o:O:o
4B:
A is for Ox
This ‘A’ (the
childSuitor) is also remembered as ‘the face and horns
of an Ox’.
Thus ‘A’ is
more about Ox than it is about Apple. He bears a sacRed
yoke, and his yoke is the entirety of The Living Waters —
and he is pulling them into children...
Turn the A upside down,
and you will see the visage of the Ox. Or perhaps a yoke —
depending upon your perspective.
The ‘A’ is upside down in English, in part due to
‘reflection’ across ‘a cognitive mirror’
that is the result of how we interact with symbolic cognition
as a species, over time — and also a result of the specific
forms and schemas of our cognitive and intellectual specializations
and their effect upon our symbols and relations with them.
Here is another ‘toy’
of this Ox which we have occasion to explore further shortly.
This is one way of representing
the movement and result of the childSuitor with(in) the Living
Waters. He is on the left, moving inward (into himself) and
pulling the membrane of the waters into something like a cone,
point-leftward. In his wake, universes of ‘uniquely recursive’
transports, contexts, schemas and ‘children’ arise
— and immediately begin emulating him, biocognitively
— in our case. The game is complex and wonderful... because
enrichment of any possible sort, in any possible time, or place
— is reinvested into the unity.
The growing diameter of the Living Waters (her response to this
never-entirely-complete penetration) would be represented by
the growing distance between the outer edge at the center of
the two spirals. As he pulls the her into a somewhat conical
organization (in their undimension) — this distance (the
length of the central line) and progenerative spiraling increases
— at least — in the toy presented here.
We might profitably imagine
this to be a diagram of the relation between generality and
specificity in human cognitive relations with metaphor and semantic
forms of knowledge. In this case, the left side would represent
generality — containing all the ‘content’
of specificity (the more significant cone to the Right) in the
most highly compressed and accessible form and distribution
The other end — specificity
— has vastly more area and thus is ‘is attractively
significant’ but in reality is ‘a dangerous place
to go seeking in’ because:
a: travel rightward absurdly
magnifies the area that must be completely explored to proceed
in a geometric progression and
b: the farther rightward
one goes the less likely on is to turn about and explore the
other polarity for what one is seeking. Movement leftward ‘easily
resolves both of these matters’. We will
explore this in greater detail as we progress.
This doesn’t mean
we should not visit the leftward terrain for resources —
but it means that we should not do this first, or credential
or value it above the vastly more available resources of rightward
travel.
And here we find a beginning
for the idea of good and evil. A protogenesis. Not as absolutes,
or even as moral entities — but as results of the
order of choices in direction of movement — on something
like a strange rod.
I would ask that we pause
to notice in example that (in general) the female human loses
body heat more quickly than the male because her ‘curves’
give her vastly more surface area than we would tend to guess.
Thus ‘her abundance’ is ‘attractive’
— and also has a price of maintainance.What this abundance
attracts, brings more than mere ‘heat’.
It brings a penetrative
‘child’ who is male, and is a suitor.
o:O:o
4E:
Bet on Alpha
It is exceptional and significant
that A comes first in our language, and the
shapes of the this and the other capital, cursive and lower-case
letters are not ‘mere arbitrary assemblages from precursors’
as we might be commonly taught. The initial elements had
meanings, and they even had domains of meaning
we have not ‘conserved a space for’ in our modern
alphabets and understandings of them.
Truly we have lost a universe,
in losing these understandings. In fact, they hide a
schema of adaptive transformation and lineage so overpoweringly
amazing that were it to become common knowledge — the
result would entirely rewrite our common ideas and understandings
about the nature and sources of human intelligence. When this
happens, and it will happen, the vast eddies of our histories
will be seen in an entirely new light: a light that admits the
direct evidence of extra-systemic (inter)penetration in our
cognitive emergence into the complex sentience we are now capable
of expressing and exploring.
It is no accident that this
symbol might remind us of a human breast, either. After A, comes
B. A letter which can often be used in reference to ‘child
of’ or B(A) B (Y). The ‘coincidence’ of Baby-rest
and breast is also less an accident than we would be
led to expect by academic analysis.
(A(na) l Y Sis — i.e. : a system so fascinated with systems
as to branch (Y) absurdly into specificity). More simply: A
No Light-Branch System.
P.S: If you turn this image
90 degrees clockwise, you will see ‘that which men are
unknowingly emulating’ when they ‘strike the common
strongman pose’.
They are ‘showing
the sign’ that they are ‘the first child’
who ‘goes in ways like the Ox’. This is not related
to physical strength — it means ‘I have strength
in all dimensions before they are even created, and long after
their dissipation’.
It is perhaps ironic that
the number of modern men who actually know and understand what
it is this pose descends from is something like zero. Possibly
as many as three, however. It is an emulation of something that
was once experientially contacted — not ‘symbolized’.
To make this pose was ‘an expression of direct contact
in the now’ — not a reference to some distant or
possible event. The symbolization came after the contact, and
was never meant to stand in its place, thus obscuring it.
This pose used to be a way
of saying: I am expressing the possession of impossible strength
(of countless strong ones) because ‘the first Ox is in
me, and is my father’ and ‘he is here, now’.
