Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65

Thread: culture gloss

  1. #46
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts


    Relationship anarchy questions the conventions of love relationships and the idea that “love” is only real when two people exclude others in its expression. It presents a paradigm where love towards one does not diminish love towards another, and that there are many definitions to this concept.

    When it comes to the idea of “love” “sex” and “relationships” we, as a species, are truly sleepwalking. We spin our wheels in a repressive social structure of eros, but it seems, when looking around, that the lack of visionary freedom most people allow themselves has led to a wasteland of apocalyptical ruin between the sexes.

    It seems like the sexual revolution was something “the people” were not ready to embrace. Or maybe the actual problem lies in the idea that we do not need cultural “revolution” as much as we need spiritual “revelation”. Revolutions are still hidden behind masks, dogmas and institutions. Revelations come directly from our divine source; a source that has unimaginable expressions of itself.

    Everywhere evident, after some time, relationships will either “break apart” or “lose their spark”. If love is not wrong, then it should be considered that our social standards are flawed. We need to seriously rethink our outdated idea of “fidelity” and how it exiles us from what might be necessary for our soul, our sense of wholeness; exiles us from so many interesting and beautiful people we may want to experience, past conventional rules. The universe is dynamic; it does not keep itself on a choke-chain to maintain its status quo. If humanity wants to release it full potential, then it will have to liberate and acknowledge its tremendous sexual drive.

    The “liberation” of eros will never happen until we get rid of contracts, vows and bans. There can be no more bargaining. The idea of “love” cannot depend on the condition that desire for others must be completely snuffed out. Renouncing the pleasure and company of others, to show devotion to one, is farcical, if not an extremely masochistic concept. Love is either built on trust and truth, or perishes because it is built on sand.

    Relationship anarchy allows for expressions of love in an atmosphere of general lawlessness, like the definition of anarchy suggests, without common standards or purpose. Love’s “secret requirements” need to be replaced with the thrill of the unknown; a mirror for divine reflection. Relationship anarchy allows the true genius of the universe, and its extraordinary, infinite expressions of love to surprise us.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    modwiz (17th January 2015), Ria (17th January 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

  3. #47
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Very thoughtful article above. There is much for people to look at in relationships but, we would be better served to understand ourselves as a stand alone model. Knowing who we really are would allow us to bring this being into our relationships. Insecurity is not a relationship dynamic. It is a personal one.

    It is good to have you posting again, Dianna.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Bob (17th January 2015), dianna (17th January 2015), norman (17th January 2015), Ria (17th January 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

  5. #48
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts

    The following is excerpted from Meaning in Absurdity: What Bizarre Phenomena Can Tell Us About the Nature Of Reality (Bernardo Kastrup)




    "The Formless Speaks"
    http://realitysandwich.com/241298/the-formless-speaks/

    We are incessantly, relentlessly, tirelessly telling ourselves stories; constantly attempting to categorize and match everything we experience against some (coherent) storyline playing out in our minds. Well, at least I am like that, and I seem to observe others doing the same. That is why certain forms of meditation prove so challenging: there, the idea is to stop the story-telling. It turns out many of us require instruction, the learning of techniques developed over centuries or millennia, and years of training to have a chance to momentarily pause the story-telling; so inborn it seems to be. Some people even feel they need to isolate themselves completely, in mountains or monasteries, for years at a time, to stop telling themselves what is or might be going on.



    So it is no wonder we are prisoners of the consensus meta-reality we build, to the point that many of us – cruelly, often the most intellectually critical – believe there is nothing else. We become prisoners of our own stories and we forget we are telling them ourselves. If we are lucky, we sometimes succeed – by trial or chance – to relax the constraints of the story, so the absurd may emerge in archetypal forms and speak to us. This is, by any measure, a great and significant achievement. But as liberated from the straitjacket of logic, physics, and all that is entailed by consensus meta-reality as it may be, the absurd is still a story. These meaningful, living metaphors from the unconscious reveal deeper secrets about the nature of our condition as living beings, but they are still self-created myths.



    When one finally, and precariously, succeeds in shutting out the story-telling perhaps for a brief moment, that is when one ‘jumps out of the system,’ as Hofstadter put it. One then has a chance to survey the process of story-telling standing outside it. The idea is to go beyond the absurd, and into the Formless: the part of being that is pure potential, undifferentiated into any myth or storyline. What insights might that perspective entail? What might the Formless have to tell us?



    Once one intellectually buys into the worldview we have been articulating, it becomes impossible not to attempt a certain active-imagination exercise: to imagine what the perspective of the Formless might entail. As I have discovered, there is something liberating about it, so I will share my attempt with you for what it is worth. Naturally, in order to communicate my imagined message of the Formless through language, I have no alternative but to make a story out of it. This defeats the point somewhat, but hopefully not completely. The story form I chose is that of an imaginary letter sent to me by ‘the Formless.’ It goes like this…

    Rejoice, for I am from a world beyond the farthest reaches of your rational modeling. In my home, a subject is merely a moving viewpoint in a maelstrom of perceptions, feelings, and ideas; like a sliding pair of eyes trained at the inside of the body that is Creation. From here, your logic, your science, but also your conceptions of life, death, and soul, are but cartoons: flattened, simple, infantile stories conjured up by a sweet childhood of thought in a desperate search for closure. A gaping abyss stretches out between the images they evoke and the recursive, self-referential landscapes I watch unfold as I drift along the stream of qualia that I am.
    Your life is a patchwork of projected concepts; a thin conceptual crust around an unfathomable core of the amorphous substance of existence. Logic – which you create by channeling and constricting the flow of this substance – exists only in the crust. Lifting the rug of logic can take you closer to the secret behind what you call reality: the self-referential nature of all conscious experience. He who cracks this secret witnesses in awe the shattering of consensus reality into a million pieces. As these pieces fall to the ground, like a broken mirror, he is confronted with the unspeakable: the most alien and yet most familiar of all realizations.



    But this is a realization you have not yet reached; just glimpsed from a ludicrously long distance. So immersed are you still in conceptual patchworks, so submerged in the manifested stream of your being, that you cannot see that which you have always known but forget every time you awake to the sleep of life. Still, this is how it should be. Your condition is the epitome of life, for you are going to die, and I am not. Rejoice, for I am you, yet I transcend you.

    It is a saddle of your condition that you think only in terms of references and categories you are comfortable with, even when you intuit the existence of that which transcends these references and categories. Anguished by your mortality, you ponder about the survival of awareness beyond bodily death. You conceptualize a ghost-like ‘soul,’ existing in time and space, which ‘leaves’ the locus of the physical body upon death as if it were circumscribed by this physical body. You intuitively recognize the cartoonish naïveté of these models, and try to justify them to yourself by postulating ‘subtle energies’ and other ill-defined physical metaphors that help you hide your ignorance from yourself. Yes, these metaphors have their place, and some may even be the closest you can come to the truth with your limited language. But they are as literal and space-time-bound as the conceptual constructs they supposedly transcend. The aspects of being that ‘survive’ death and transcend physical existence are as alien to the references and categories of your waking life as your waking life is alien to the references and categories of your dreams. Your attempts to define the transcendent are as hopeless as a dreaming man’s attempt to define his physical body as an entity within his dream. Alas, the body is outside the dream and cannot be thought of in terms of the circumstances of the dream! In the same way, that which is transcendent and eternal in you escape the references and categories of your conceptual reality and cannot be conceived as a construct within it.



    Yet your life is itself a dream. The problem is that you got it the wrong way around: the dream is not in the body; it is the body that is in the dream. All metaphors, all cartoons of explanation and closure, exist only in the dream. When you sleep, you partially awake. But ‘Who is It who dreams?’ I hear you ask. This question is itself a reflection of your myopia; your infantile need to conceive of everything as being produced by something else. You see, the Dreamer is Itself the dream. The dream is the eternal unfolding and expression of the Dreamer to Itself. And it encompasses countless, perhaps unending viewpoints within it; viewpoints which the Dreamer assumes, and which entail amnesia from all other perspectives.



    Yes, every realm in the unfathomable dream of existence rests on layers upon layers of amnesia. Without identifying with a viewpoint, and forgetting who you really are, you could not taste from the many cups of experience. What finality or limitation could you know were it not for your forgetfulness? What weight could your actions carry? What significance could your achievements or failures hold? Rejoice for your ability to forget, for it endows you with the colors of life. But bear this in mind: you will once again remember. And when you do, you will again be home. In the interim, live out your myths – imaginatively.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Chester (6th July 2016), modwiz (17th January 2015), PurpleLama (3rd April 2015), Ria (17th January 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

  7. #49
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    15th January 2015
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 244 Times in 65 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by dianna View Post
    Amazing. So glad I saw this thread / post. Thanks for sharing that video, dianna!

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mjk9 For This Useful Post:

    dianna (17th January 2015), modwiz (18th January 2015), Ria (17th January 2015)

  9. #50
    Retired Member Haiti
    Join Date
    15th September 2013
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    9,060
    Thanked 5,813 Times in 895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by dianna View Post
    [IMG]

    Relationship anarchy questions the conventions of love relationships and the idea that “love” is only real when two people exclude others in its expression. It presents a paradigm where love towards one does not diminish love towards another, and that there are many definitions to this concept.

    When it comes to the idea of “love” “sex” and “relationships” we, as a species, are truly sleepwalking. We spin our wheels in a repressive social structure of eros, but it seems, when looking around, that the lack of visionary freedom most people allow themselves has led to a wasteland of apocalyptical ruin between the sexes.

    It seems like the sexual revolution was something “the people” were not ready to embrace. Or maybe the actual problem lies in the idea that we do not need cultural “revolution” as much as we need spiritual “revelation”. Revolutions are still hidden behind masks, dogmas and institutions. Revelations come directly from our divine source; a source that has unimaginable expressions of itself.

    Everywhere evident, after some time, relationships will either “break apart” or “lose their spark”. If love is not wrong, then it should be considered that our social standards are flawed. We need to seriously rethink our outdated idea of “fidelity” and how it exiles us from what might be necessary for our soul, our sense of wholeness; exiles us from so many interesting and beautiful people we may want to experience, past conventional rules. The universe is dynamic; it does not keep itself on a choke-chain to maintain its status quo. If humanity wants to release it full potential, then it will have to liberate and acknowledge its tremendous sexual drive.

    The “liberation” of eros will never happen until we get rid of contracts, vows and bans. There can be no more bargaining. The idea of “love” cannot depend on the condition that desire for others must be completely snuffed out. Renouncing the pleasure and company of others, to show devotion to one, is farcical, if not an extremely masochistic concept. Love is either built on trust and truth, or perishes because it is built on sand.

    Relationship anarchy allows for expressions of love in an atmosphere of general lawlessness, like the definition of anarchy suggests, without common standards or purpose. Love’s “secret requirements” need to be replaced with the thrill of the unknown; a mirror for divine reflection. Relationship anarchy allows the true genius of the universe, and its extraordinary, infinite expressions of love to surprise us.
    We often see discussions about sex without love and love without sex. Nothing wrong with that. But there's no mention of intimacy, which forms the basis of every relationship and the catalyst that drives/carries either love or sex to the next level.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Calabash For This Useful Post:

    lookbeyond (18th January 2015), sandy (2nd February 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

  11. #51
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts


    Psychopath vs. Empath: The War Between Truth and Deception

    Excerpts from:
    http://truthstreammedia.com/psychopa...and-deception/

    “The supreme mystery of despotism, its prop and stay, is to keep men in a state of deception, and cloak the fear by which they must be held in check, so that they will fight for their servitude as if for salvation.”
    – Baruch Spinoza

    Are you fighting for your servitude as if for your salvation? Then you have been well-deceived. […] Your thoughts are not your own. Your actions are not your own. You are in all ways a conditioned puppet who is under the delusion that it is free, and the psychopaths of the world are your uncompromising puppet masters. The questions you need to be asking yourself are these:

    “Am I willing to do what it takes to become free? Am I ready for the uncomfortableness of undeceiving myself? Would I rather be slapped by the truth or kissed with a lie? Am I willing to sacrifice my comfortable lie for the uncomfortable truth? Am I strong enough to fall from the “grace” of my delusion onto the hard and unforgiving ground of truth? And most of all: do I have the courage to disobey?”
    In order to answer these questions effectively, indeed in order to come up with better questions, we must be able to transform our would-be psychopathology into a courageous in-the-now empathology.

    …..

    We have lost the ability to communicate with each other as natural human beings. We have lost the ability to communicate with nature in a healthy way. These unconscious acts of unlearning are systemic and passed down from unhealthy generation to unhealthy generation. It’s time to break apart the parochial chain of our outdated value system. It’s time to un**** ourselves out of this unhealthy and unsustainable debacle. Like R.D. Laing said:

    “We are effectively destroying ourselves by violence masquerading as love.”


    The simplest way is to be the change we wish to see in the world so that we can be a force of nature powerful enough to also change the world. But another way is to undeceive ourselves, to become compassionate and empathic to the plight of others, and to sprinkle bits of truth over the mass deception like seeds that will eventually grow into a force to be reckoned with.

    As it stands, mankind is caught in the cycle of fear, apathy and hatred. A society based upon fear, apathy and hatred sets up a system which is fundamentally incapable of producing health and happiness and thereby represses human development. And here we are: living in a world where human development is being repressed, at the detriment of our individual health and the health of the ecosystem. However, our escape from this unhealthy pattern lies not only in rebellion, but also in the cultivation of a personal freedom and a relinquishing of all forms of anesthesia and self-deception.

    Indeed, while authentic freedom is not easily attained, its deficiency is evident in the devastation to both the individual and the greater culture, as the myopic conformists seek to victimize each other and repeatedly inflict violence upon the world in order to maintain the illusion of comfort and power that is being protected by the banner of their deception. Like Arno Gruen said:

    “If people base their identity on identifying with authority, freedom causes anxiety. They must then conceal the victim in themselves by resorting to violence against others.”


    Understand: the world was made to be free in. Give up all the other worlds except the one in which you are free; whether that world be your family, your country, your religion, or your politics. Escape any world that doesn’t allow you to be free. A clear sign that you are not free is that you are being deceived. The question is: are you okay with being deceived?

    As Chris Hedges warns, “We live in imaginary, virtual worlds created by corporations that profit from our deception,” It is precisely these virtual worlds that we need to turn the tables on. Virtual worlds are tools. We need to go from being irresponsible tools succumbing to a deceptive system, to using our tools responsibly and empathically so as to transform the system into a healthier version of itself.



    There is a war going on between manipulative liars and compassionate truth tellers, between psychopaths and empaths. Which side are you on? This also begs the question: are you lying to yourself, which happens to be one of the most difficult questions to answer honestly, but ask it you must, lest you fall too easily into the hands of the nearest con artist or snake-oil salesman. Beware the tyranny of habit. Be not inflexible. The more elastic and fluid you are, the more you’ll stay afloat when the crushing waters of vicissitude come crashing through, and the more you’ll be prepared to be a beacon of hope for others. Change is not easy, it never has been. But change is inevitable. We either wreck ourselves and the world trying to prevent it, or we adapt and overcome in order to evolve with it.

    [..]

    “If you would be a real seeker after truth,” wrote Rene Descartes, “it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”



    And so I did exactly that. I decided to undeceive myself, using a ruthless self-interrogation process and a humor of the most high to reveal the truth hidden behind the smoke and mirrors of mass deception. What I learned rocked my world, as it has many others. But my liberation was my salvation. The pain that came from knowledge was exceptionally more rewarding than the bliss that came from ignorance. My fall was profound, but when I hit the ground, I relearned how to fall in love.

    Like Sogyal Rinpoche said:

    “Each time the losses and deceptions of life teach us about impermanence, they bring us closer to the truth. When you fall from a great height, there is only one possible place to land: on the ground — the ground of truth. And if you have the understanding that comes from spiritual practice, then falling is in no way a disaster, but the discovery of an inner refuge.”
    The only way that deception is moral is through the artistic process. Like Marco Tempest said, “Art is a deception that creates real emotions — a lie that creates a truth. And when you give yourself over to that deception, it becomes magic.” We need more of this magic, especially in a world more and more devoid of magic. It is magic precisely because it transforms deception into truth, and so has the power to transform psychopaths into empaths, by planting seeds like tiny, packaged beacons of hope.

    [A]rt can literally change the world. Our audacious art is like swordplay in the brain, proving that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. With it we can cut the yoke of deception that has been passed down from an unethical power structure made up of psychopathic men hell-bent on maintaining their power to the extent that it is destroying the world.

    Like Arno Gruen said, “No matter how much lip service those committed to power (psychopaths) may pay to the principle of equality (empaths), they can never approach their fellow human beings on an equal footing; their relationships with others are defined solely in terms of power and weakness. Therefore, they must accumulate as much power as possible, with the aim of becoming invulnerable and proving this invulnerability.” It is the duty of artistic empaths the world over to meet this false invulnerability with the truer power of absolute vulnerability, and art will be our vehicle. Courage is not being invulnerable, like a machine. Courage is not an unwavering hardness, like a tank. It is a soft plasticity, like water. I beseech you, you who would dare greatly, look not for what’s solid within you, look instead for what is soft and malleable. The courage will come.

    Like Bruce Lee pouring water in and out of a cup, saying “Be water, my friend,” your softness will take shape and assume the form of empathy which has the power to crush all forms of psychopathology, and its shape will be an adventure of the most high.




  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Calabash (2nd February 2015), lookbeyond (27th February 2015), sandy (2nd February 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

  13. #52
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    33 First-World Anarchists Who Don’t Care About Your Rules

    http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-firs...chists-rebels/


















    The rest here:
    http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-firs...chists-rebels/

  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Calabash (7th February 2015), Curt (7th February 2015), lookbeyond (27th February 2015), PurpleLama (7th February 2015), Ria (27th February 2015), sandy (8th February 2015), That Guy (7th February 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015), Tribe (27th February 2015)

  15. #53
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    Leonard Nimoy, 'Star Trek's' Spock, dead at 83




    Leonard Nimoy, whose portrayal of "Star Trek's" logic-driven, half-human science officer Spock made him an iconic figure to generations, died Friday. He was 83.
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/27/entert...ock/index.html

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Agape (9th March 2015), Ria (27th February 2015), sandy (10th March 2015), Tonz (28th February 2015), Tribe (27th February 2015)

  17. #54
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    Reclaiming Art

    http://realitysandwich.com/266261/re...th-j-f-martel/

    J.F. Martel’s new book, Reclaiming Art in the Age of Artifice: A Treatise, a Critique, and Call to Action (Evolver Editions/North Atlantic Books), is a powerful invocation to return to what is arguably art’s central purpose, “to call us back to the source.” Disrupt what we take for granted to be true, and put us in contact with something greater, truer – something numinous.



    Between us and the Mystery of all mysteries is the imagination, which is powerful enough to take us into the Otherworld, or other worlds, in daytime revery, vivid dreams, psychedelic experiences or other altered states. In our interview. J.F. describes how art can become a portal into the Otherworld, serving to disrupt the onslaught of “spiritual exhaustion” caused by the technological commodification of human culture and consciousness. You can read an excerpt from Reclaiming Art in the Age of Artifice here.



    J: Your book’s subtitle refers to it as a “call to action.” What do you hope to inspire people to do?




    JF: We’re inundated today with media that’s been carefully crafted to steer our emotions and the thoughts that follow from them. I’m thinking here of everything from advertising and political spectacle to software and product design. Reclaiming Art proposes that we make a conscious effort, if not to liberate ourselves entirely from this kind of media (which may well be impossible), then at least to recognize the value of aesthetic experiences that deepen our connection to the real instead of locking us up in an ideology. For artists who read the book, there’s a more concrete exhortation to heed their inner visions rather than sacrificing them to market forces or moral imperatives.

    Why do we need to “reclaim art?” What is it that needs to be reclaimed?

    The title of the book appears to say that art is something humans “had” at one point in history and need to find again. And there is a limited sense in which it does say that. On the other hand, I doubt we could point to a past society that didn’t try to appropriate and redirect art and artists in some way. This is because the real power of the work of art necessarily manifests in the field of direct experience. Society, by contrast, is almost exclusively concerned with mediating experience, thereby rendering it indirect. To put it differently, art is about unveiling the real while society exists as a kind of enclosure to protect us from the real. My hope is that by the end of the book, the reader will see that it’s in each of our lives that the reclamation of art needs to happen. Everyone has had at least one artistic encounter that changed them profoundly. This book is about recognizing the value of such experiences and exploring what they’re made of.


    …..


    In your book, you say that humans didn’t invent art, but rather art invented humanity. How do you mean?


    The earliest examples of art, which go back some forty thousand years, are almost devoid of human figures. There are a few exceptions, most notably the famous Venus figurines found across Eurasia. But even these, with their exaggerated features and lack of a face, are only vaguely human. Clearly, representing human beings wasn’t a priority for our earliest ancestors. That’s extremely peculiar when you think about it. What I take from it is that the birth of the artistic imagination preceded the development of any kind of differentiated self-awareness in the species—anything that could be called “humanity.” The artistic imagination, which I believe lies not only behind art as such but also behind shamanism, magic and religion, had to be there as a sort of mirror in which we could gradually make out our reflection.

    What is the difference between art and artifice, and why does it matter?

    Artifice denotes the use of aesthetics to manipulate the emotions in a predetermined manner. In A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce calls it “improper art” and defines it as art that presents its content in such a way as to induce a state of attraction or repulsion. There are therefore two kinds of artifice. Examples of the first kind include porn videos, advertisements and generic pop songs. All of these are, at bottom, pornographic. The second kind includes traditional propaganda films and shock art, but also any work specifically designed to push a political or social message: slick PSAs, moral fables and concept art that does nothing but voice an artist’s opinion.

    What Joyce calls “proper art,” on the other hand, uses the aesthetic to reveal things in their original, preconceptual “suchness.” That is, it doesn’t reduce its content to some instrumental end. In doing this, artists end up producing symbols, beacons that point to those vast regions of reality which psychoanalysts call the unconscious. In other words, art doesn’t belong to the conscious world. It belongs on the same plane as dreams, visions and synchronicity. By its nature it calls us out of the trance states that artifice instills.

    A society without art would be a totally artificial society in which people would lack the most effective means to envision realities beyond the ideological horizon. Yet in its zeal to reduce, tag, measure and quantify everything, contemporary culture is actively eliminating any distinction between art and artifice. Many if not most people today have bought into the idea that art is a cultural construct that’s completely subjective and devoid of intrinsic value. They are aware of artifice but dismiss art as a romantic delusion. This isn’t surprising, since capitalism will not become universal until it has gained absolute control of the human imagination.

    Do the subjects of works of art need to be overtly spiritual, mystical, psychedelic, etc. to be any of those things? Does calling something Visionary Art make it visionary?

    No. In fact works of art designed specifically to communicate spiritual ideas tend to lose the affective power that makes art what it is. This is something Gilles Deleuze develops in his philosophy. Art, he says, has nothing to do with concepts, opinions or ideas in the conventional sense. Rather, it inheres in the creation of sensations, either completely new sensations or sensations stripped of the clichés and assumptions that reduce them to stock feelings in normal reality. Art reveals the world before the development of concepts, including spiritual concepts.

    The real power of a work of art doesn’t lie in its subject matter but in the style in which that subject matter is delivered. It’s in an artist’s style, in her unique perspective, that mystery is disclosed and forces that transcend the human world are revealed. This doesn’t mean that overtly mystical works can’t be visionary. It means that whatever visionary quality they have won’t come from the message they’re trying to communicate.

    Take a gothic cathedral, for instance. Its affective power doesn’t depend on your understanding the meaning of every shape, angle, statue or picture. It comes from the aesthetic arrangement of the whole. You could be completely ignorant of Christian doctrine, even an atheist, and still feel the aura of sacredness that the place exudes. This is in part because the sacred has nothing to do with Christianity itself. You could get a similar experience in a mosque or a concert hall. All great works of art have a quality that exceeds their conceptual signification. This excessive quality, which explains how a thirteenth century building could be as meaningful today as it was when it was built, is what I attribute to the Imaginal in the book.

    What is the “Imaginal” and how is it important for creating art? Is it any different than the human imagination?

    In the book I use the term “imaginal” loosely in the sense that the French scholar Henri Corbin did in his study of Islamic mysticism. Corbin describes the imaginal world as an intermediary between Heaven and Earth, man and God. It’s the place of dreams, daimons and archetypes—what Carl Jung referred to as the collective unconscious. Having said that, I don’t believe that reality is actually divided into levels or realms. So when I speak of the Imaginal or the “otherworld” in my book, I’m talking about this world seen through a particular lens, or perhaps no lens at all. I equate the Imaginal with what Jung, at the end of his career, called the Unus Mundus, the “one world” that exists beyond the brain’s division of it into outer and inner, psyche and matter, past and future, and so on.

    …..

    The Swedish occultist Thomas Karlsson speaks of “fatigue” as the most prevalent disease of our times. What he means by this is a spiritual exhaustion that comes from being perpetually immersed conceptual environments and media. Think of the listlessness you feel after watching TV or scrolling down your Facebook timeline for a couple of hours. I think spiritual fatigue is most definitely an impediment to soulful expression. Karlsson recommends regular contact with nature, which is free of concepts. I agree and include art in the things that qualify as nature. You don’t come back from a great play or a concert drained. You come back energized and refreshed, as if you went for a walk in the woods.

    …..

    How can art make a political and social difference today? Or in other words: how can we create art that actively combats the commodification of human consciousness?

    Art is in itself a form of resistance to the commodification of consciousness. Every bit of time and energy spent creating or experiencing works of art escapes the grasp of those forces that would reduce us all to a quantity or algorithm.

    In a sense, asking what art should do to improve society is like asking what the heart should do to improve the health of the body. The heart can only do one thing: beat. It’s up to the body to live in such a way as to allow it to keep beating. Similarly, the only thing art can do is reveal the non-human forces that shape the world. It oxygenates society by infusing it with a more expansive reality than its preconceptions, opinions or beliefs allow for. Art is the heartbeat of a civilization. For that reason, it’s not up to artists to produce works that will change the world. It’s up to the world to organize itself in such a way that artists are able to make the art they’re called to make. While this doesn’t absolve artists of their civil responsibilities as members of society, it does mean that when they practice their art, they ought to have the freedom to be guided by powers that exceed our understanding. True works of art are powerful symbolic constructs, genuine oracles that can give society access to what’s going on below the threshold of collective consciousness. But they won’t do that if artists feel a need to impose a moral or message on the material. For the magic to happen, vision must lead the way.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    sandy (10th March 2015), Tonz (28th February 2015)

  19. #55
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    "I came here to learn not look pretty"
    Cici Chase

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Agape (9th March 2015), sandy (10th March 2015)

  21. #56
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    sandy (10th March 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

  23. #57
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...ng-revolution/

    The Coming Revolution
    by Jon Rappoport






    “Down through history, people have been oh so sure the gods they were inventing were real. And they talk about excessive pride when others elevate the potential of humans. I’m afraid not. The hubris is with the god-inventors. They’re the ones who take art and turn it into something weirder than weird. They’re the ones who claim they have infallible knowledge. They’re the ones who know God so well they can say what his rules are. They’re the ones who try to envelop the whole world in their proclamations. And they’re the one who claim they don’t understand imagination, when in fact they’re trying to bludgeon humankind with it, with their foreshortened version of it.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
    The revolution isn’t visible yet, but it’s coming, it’s emerging, and there is no way to stop it.

    Civilization is organization. In its advanced stages, it’s super-organization.

    Planners and analysts and major profit makers and manipulators are devoted to systems, which require populations to confirm those systems by fitting into them.

    Devise a plan with a few billion slots, and those slots ask for occupants.

    The occupants must comply. What was once voluntary becomes mandatory. It’s the way of top-down organization.

    This is the madness that drives late-stage civilization.

    People, left alone, aren’t androids or robots, but in case you hadn’t noticed, people are not being left alone. They are being shaped and tailored to conform to operating schemes and blueprints.

    “There is nothing important about you except your ability to reconfigure yourselves, in order to operate as elements of a system, designated pieces of a structure.”
    “Your impulses, your brains are off-key. They require tuning. It must happen. The patterns of the plan demand it.”

    This is the stage play. This is the precondition for the revolution.

    The revolution is the escape.

    I’m not talking about the chaos, the violence, or some new brand of opportunism. Nor am I talking about “beneficent deliverance” dished out by the universe.

    Behind all that is a much larger wave that is building. It could take a very long time for the wave to become conscious of itself.

    And that consciousness does not function like some contagious germ. It comes out of hiding for individuals, by individuals.

    Super-organization of life will fracture, and that fracture will come about through the resurrection of spontaneous thought, invention, and action. Because the one quality that has been buried in thousands of systems is spontaneity.

    I’m not talking about aimless thrashing about. I’m talking about what happens to structures and edifices of consciousness when spontaneity and improvisation come to the foreground, when the natural replaces the synthetic.

    This process is already underway, because Life wants to live. It doesn’t want to become a machine. It accepts being a machine for only so long, and then it revolts.

    What will emerge is the artist, along all avenues.

    This is not yet another form of passive “miracle.” This is individuals, more and more of them, throwing off the frozen and universally accepted expectations and habits of organization.

    In short, the future will not look like the present. It will be radically different. It will be open, not unified.

    Those who ask When this future will come, those who hope for Soon, who demand Now, or who deny that any root revolution can happen are simply wishing for deliverance independent of their own actions, their own struggle, their own involvement.

    We are all artists, whether we like it or not. Each one of us. And not as some fictitious group. Each one of us has his own studio. It can remain closed, dark, and empty, or it can come alive.

    Nothing gives us “permission” to invent, create, imagine, improvise. This is not about “deserving” anything. This isn’t about “rights”.

    The revolution does not produce One Collective Mind. What the world will look like after the revolution has proceeded with velocity is entirely unpredictable, because it will not look like One Thing.

    It will not demonstrate yet another simplistic version of harmony and symmetry. If that were the case, we would see the rise of another era of organization and perfectible slavery.

    The entire purpose of operant conditioning and mind control is planting seeds that will cause an individual to accept the substitution of one system for another.

    The success of this deception explains the rise and fall and rise of similarly built civilizations, one after another.

    But through the course of that history, because artists have made their case, a consciousness has gradually arisen that rejects all overall plans, all final structures, all pre-set systems.

    Artists have also exposed the method of projecting gods who then rule us; exposed it as an act of freezing imagination and art in mid-course.

    “This is a brilliant poem. Let’s cut it off right here and form a religion around it and organize the churches…”


    So now there is an opening. The wave of the revolution is free imagination, and artists who know they are creating, instead of imprisoning themselves and everyone else in their creations.

    This revolution is not organized. It never will be. But it will eventually supersede all other revolts.

    None of this, of course, prevents people from remaining asleep in whatever kind of sleep they prefer.

    And in case there is any misunderstanding, the revolution is not a subconscious process by which we all strive toward making “one grand painting” we share together.

    That is the sloganeering of all civilizations (organizations) that fail.

    Another failure: the walled-off isolation people feel inside those great organizations. People will connect, in ways they can only dream of now.

    One creator to another.

    Spontaneously.
    Jon Rappoport

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Tonz (30th April 2015)

  25. #58
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    Invisible People
    https://www.youtube.com/user/invisiblepeopletv/featured


    Since its launch in November 2008, Invisible People has leveraged the power of video and the massive reach of social media to share the compelling, gritty, and unfiltered stories of homeless people from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. The vlog (video blog) gets up close and personal with veterans, mothers, children, layoff victims and others who have been forced onto the streets by a variety of circumstances. Each week, they're on Invisible People and high traffic sites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, proving to a global audience that while they may often be ignored, they are far from invisible.

    Invisible People goes beyond the rhetoric, statistics, political debates, and limitations of social services to examine poverty in America via a medium that audiences of all ages can understand, and can't ignore. The vlog puts into context one of our nation's most troubling and prevalent issues through personal stories captured by the lens of Mark Horvath - its founder - and brings into focus the pain, hardship and hopelessness that millions face each day. One story at a time, videos posted on Invisible People shatter the stereotypes of America's homeless, force shifts in perception and deliver a call to action that is being answered by national brands, nonprofit organizations and everyday citizens now committed to opening their eyes and their hearts to those too often forgotten.

    This short video is the trailer of @home, a documentary that tells the story of modern U.S. homelessness and one man's fierce commitment to end it. Mark Horvath and Invisible People travel around North America using social media to fight homelessness.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    lookbeyond (29th April 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

  27. #59
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    "We are the shamans of the wasteland … the shamans for here and now" Gabriel Roberts

    Gabriel D. Roberts is a theological scholar, researcher and public speaker that specializes in discussions about the nature of perception and belief. After 27 years of passionate searching and study, Gabriel stepped away from his long held Christian faith into a more expansive and fluid worldview. His latest book, The Quest For Gnosis explores the roots of belief, the power of the ecstatic state in one’s spiritual life and the means by which a deeply satisfying spiritual life may be achieved outside of the bonds of dogma.
    http://www.gabrieldroberts.com


  28. The Following User Says Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    Tonz (30th April 2015)

  29. #60
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    1,547
    Thanked 1,346 Times in 234 Posts
    A wonderful map created by William Samari, Ray Yamartino, and Rafaan Anvari of DogHouseDiares illustrates what every country does better than every other country.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...best-at-2014-1
    http://thedoghousediaries.com


  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dianna For This Useful Post:

    lookbeyond (29th April 2015), Tonz (30th April 2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •