Wednesday, January 31, 2007

A Cosmos Beyond Our Wildest Dreams and Wackiest Puns

Before we begin today's manifestivities, I just want to say that that was an outstanding epistle by Paul G. yesterday, regarding why God creates the cosmos (note the present tense, for the cosmos was not created "in the past" but is always "undergoing" creation in the now).

Paul wrote, "Artists, writers, and musicians often speak of the overwhelming need to paint, or write, or sing. It builds up inside them until they cannot contain it anymore. They are forced to do so, not in the sense that one person compels another to do something by threat of force, but rather in the sense that they cannot do otherwise. It is because of who they are that they they paint, or write, or sing. If they ceased to do so, they would cease to be themselves."

Exactly. Furthermore, seeing as how the Creator expectorated this mirrorcle and we're His spittin' image, it follows that our own deep interior can tell us something -- as in the sense of a distant reflection or echo -- about the Creator's interior: "as above, so below." Thus, the "need to create, nested so deep in man's soul, is a reflection of the same characteristic writ large in God. Man and the cosmos he lives in were created precisely because of who God is. He could not do otherwise, because that would mean that He would cease to be God."

I couldn't have said it better. Therefore, I tried to say it worse, which is what the exblarnetory nonsense of pps. 7-17 of the Coonifesto is all about. There I attempted to shed some additional obscurity on the subject by -- in the manner, say, of an abstract expressionist -- seeking the form beneath the form of language and presenting a composite mythunderstanding of God's creative activity.

Frankly, if I could have been less unigmatic I would have been, but the book would have failed to sell even more copies and shot up the worstseller list with a fatal bullet to the head. As it stands, many people will no doubt pluck it from the shelf, flip through the first few pages, return it next to Shakti Gawain, and back away slowly. But this burdensome overchore to my unsour cosmic suite attempts to undo the whole bitter pointlessness of what fallows, theologically speaking.

Yesterday, a toothless and slack-jawed monocosmatic yokel dropped a steaming prairie pie of a comment to the effect that he didn't appreciate all of Dear Leader's "made up words," apparently bland to the fact that all words are made-up. This mulch is oblivious. One might just as well say, "Duh, I like Thelonious Monk, but what's with all the made-up notes?"

This type of raw material for a person is clearly malapropriate for my laughty revelation, which is intended to ripen a guffah-ha! experience unavailable to the spiritually immature fruitkook. As we learned a couple of days ago, my blog is not intended for the jung and easily freudened, for not until you reach a ribald age will you be able to grasp the wheel of my broken-down trancebardation.

As we have uddered and ruminanted upon many sacred occowsions, language is a double-edged s-word brickhouse, for on the one hand it liberates us from being "buried in the body and trapped in the senses," while on the other hand it can become it's own stinking prismhouse, reflecting only the dim and malodorous light of its own colliderescape.

Just as God's word simultaneously employs and shatters speeech, we too must use language in a similar way if we are to speak of the unspeakable, think the unthinkable, and glish the unglishable. Put it this way: if God used language in the mundane way that Reliapundit does, the cosmos would be too simple to have produced something even as basic as Reliapundit.

God is not a mathematician, or a watchmaker, or even a quantum cosmologist (or not only those things, to be precise). Rather, he is an extremely creative speaker. If he spoke in any less of a creative manner, all of this freaking creativity wouldn't be here! Nor, needless to say, would all the naturally supernatural beauty. After all, it's only everywhere and in everything. Let's see you do that with langauge.

So yes, we should not be surprised if grammatical lawlessness breaks out at the infra-linguistic and extra-semantic frontiers of Coon World -- at the innersection of O and (k), for here are the roiling waters -- the "mouth of the Ganges" -- where something that is not language becomes so; and equally the transcendentally peaceful waters where the river of language ceases being so and flows back to the Ocean of shut my mouth, enough bull, it's eneffable!

In short, pps. 7-17 of the Coonifesto convey the story of how and why the One becomes many, while pps. 252-266 tell the story of how and why the many return to the One. This is the primordial activity of the cosmic ground, and it is always going on. In ether worlds, speaking vertically, the cosmos is arising and disappearing on a moment-by-moment basis. Just like you.

Moving on to the next questions, Anonymous asked, "Is [the ghastly troll] Integralist a true manifestation of The Adversary, or is he just a misguided kid, or is he perhaps both?," and "Is the physical world a 'dream garment' worthy of our respect and attention while we are here, or is it merely a veil to be scorned and cast aside as soon as possible?"

Regarding the first question, the unambiguous answer is "yes and no," for all of us are a mixture of light and dark. Having said that, there does exist a generic "hostile force" that counters the evolutionary action of the cosmos and of the individual seeker who attempts to hasten the process. This statement is something of a banality, for it is something that all serious seekers encounter once they leave the beaten path for the victorious one. In other words, it seems that to declare one's allegiance to the light is to place a target on one's back. What did the Master say about it? I forget.

The enigmatic esotericist Boris Mouravieff (a unusually highbred of way-out Gurdjieffian cooncepts and way-in Russian Orthodoxy) referred to a "General Law" of the cosmos, and although the law may at times seem arbitrary or cruel, in hindsight we can see that it served a purpose in our own lives, similar, say, to the groomed area of a ski slope. Although you may not like it, those boundaries are ultimately there to protect you.

Thus, if you are going to be an extreme seeker and plunge down the black diamond metaphysical trails, you had better know what you are doing, because hazards are everywhere. Ultimately the hazards are not outside of you but inside of you, as is demonstrated by the one skier who skillfully makes his way down the ungroomed mountainside, another who tangles his pole or loses an edge and endures the agony of defeat week after week on the Wide World of Sports.

In short, to quote Bob Dylan, to live outside the law you must be honest. If you are not, then be prepared for a fall of epic proportions. Hard lessons are everywhere, like invisible rocks or slippery patches of ice scattered about your own mindscape.

My principle objection to leftism is not over this or that of its dopey dogmas, because those change and transmogrify over time. One day they claim to be against racism, while today they are its only atavistivc proponents. One day they are "for the little guy," whereas today they do everything in their power to keep him down and make him a dependent slave.

No, leftism is against the law because it is an embodiment of the adversary, which is to say the General Law gone haywire. It turns the General Law -- which is there to protect us -- into a totalitarian system that enslaves us. Instead of flexible ropes at the edges of the slope, it creates barriers of irony and steel that prevent anyone from even knowing about the Great Ungroomed, O. No one is permitted to ski beyond the materialistic and infrahuman barriers of political correctness that prevent a man from transcending himself and therefore becoming the man he was intended to be.

Now, "Is the physical world a 'dream garment' worthy of our respect and attention while we are here, or is it merely a veil to be scorned and cast aside as soon as possible?" In my view it is clearly the former, so long as one recognizes that it is indeed a dream garment. But what is a dream and who is the Dreamer who dreams it? Answer: "As above, so below." The Dreamer who dreams your dreams is inexhaustibly creative and can never be contained by language. To quote the brilliantly creative psychoanalyst James Grotstein,

[T]he production of a dream is a unique and mysterious event, an undertaking that requires an ability to think and to create that is beyond the capacity of conscious human beings.... [D]reams are, at the very least, complex cinematographic productions requiring consummate artistry, technology, and aesthetic decision making.... [D]reams are dramatic plays that are written, cast, plotted, directed, and produced and require the help of scenic designers and location scouts, along with other experts.... I am really proposing the existence of a profound preturnatural presence whose other name is the Ineffable Subject of Being, which itself is a part of a larger holographic entity, the Supraordinate Subject of Being and Agency.

Some dream. Some Dreamer.


River Cocytus said...

Awakeness is the undream the dreamer falls awake into every morning. Continually,

(From Genesis 1)
"And the evening and the morning were the (n)th day."

Whereas we would the-ink, the morning and the evening made the (n)th day.

Do you think?

Darn dreamer got the message and wrote it down, but he wrote it down backupwards!

It makes sense to me. But not dollars.

Oh, and i guess there's the whole (n) thing i did by accident...

The drive-by poet said...

Language, by Suzanne Vega

If language were liquid
It would be rushing in
Instead here we are
In a silence more eloquent
Than any word could ever be

Words are too solid
They don't move fast enough
To catch the blur in the brain
That flies by and is gone

I'd like to meet you
In a timeless
Placeless place
Somewhere out of context
And beyond all consequences

Let's go back to the building
(Words are too solid)
On Little West Twelfth
It is not far away
(They don't move fast enough)
And the river is there
And the sun and the spaces
Are all laying low
(To catch the blur in the brain)
And we'll sit in the silence
(That flies by and is)
That comes rushing in and is
Gone (Gone)

I won't use words again
They don't mean what I meant
They don't say what I said
They're just the crust of the meaning
With realms underneath
Never touched
Never stirred
Never even moved through

If language were liquid
It would be rushing in
Instead here we are
In a silence more eloquent
Than any word could ever be

And it's gone
And it's gone

Gagdad Bob said...


I'll remove the post at once.

Jenny said...

Fabulous! All you guys are awesome!

A Fan said...

Here we catch you in the act of doing what you do best: casting the abstract into concrete metaphors (such as the ski slope) that help the reader to grasp and remember these difficult ideas.

I place this one alongside the "ocean" and "baseball" metaphors in Bob's hall of fame.

And as for the word bending, shifting, and play--only one critic out of all of your readers has ever spoken out against it, and I suspect that one critic was jealous.

I admire and support your writing and mission; I know quality when I see it.

ximeze said...

A Fan said: "I suspect that one critic was jealous."

Or such a dullard that extracting delight from wordplay is too much work.

Paul G's mom said...

I too, found Paul G's writing a poetic summation of an eternal mystery of who and why we are.

It was a strange and wonderful way to start my day, reading what he wrote; feeling a soft rebuke to my own soul, for not being who I am, for not giving in to reality of the real me, for fearing what it would mean to follow that thread of truth.

How strange to give birth to a boy-now-man who could think such thoughts, instilled in part by me, and mirrocle them back to me, fresh and new and full of the life they contained when first I spoke them to him:


NoMo said...

Barack Obama - “The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact.”

Jeez, is there any way we can just fast-forward through the next 2 years (without losing them of course)?

River Cocytus said...

Nomo: possibly, but it might involve making a deal with Christopher Walken.

And as you and I well know, one does not simply Walken to Mordor...

Btw, This is the 'one' song in fairly pure form. If you have not heard it sung, I would suggest it. This is 100% Gospel Music without any bells and whistles.

Alan said...

awesome daily post.

Nomo: I saw BO's quote on Drudge and couldn't even click on the link - I'm with you!

River: One of my favorite songs. I defy anyone to hear it and not be singing it in their head for the rest of the day.

NoMo said...

Some thoughts / questions borne from today's post:

Creation, even if destructive, is self-expression. Dreams are unconscious creative acts whether they are pleasant or nightmares. Is interpreting dreams really any different from interpreting art? Interpreted accurately (as if that's possible), would my dreams say anything very different about me than my creative acts? Don’t they both spring from the same source?

Since only God is omniscient, there really are no other genuinely creative acts than those performed by God.

Jacob Churosh said...

I once knew someone who was a little strange, compared to everyone else I knew. I've never known anyone else who was so constantly HAPPY. And in talking to her, it didn't seem to me that she was possessed of the ignorance-is-bliss sort of happiness; it seemed to come, for her, out of some childlike - NOT childish - understanding, deep down in the core of her heart, that life was (and is) beautiful.

She wrote songs. In her hands and her mouth, the usual love-and-peace platitudes didn't sound like the shortsighted things they were when they were invented in the Sixties. I could put my hand on a Bible and swear to you, she believed in light and love and peace, to a degree that made the Sixties-era psychedelic witterings seem as fake as a three-dollar bill and as shallow as a puddle three days after the rain. She was full of REAL love, not the fake and shoddy philosophy of love that her parents' generation practiced at Woodstock and elsewhere; for her, love seemed to be a tangible thing, a SPIRITUAL thing. She could talk about sunlight and rainbows, and it sounded damned corny, but when she sang about them - they still sounded corny, but damn it, they weren't PHONY anymore.

And when you were with her you could feel it too. When you were with her, even if you'd never met her, you could talk together for one minute and she'd be your friend.

And the only time I ever saw her cry, I panicked too.

And now that she's disappeared from the face of the Earth and I don't know where she's gotten to, I can only sit back, wait, and pray that she's all right, and that she still feels that light shining on her, and knows what it is, and hasn't strayed from it.

I was never IN love with her - I never considered it as a real possibility for more than a few seconds, and right now I'm promised to another wonderful woman (as cynical as it sounds, I consider myself lucky to have known TWO genuinely good women in this world). I was never IN love with her, but I did love her - so many people did - and I miss her, too.

lo! sol impale
mile lap solo
lie, pals loom
lo! ample soil
"om" so ill plea

Van said...

NoMo said "Is interpreting dreams really any different from interpreting art? "

I understand what you may be getting at, but I think that there is a significant difference, in that waking Art involves a strong rational element, of consciously chosen content and style. On the otherhand, the dream comes from a source that seems to be from beneath the rational, certainly without conscious direction or choice in its content or style. The dream is somehow more and less inclusive of You in the 'art' of it, even if you are able to consciously guide it.

I used to engage in lucid dreaming, where you become conscious within your dreams and are able to take control of them. I remember one of the most vivid where I directed my dream into a Castle, and I can still clearly remember lying down on the the marble floor, my back against a stone column and laughing as I rapped my knuckles on the floor - to all 'sensation' it seemed to be a solid, cold, marble floor, my 'knuckles' reverberating as if it were real. Still, with all the conscious control I had, the details were just 'there', the marble patterns, color schemes, architectural details - all very vivid, and none of which were consciously selected.

So from the point of view of Art being a selected recreation of the essentials of life as it could or ought to be, or even is and shouldn't be, that doesn't quite seem to qualify. An attempt to interpret it as proper Art, would be similar to trying to interpret the actual landscape as Art, as opposed to the artwork painted from it.

There IS something there worthy of what you're getting at, but I think it is something at the same time more and less than Art. Though they may both resonate deeply, the dream seems to be more revealing & leading, than illustrative and instructive.

bubba said...

Jacob ~

Poems oil all
Limp solo ale
Lo, lila mopes –
Ill moose, pal
Pale sol, milo
Sell loom, pia
Slop male oil

Pelosi l’malo!

Was her name Lila, Pam, Lois, Lilo, etc?

juliec said...


NoMo said...

Van - Thanks for shedding some light (as always).

Juliec - I'm with you. I love that name - Salome (although in the New Testament she was the daughter of Herodias and niece of Herod Antipas, who granted her the head of John the Baptist in return for her dancing -- so, maybe not so much).

Paul G said...

Geez, no one told me that my mom was going to be hanging around here! How embarrassing! ;)

juliec said...

Hmm... I had forgotten that was her story. I suppose that explains why the name isn't popular these days

Jacob said...

bubba: Not quite there yet...

She was born with an odd first name (not really a girly name at all until you thought about it and realized how well it fit her), and her nom de piano was her odd first name plus and equally odd surname... (I like the Pelosi crack, though.)

Our whole circle of friends - her whole posse, we all met on the Net - had some odd mutual interests...comic books, movies and poetry among them.

What I said about her loving the sunlight and being perennially happy should give a clue, if you really wanna figure it out.

will said...

I'll get off my temporary sickbed to make my SuperBowl prediction, which is, in a word . .

Bearz. No, this is not a heart prediction, I am honorably detached when it comes to local teams. But . . .

Bearz. And quite convincingly, too. Well, listen - this week there was a "sign", shall we say, actually an event that symbolically indicated that Indy is going to implode on Sunday. Anybody pick that up? Hah? Well, it was there,it happened. It's like when Clinton's plane got stuck in the mud at LaCrosse, Wisc., and several days later, the Monica story broke wide-open. Yes, that kind of thing.

Dunno what the final score is going to be (dammit, I'm a doctor, not a soothsayer!)(actually, I'm not even a doctor)
But I think there's going to be a "41" involved somehow.

cosanostradamus said...

“This is the way I always go. I like the back way - we can avoid the crowds.”

That's it, Julie, wonderful dream. There are always wolves. :-)

Prayer in the air for your sister.

juliec said...

Thanks, Cosa. She definitely needs it.

Anonymous said...

L.A. limos lope
poll email so
lose a ill mop
all soil mope

Wait. I think i know who it was.

No offense, but i always found her kinda annoying. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks, right?

juliec said...

41, huh?

Any particular reason?

cosanostradamus said...

OK, time to break out the dusty old crystal ball:

"From the marine city, the ursa head will take the scepter; to chase the soiled man who will be against him. Fourteen times he will breach the wall."

In other words, a good day for Rex.

Jacob C. said...

Different strokes, exactly... No worries, tho - I'm not offended... Funny thing about the circles she moved in - one would imagine that as people used to the whole bubblegum aesthetic (that's the only words for it that I can think of), they'd ALL be all over her, right? I don't know what happened.

will said...

Having come to today's OC post late, due to my having spent most of the day "summoning the earl", which, if you are unaware of the term, refers to the involuntary relinquishing of the contents of your stomach, I'd like to weakly comment on the dynamic of creativity as it relates to God and His ongoing creation.

Certainly the human creative act gives us, by way of divine analogy, insight into the nature of God and Creation.

I think there really are two different manifestations of human creativity. The first is that of the artist (of any sort) within whom there "builds up" a creative impulse that seeks release. The creativity exists as a natural force - when the release comes, the artist actually feels relieved, more balanced, the creative tension having been resolved. I think generally we identify this type of artist - the compulsive, "explosive" kind - as the Western standard bearer. The somewhat eccentric, very individualistic human anomaly caught up in creative agony, etc. And of course, after having created, after having released the compulsive creative force, the process begins again, the creative force builds up, and so on. A definite cycle.

Certainly, this type of creativity must reflect on the nature of God's creativity. There is indeed an "explosiveness" to Creation, from the evidence of the so-called Big Bang to the primal fire of the stars themselves.

There is, however, another type of human creativity that also must reflect on the nature of God and His creativity. This type of human creativity does not involve the sense of "creative build-up and release". In fact, it's almost a "give it or take it" creativity - it's the kind of creativity characterized by the term "not-doing". The effortless effort, not there one second, there the next second, no explosion. Henry Miller's early "Tropic" works, I think, are a good example of the compulsive, build-up and explode type of creativity. His later writings, such as Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymous Bosch - in which Miller turned to attention fully to spiritual matters - are a good example of the quiet, serene, effortless effort type of creativity. Miller did say in his later years, as creatively fecund as they were, that it really wouldn't matter a great deal to him if he stopped writing all together.

Early Beethoven - compulsive build-up/explosion creativity. Beethoven's late string quartets - definitely effortless effort, very Zen. One thing that makes them so beautiful is the feeling that Beethoven could just as easily *not* have composed them. Shakespeare, too - though the plays are replete with fury and emotion, there is something eerily detached about them that suggests that they were "breathed into existence", not exploded into being.

Eckhart once said in a sermon - I'm too tired to find the exact quote - something to the effect that when God created the cosmos, He actually didn't *do* anything. Enigmatic, yes, but I think it suggests that the Godhead's creativity was and is, at root, the "effortless effort". On the plane of being, this creativity is the most transcendent.

There are those who will tell you that "not-being" informs "being" at every moment, which is what makes existence so beautiful.

Anyway, I think the transcendent, less ego-individualistic,"effortless effort" artist will eventually become the ideal. That, in turn, will reflect on our perspective of the Creator's divine nature.

will said...

No, juliec - geez, does everything need a REASON?

will said...

Vanopolis - >>the dream seems to be more revealing & leading, than illustrative and instructive<<

Am forced to agree with your wisdom. I do think, however, that, to a degree at least, not only can art be intepreted as one would interpret a dream, but life itself can be thus intepreted. Ya know?

In fact - maybe life itself more readily lends itself to the "revealing and leading" symbolic aspects than does art. After all, a great deal of the time we have no choice in the content or direction of "how things go" in life.

Consider my somewhat mysterious reference to an event of this week that I believe (should my interpretation of this event be correct)is revealing and leading insofar as the outcome of the SuperBowl goes.

On a related note - Ever have the privilege of interpreting a dream while you are having it? A species of lucid dreaming, I'm sure you would agree.

Paul G's mom said...

It's my job to embarass you... go have your own kids and torment them the same way. It's a devolutionary sort of dysfunction that's been handed down for generations in our family.

Blame the Prussians. Or the Austrians. Or your father's English/Irish family. It's not like they ever call either.

Hey, is that what you're wearing to work? You'll freeze to death! Did you ever get your insurance for your car? Look at you, you don't eat enough. You'd have more money if you didn't spend it on scotch and cigars. What is that music you're listening too???

River Cocytus said...

Its funny-- my mother criticizes me as well, but only on important things. She's like an enforcer for her personal motto: Take only the steps that lead upward. So if my clothes didn't match, unless I was going to a big meeting or date, she wouldn't even mention it.

I love my ma.

Gagdad Bob said...


Your comment about creativity was a keeper. I'm glad you summoned the earl to relinquish it so vomitaceously.

Van said...


"...maybe life itself more readily lends itself to the "revealing and leading" symbolic aspects than does art. "

Yeah I think so, like I said in some ways dreams are something more, and less, that Art. "Ever have the privilege of interpreting a dream while you are having it? A species of lucid dreaming, I'm sure you would agree. " I did with one set of repetitious dreams, and as I grasped it I sort of "Aha!'d" myself into the dream, and it faded to a wisp as I woke, and it never returned.

Something more, and something less than Art.

Following up on you explosive & flow types of creativity - with the explosive especially showing up early on and the flow type more common in later years. This creativity coming in like a lion, and out like a lamb as (if) the artist matures, I wonder if we gain some perspective on it if we think keep in mind that it isn't only creating something outside the artist?

I wonder if it has to do with the explosive bursts being reflections of large, root Truths suddenly, blazingly, being grasped by the artist and channeled into their Art, Beethoven's Fifth for example. And as the foundations for their art become more fully discovered and laid down within them; then the finer distinctions become their issue. These later creations are perhaps less massive and outwardly or obviously impressive in the way that a buildings foundation pilings are, but once that basic construction is complete, then more the way is formed and cleared within them for more functional but less obviously impressive creations to flow from their foundations, like windows and doors...?

And yes, thanks to the Earl.

("Hello bookie? Yes, I'd like to place a bet on the Bearz for 41. Huh? er... no, I don't know if that's the final score, or the spread, actually it could even be the combined total of both teams... hello?")

Van said...

Note to self, don't try to write an extended comment in the comment box, use notepad or word... can you say jumbled? Besides, that word verification thing is always staring at you, making you think of non-existent words... 'bglfrmp' what the heck is that supposed to mean? Could be a... there you go, doing it again. Notepad! Word! Sheesh.

uss ben said...

You mean Earl...the head throne god?
Earl is so full of bile substance, but he has a way of creating a colorful relief, and a portrait of emptiness.
I hope Earl is banished to burps instead of big bangs soon.

And yet, through all of that bileness, you created a teaser of esquisite mystery that has kept me pondering and contemplating for hours.

I could actually feel my brain cells smoking from the overload.
And yes, they do inhale.

will said...

>>I'm glad you summoned the earl to relinquish it so vomitaceously.<<

Thank you. Summoning the earl definitely belongs in the compulsive/build-up/explosive release category.

Vanopolis - yes, for a moment there I thought you were channeling Keith Olbermann. Anyway, it strikes me that the compulsive/explosive type simply has something of a personalized ego-base, while the effortless effort type doesn't. The latter bypasses the "I" - Tantra-style, the energies are sublimated into universality, and the artist no longer really "owns" the work. Well, that's probably stating it too simply. Something like that anyway.

will said...

Ben, thanks -

And yup, you have got the earl down, brother.

princessspirit said...

Will: "Interpreting the dream as you're having it" eventually happens to peeps in my profession! :) After years of lucid dreams, interpreting a dream I'm having occurs regularly now, prolly due to constant practice of being in touch w/my spirit-Spirit & instincts for long periods during a day while focusing on others. Am aware am in touch w/Him even while dreaming not just during waking-rest-meditative states. The dreamscape & I interact together synergistically, not just standard back-forth or action-reaction linear format. Its not a closed loop unto my self a way normal dreams can be; more divine & mysterious (Other) where I'm an active part even as It Unfolds, inclusive of Spirit-Spiritual realm, not reflexologically passive as is true w/normal dreams. Just the opposite if theres a term for it: Spirit-w/my-spirit interaction (relationship), where Past-Present-Future are mixed w/Spirit + self at once as its a more easily accessed responsive state subordinate to Spirit, where I'm not a victim but I'm not Initiator. I free will initiate responses awake or dreaming, as we do in daily life; but dreams & life also happen to us vs always being willfully chosen, as Will pointed out, so we aren't the big Initiators. God is supraordinate, yet not a Dictator & allows my freewill to impact Him; my liberated self is subordinate to Him yet is not His victim but is a Victor w/free will to initiate creativity & responses. In dream states we're less inhibited, but I can't say we're not rational, rather the rational "becomes the subconscious." I'm not dissociated from rationality during these dreams; but rationality is not upfront either. Its also not a hypnotic state, yet isn't a conscious state, but a mix of both. I call it Nexus Dreams, akin to communion going on in my subconscious rather than waking state, which makes sense to me.

Rather than being passive participant a dream just happens to as a victim, Nexus Dreams have a distinct sense of one being able to wholistically "co-create" the dream as It Unfolds in Present, as my choices impact it; yet I'm given Other information & insights during them, too. An unshakable sense of Present, Past & Future is woven all-at-once in Nexus dreams. In contrast, I call lucid dreams Victory dreams, as you're not a victim but can test from a Victor position as Van described, able to choose actions & paths, responsive rather than reactive, able to more willfully participate. The dreamscape throws stuff at u like an unfamiliar computer video game, but as u interact on the fly, outcomes change as u participate each step. But Nexus dreams seem more comprehensive in depth, layers & outcomes. I suspect one is more awake in them than during lucid dreams where you interact mostly w/ur subconscious & its messages. In Nexus dreams, you interact w/all that PLUS God's Spirit; so its Vertically advanced dreaming.

(Sorry am poorly conveying between coughing hack-fits & phlegm-hockeys I practice launching into my Trashcan-turned-Spitoon outside in 20-deg Snow every minute as I have Bronchitis, Round #2. Damned bronchitis blocks my Aesthetic senses commensurate w/how much I'm congested! Feel cranky, like I'm a machine programmed to do nothing but Hack + Spit, Blow + Go. No liberty to do much else as HS+BG take all my time & effort! Know how a Leftie or a baby feels & why parents call them P&P-factories. Will be a relief to get back to freely creating art after this damned "robotic recovery duty" is over. Not to mention I'm bereft of my sense of smell & have Zero appetite, a comatose state to a Foodie, so cant even enjoy eating or ale-ing. Sick isnot fun for synaesthetics but I know I've turned the corner when I *think* I want a Guiness.)

After studying in-depth Altered, Dream & Sleep States I can say w/certainty its not a Hypnomnemonic or Hypnogogic state. Have noticed in such dreams my subconscious thots register quickly & flow fluidly a moment or two b4 they arrive in the dream itself as is true w/lucid dreams; but lucids become elementary after you've experienced em awhile. Perhaps there's a spectrum? There's a definite sense of Prophetic element (coming from Other) as opposed to a predictive element. Infinite time to choose-create next step-direction takes milliseconds in actuality but in that state time is different. I KNOW in this Dream "the Dream IS Already Written, has its own distinct Past as I'm simultaneously co-creating it in the Present." Thus, it has a Future. Seems I sense & touch all 3 states at once as I'm dreaming & is what makes it advanced over lucid dreams. Coons, feel free to help me out naming it as you're all very capable & creative.

Dreams are revealing & leading as Van says, but also linking, connective, finite yet infinite, contained yet expansive, Grace allows me choices, yet Directive & Guiding by Spirit who is active, connective & present in them -> Spirit-spirit dream-sharing? Hmmm. Same way I experience Oneness w/God-Truth here while awake, sumfink Spiritually similar happens in this dreamstate subconsciously. Art created w/Spirit & self, both, which loudly speaks of Relationship being vital to experience, then expressed as Art. Whether explosive/smoothly expressed as you describe, both have validity.

Agree w/you its a definite Honor & Privilege to actively participate w/Him in them. Lucid dreaming prolly evolves into this dream state, deeper than our understanding, words & Art convey. Even Vedantics don't do it Justice & they are quite descriptive. Definitely appreciate the Blessing & Enrichment experiencing them adds to my Being. Feels sacred. Suspect sacred gradations exist for judging between dreamstates & spiritual experiences, whether conscious or less conscious.

This "co-creation" feeling blows my mind w/its Joy & Spirit insights, no matter if its Dark dream matter or Light. Aware, connective feeling to Spirit while dreaming is phenomenal, perhaps more easily felt than Here. Am less inhibited, freer than waking-meditative states to interact w/Spirit & receive-respond more quickly. Am blessed to understand its yet another level & sacred pathway He, Them & I communicate & share knowing His Will, Mind, Consciousness, Heart, Vision.

Near end of Yesterdays post, someone interestingly commented on NDEs recent research & findings (thus, OOBEs by intimation) & wanted to add there's a real otherworld Here. We employ our senses while there, but each sense has manifestational limits. Ex: Here, we talk to communicate; There, you easily use telepathy; talking is slower & not needed. Try telepathy here & you get crazy looks. Its a real dimension & is connected to this one, not separate yet, nor simply a state of mind-being. One can test it as lucid dreams are tested but results & consequences can Evidence Here, whereas lucid dream test results evidence only IN The Dream To Self; they don't manifest Here in Reality. Evidence such as telepathy w/an awake-other, as NDEs report they experience, remote viewing, etc. Yogis speak of same experiences. Definitely OOBEs & not ur normal experience but you have control of your senses & faculties even when your body is lying in bed in the other room. 1st time you pass thru a wall ur brain doesn't forget it due to the non-manufactured quality IMPACTING your brain, rather than coming from brain TO you as would occur in dream/altered states. Food for thot, I guess.

Hope you feel better soon, Will. Thank God the Earl is not visiting my humble abode! Hope he expediently departs yours & takes his baggage w/him! :D

- PrincessSpirit -

juliec said...

Will - Of course everything doesn't have to have a reason, but as a raccoon, I feel compelled to ask anyway.

As to the types of creativity, you're definitely on to something there. Personally, I tend toward the second, zen-type of creativity. In fact, that's been my biggest struggle; if I don't have an external reason to create something (a class, somebobody's paying me, etc.) I tend not to do it. Also, without some type of deadline even if I start there's a chance I won't get around to finishing.

Anonymous said...

You feel better, too, Princess.

Juliec - yeah, I do think the non-compulsive type of creativity proceeds not from a need to create, but simply from the fact that it can be done, so why not do it? A certain sense of noblesse oblige, maybe.

Joan of Argghh! said...

Of course, Will, your cycle of creativity gets an, "as above, so below" nod from science:


Paul G - it could be worse, Duchess Beaglehole could be your mom.

PrincessSpirit said...

Anonymous: Thanks heaps! I'm fiddling with the idea of making a NoseHose vacuum - SnotVac for short.

Will: The Earth itself backs up your theory on creative birth types. Geophysically speaking, Earth evidences "blow up creativity" via volcanoes, plate movement (resultant civilization destruction/rebirth), subduction zones, quakes & tsunamis (akin to Her "water breaking?" LOL!) that occur violently in any given moment with nary a hint of preamble. Sediment samples tell the tale of such violent births.

There is also the other type, smooth births, flowing, not violent in Earth's expression, more fluid like how the sun rises at Dawn & can sets spectacularly. Both are mostly seen & appreciated by Astro & Geophysicist-types & farmers. Earth can be both foul & fine, eh? (Still, Orcs are the worst, more foul than fine!) Thought you'd appreciate that the Earth even supports your theory.

- PrincessSpirit -

bubba said...

Jacob ~

How about Soleil? I'll take a guess at the surname - Palom?

Anonymous said...

I know who he meant. The name's Apollo Smile, not that it might mean anything to you. And my opinion is, it shouldn't.