BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


In the Beginning was the Word?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Digital Hermes
19:15 / 11.01.06
With some of the gnostic stuff I've been reading, as well as Crowley's Book IV, a large emphasis is placed on language. Especially as the transfer device from the material to the divine. Either in ritual recitation of oaths or spells, to the usage of mystic riddles as methods of initiation, this is an interesting topic that's been rattling around my head lately.

Particularly in another thread of Mordant's, where the difficulty of describing a divine experience is discussed.

Thoughts? Can we wrap words, or maybe sentences, around gods and spirits?
 
 
electric monk
13:16 / 12.01.06
I'm reading Book IV right now as well. Not sure if I'm as far along as you are, but I enjoy this subject. So...

First of all, let me compliment you on your choice of thread title as it's the perfect place to start; The Word starting up existence. I like to ponder on language, its sounds, and the vibrations composing those sounds as a sort of blood flow through the Tree of Life. After Kether, the first concept, three paths (three sounds - aleph, beth, gimel) pour down into the concepts on the rungs below. Then sound again. Then concept. And so on down until the Initial Concept has become the Concept in Completion (Malkuth, natch). These concepts can be analyzed and debated through the lens of the sounds (when said sounds are put in proper order and delivered to an ear with an understanding of that order), but are probably not dependent on them. Concept arises first, then the desire to define the Concept.

So, to progress to your question with my answer: I think we can pass our words, clothed in the forms of prayer and invocation and adoration, etc., up or over to the gods and spirits to do with what they will. I think that they choose to acknowledge us when we are sincere in our speech and polite in our ways. I think they can pass information and help to us through the conduit we share. And the conduit can certainly be made stronger and more reliable the more we pray, invoke, and adore the gods.

I wonder, could you clarify for me your use of the word "wrap"? I am taking it to mean either some sort of binding of a god/spirit, or perhaps "wrap" as in "clothe".
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:28 / 12.01.06
I'm not so sure about this. A lot of my experiences with Gods and Spirits are very non-verbal and language is woefully inadequate at describing, defining or accommodating the experience to any extent.

Certainly, language can be used to communicate with deity in the form of words, intonations, mantras, barbarous names, and so on. But then, so can dancing, drumming, painting, cooking, and a host of other offerings that carry intent from 'Malkuth' to other areas.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:22 / 12.01.06
Yes... I think language can be useful as a devotional tool, as part of a more comprehensive array of evocatory or celebratory techniques and methods. However, I'm finding it limited/ing in certain circumstances.

Some of my invisible chums love to talk, to the extent that much of our interaction comes through the medium of the written word, but that seems to be something favoured by 'smaller' spirits and there will always be a tactile or visual componant involved.

The big guys, the end-of-level Bosses, very often don't want to chat in that way--they want you on your feet, dancing, drumming, making music; they communicate using all your senses, and sometimes there is no verbal element at all. They may introduce themselves by name on the first occasion, but after you've met them a couple of times they don't always bother because you know who you're dealing with--there's a sort of sense that goes with each one, like a perfume or a signiature tune. (Some of them don't even bother with an introduction, you're just supposed to know.)

After the event, trying to convey what's taken place in words is often a bit of a non-starter. If you're not careful you just end up sounding like someone else's acid-trip story. You can certainly try, and these encounters can be wonderfully inspiring, but really you 'have to be there.'
 
 
electric monk
14:36 / 12.01.06
(Can someone link to the above-mentioned thread by Mordant? I know I've read it recently and I'd like to read it again but don't know where it's at.)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:43 / 12.01.06
Here.
 
 
electric monk
15:07 / 12.01.06
Thanks!
 
 
Digital Hermes
19:11 / 12.01.06
I'm burning up with ideas, so I apologize if this becomes excessively cereberal. (Half the reason I started the thread was to ground these concepts a little.)

To start:

Monk:I wonder, could you clarify for me your use of the word "wrap"? I am taking it to mean either some sort of binding of a god/spirit, or perhaps "wrap" as in "clothe".

You know, I'm not sure. I'm thinking latter, since (it seems to me) the notion of binding any sort of spirit is more of a holdover from a possibly medival Christian worldview, as an attempt to reconcile their apparent existence by trumping them with God's superiority.

Even 'clothe' seems insufficent, though. I should probably make clear that I'm thinking specifically of the transcendental experience, and it's connection to the God-head, the divine spark, whatever. From a qabalah-ish worldview, gods (as a plural unproper noun) then become elements of that infinite emenation from beyond.

It's whole beyond-ness makes it seem like it is outside of language, but yet... I'm not convinced of that either. Is it possible that these god-elements, and what they emenate from, are paradoxically, our source of language, as well as being beyond it?

(As a defining note: Language here can be more than words spoken or printed. Essentially, language can be seen as the transfer of ideas. Which leads me to the next thought.)

Gypsy:A lot of my experiences with Gods and Spirits are very non-verbal and language is woefully inadequate at describing, defining or accommodating the experience to any extent.

Along with what I was saying above: words may have been insufficient, but would you say that the god-experience is lacking in a transfer of pure idea?

Mordant:(Some of them don't even bother with an introduction, you're just supposed to know.) (emphasis mine)

This act of knowing is a crux point for the gnostics, and gnosis, in its many defenitions, is considered to be the act or the moment of knowing. So very much what you and and Gypsy are adressing, is this experiential necessity, and the inability to honestly discuss it with anyone who hasn't had that expereience. Maybe like something regarding magical initiation? A period of great stress or effort, resulting in a fundamental new way of examining things?

Crowley's Book IV talks quite a bit about this, in the first section on mysticism.

One of the ideas that Grant Morrison tosses out in our namesake-generating story, is the idea of the supercontext. For Jung, gods lived in a collective human subconciousness. What if, instead, these gods and spirits dwelled within a superhuman superconciousness? And so all of our information, be it words or liquid, un-wordable ideas or experiences, could perhaps be part of a super-context, encapsulating all information?

It feels like I'm trying to develop the cellular theory for God's toenail. And with that, I pass it back to the rest of you...
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:15 / 12.01.06
Interesting turn, and possibly not too far off some of the ideas being tossed around in the Time Tree thread. However, we might be veering a bit off-topic here.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
00:27 / 13.01.06
"in the beginning was the word" is from John

"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is from Genesis.

In Genesis, God creates things by naming them, speaking them into being. seperating day from night by calling them by different names.

it's a great means of differentiating more and more infinitesmially intricate details of the big huge chaotic morass we call the universe.

the one verse.

--not jack
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
00:28 / 13.01.06
has anyone else read "the Courtyard," by Alan Moore?

A Cthulhu Mythos graphic novel that presents a very vivid take on the effects of language on one's perception of the universe. well worth it if you have a stomach for the dark.

--not jack
 
 
Unconditional Love
13:58 / 13.01.06
The word is image and sound.
Can you hear words in your mind? or are they just sounds.
Can you see words in your mind? or are they just images.
How does the word rose smell?

The word is with god, the word is of god, the word becomes the authority, the culture of god is reinforced through the words of god as he is the words. Binding belief.

Language is image and sound by the time it is learnt as words a form of magic has been taught to a child, that somehow words are no longer just image and sounds and contain a more true reality of there own in some sense, the whole of experience dictated by language.

Digital information is then taken as being in some sense more authoritive than sensory information.

The word is given deification to give it the essence of the religous culture that is conditioning the subject of said culture. language given the power to control reinforced by belief.
 
 
Digital Hermes
16:59 / 13.01.06
However, we might be veering a bit off-topic here.

A bit, though the veering is into fascinating cul-de-sacs. I've got a few thoughts on that topic too, but I'll post on that thread...

Gypsy, if you're there, I'd like to get your reading on some of this, considering you had mentioned the non-verbal interaction with god-beings. At the same time, you seem fairly well-versed with multiple occult systems. Now, it seems to me that a lot of these systems can be seen as training, preperation for the mind for contact with the ineffable. The supercontext. Thoughts?


Not Jack, I have read the Courtyard. I thought it was the perfect extrapolation of the Mythos. If the beings exist beyond our perception, and are sentient in any way, it makes sense that their ideas would be likewise beyond us. Alan Moore knows the score.

Also, I enjoyed the one-verse universe correlation. It strikes a lyric chord for me, that resonates. Is it your own, or an extrapolation from another work or system?


Lastly, THI, (prev. Hairyangel) do you see language strictly as a method of control? That's what I got from your post.
 
 
Unconditional Love
19:14 / 13.01.06
I see language as a way of binding consciousness into forms, i think it contains a strong element of governence and limitation as a form of expression, but i dont think it is entirely controlled, but do think its generally taught structure is a large component in presenting the delusion of linear thinking.

I think it sets out scenarios of beginning and end and passes off life as a kind of story, sentence structures create a sense of simple time and also create percieved movement/change in consciousness where there may be none at all except the rearrangement of learnt characters and rules as to how to use those characters, or rule breaking which is still defined within those characters themselves, and limited in that sense.

encryption of mind in cultural conditioning perhaps.
 
 
Digital Hermes
20:32 / 13.01.06
I've got to say, I'm still a little confused as to your position. You are saying that language does limit our perceptions to only one temporal direction, but it is not a method of control. Is that right?

To bring the divine back into it: If language does either enforce or allow a temporal flow to our perception, would that mean that all perception is a form of language? Or just when communication is attempted to explain it? So if some sort of Supercontext being/entity/foozle is sitting outside of time, that human perception is essentially the ability for the cosmos to 'see itself' from inside, going from the idea that the Supercontext is both within and without reality/creation/what-have-you.

And to attach it to the occult, for greater amounts of Temple coolness, is it possible that occult systems and ways of thought either conciously or unconciously teach us to operate in this meta-context of the world?
 
 
Fell
22:32 / 13.01.06
I can offer my best solution: try your local hemp or marijuana paraphernalia shoppes or the internet and get your hands on Salvia divinorum. I recently left a longer comment on Dodging Invisible Rays about the drug and its effects, on a post Kylark recently made about a topic very similar to this.

Salvia is an extremely potent entheogen, and offers a very different experience from the likes of LSD or psilocybin. It works on a part of perception and how we order our realities by altering the way we deal with language, semantics, and ripping them apart at the semiotic level where the user can actually take on a certain occult wisdom of said semantic properties.

This is just one of those things where you can read and study and contemplate the topic for years, or spend $20 on some plant that will happily show you its secrets.

Highly recommended.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
23:00 / 13.01.06
Dig Hermes typed into the aether:
Also, I enjoyed the one-verse universe correlation. It strikes a lyric chord for me, that resonates. Is it your own, or an extrapolation from another work or system?

I doubt it's particularly original, but I don't remember having seen it anywhere else.

verse means line, traced back to the line of a plough furrough, I think. It makes an interesting etymological connection between drawing a straight line on the earth, and drawing a straight line between people.

as straight as a sword or a ploushare.

--not jack
 
 
Digital Hermes
01:55 / 14.01.06
Not to mention creating a straight line between the world and meaning, a path to follow, though what is on the other side can't be described till you get there.

Uni-verse, as well, as a single verse, a gleaming line of poetry, that encapsulates everything. Creation as the simplest, most sublime, heart-stoppingly beautiful communication.

Well, that's a fairly rambling pair of sentences, but the concept makes me all gushy...
 
 
Unconditional Love
13:22 / 14.01.06
I am not sure i have a position. but i will try. I think taking a position would be like clinging to a set of words to give me an appearence of consistancy. I dont think consciousness is consistent, but i think language tries to present this illusion by providing description and narrative through words by which a thinker can identify with. Image and sound are employed in this manner too, to reinforce certain senses of identity.

Think of the way in which you organise your desktop, what kind of identity does the desktop display, the display image or a game, why is it chosen, the associated words or image/graphics, what part of your identity is hung on the images/words and why? How much have you invested in certain words and images? Does the language give a sense of permanent fixture to internal identity.

Perhaps my position is one of impermanence, that i am perhaps permanently impermanent, that i think language and word provide an illusion of consistency,integrity and claim to be truth. I think it is my own experience that truth is beyond language, thou i am a sucker for a good poem.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:27 / 15.01.06
i really like George Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language

particularly for his criticism of a particular trend he noted in the use of language (which persists today - all hail the sound byte!).

he criticised those that string together pre-existing phrases to make a sentence, versus those that chose words and sentence form that represent the idea they are trying to communicate.

it could be the repeated use of common phrases, as reinforced by popular media ("where's the beef?") or traditional metaphor ("the crack of dawn"), entrenches certain associations that novel metaphor can set free.

in the beginning was sentience, language came after.

--not jack
 
 
Fell
20:43 / 15.01.06
"Language is a virus, and consciousness the disease."
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
22:31 / 15.01.06
hey Fell,

is that from William S. Burroughs?
Kathy Acker?
Neil Stephenson?

ttfn
--not jack
 
 
Fell
22:39 / 15.01.06
I was always under the presumption that the quote was Burroughs, but I can only ever find Burroughs as to saying "Language is a virus from outer space."

So as for that version that is locked in my brain — and I know I've read it but can't recollect where — it may be an adapted quote from something from maybe Peter J. Carroll, Christopher S. Hyatt, or one from that crew of thought.

I like it though, which is probably why I remember it. It reminds me that individuality is a façade, the ego a tool, to keep me active as a purveyor of experiences. Its the illusion of being a conscious individual that allows me to garner growth.

Language is acts as both a prison and the threshold marker. Sorta like saying, you don't know freedom lies on the other side of the fence unless you know where the fuck the fence is in the first place, right?
 
 
Digital Hermes
20:16 / 16.01.06
Language is acts as both a prison and the threshold marker

It seems like that's an important distinction. Personally, I have a hard time seeing language as a barrier or a prison. I love language and communication, and I find magic, at it's core, to be what information can do to us.
 
 
Fell
17:37 / 18.01.06
Well this is going to be reduced to whipping semantics around, but it is. Think of it more as order imposed. It's only a prison if you perceive it as such, of course. But through the order imposed by language, we create both the platform to grow and the jailor by which we might limit ourselves.

One cannot explore new concepts without language, so this allows us to share with others, inspire, and teach. Subsequently, we use what we already have a wisdom of (knowledge + experience = wisdom) to structure this new information into our paradigm and we continue to grow because of it.

On the other hand, it is language that can cement us into certain aspects of reality by which we become willing prisoners because we don't have the capacity to comprehend the new ideas or thoughts (see: possibilities). The concepts may be too alien to current means, or certain aspects of thought have yet to develop and have language wrapped around them as a façade by which we can navigate and engineer them further. A good example is science trying to comprehend magic. Fruitless, at best, until the development of words such as "phenomenology" and "quantum mechanics," and their constructed definitions, which later become ideas, which blossom into experiments and go from theoretical to reproducable scientific data.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

That is the most potent alchemical equation I know in plain English, outside of mythic structure and metamorphosis.
 
 
Digital Hermes
01:18 / 20.01.06
Okay. If I'm following you, then I like it. A lot!

The notion of language as a bridge to working beyond it fits in well with the Gnostic stuff I've been working with. The act of gnosis would be perhaps seeing the bridge, and maybe even seeing how far along it you are. Knowledge in this case being divine, perhaps past language.

Okay, if language is a bridge, or a facilitation of the human ability to surpass their environment, are spells then focused information, cutting into the truly transcendant, even if only for a short time? In particular I'm thinking of a correllation between spells/rituals, and the mantra you wrote at the end of your post, Fell. It seems like a working would be focusing words/information into an intent to change everything else along the chain.
 
 
Fell
06:17 / 24.01.06
It's worth looking into the Alphabet of Desire and its subsequent workings, as developed initially by Austin Osman Spare. A more contemporary concept worth researching is semiotics:

"Semiotics, or semiology, is the study of signs, both individually and grouped in sign systems. It includes the study of how meaning is made and understood. Semioticians also sometimes examine how organisms, no matter how big or small, make predictions about and adapt to their semiotic niche in the world (see Semiosis). Semiotics theorises at a general level about signs, while the study of the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics."

I've also written a piece dealing along these lines, entitled A Metaphysics of Human Interface. There, I explore the sigil and its affects using big words for a more scholastic audience — getting away from the occult jargon.

The intuitive mind can communicate with the waking mind, but it takes time to develop an understandable "language" between the two. The deep consciousness is connected to the ego-driven mind of the active person, but language is a tool of the ego and for the mind to properly manage, it must learn the language of the deep mind: symbols.

Even deeper than just the symbols is the story it is telling us. The language of the story is told via the personal monomyth as put forth by the likes of Jung and Campbell.

It is detrimental to try to subjugate them all unto themselves. They must be seen as a gradient whole, layers upon layers of meaning. None are worth more or less than the rest.
 
 
grant
11:27 / 24.01.06
Try starting this thread (or a sister thread) in the Head Shop; you might be surprised at some of the names that should pop up. Semioticians. Postmodernist theorists.
 
 
grant
11:40 / 24.01.06
Weird: reading about Burroughs for another thread, this passage pops up:

His love/hate relationship with language seemed to extend beyond the page, however. While drugs, sex, and power can control the body, the Word controls the mind. "Word and image locks" and "association blocks" lock the mind into conventional patterns of thinking, speaking, acting, and perceiving things: "Modern man has lost the opportunity of silence," Burroughs observes in The Ticket That Exploded. "Try halting your sub vocal speech. Try to achieve even ten seconds of inner silence," he challenges the reader. "You will encounter an organism that forces you to talk. That organism is the word. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning of what exactly?"

Therefore, says Skerl, he "found the cutup technique to be the ideal method of presenting books involving space/time travel, (inner) silence, and freedom from the body." The cutup was a random, impersonal experiment using chance and random sources of inspiration and invention, "creating an alteration in consciousness" of the writer and the reader alike.

When Burroughs referred to himself as a "recording instrument" in Naked Lunch, "he wasn't implying," writes Ann Douglas, "that he made no choices, exerted no control over what he wrote, but that he wanted to learn how to register not the prepackaged information he was programmed by the corporate interests or artistic canons to receive, but what was actually there." Thus, the mechanical juxtaposition of texts did not impose Burroughs' own "association blocks" on the reader. And "all association tracks are obsessional," writes Burroughs.



Emphases mine.
 
 
Fell
21:26 / 25.01.06
How we see half the world through the prism of language, via BPS Research Digest
 
 
Digital Hermes
20:16 / 27.01.06
I'm doing my best to internalize all of what we're talking about here. Throwing out generalizations:

-language can be seen both as our interface with (most) of the rest of existence

-it also locks us into a chronological pattern of perception, binding us to a one-way temporal procession

-that said, it is a malleable interface; either large-scale mythologies that catch hold, or tinier memes that propogate, these both constitute an impact that can be made on this information layer that sits on top of the atomic existence.

Okay, to bring this back to Temple-land, and out of straight philosophical musings, what does this mean? Are divine and/or contact experiences examples of breaking out of language, or at least the time-restriction?

And if language is an intrinsic part of the world we interact with, then can manipulating ours or others perceptions of language change those parts of the world?

Mordant's other thread, in which he discusses the language-insufficency of descibing or interacting with a god-form makes me posit: God-forms are made up of super-context ideas, ideas so big that they do not have words, only impressions. From that information-altitude, where words can't breath, maybe you can begin seeing outside of time, too...

(I apologize for the wacked prose poem that last bit turned into. A head cold is keeping me from properly accessing my language-shackles.)
 
 
Digital Hermes
05:04 / 30.01.06
I was pretty sure the term 'supercontext' was brought to my attention by the Invisibles. I'm not sure if GM got the concept from anywhere else, but anyway...

The section I remember clearest is at the end. I'm going to assume you have your own copies to reference, so I'll just direct you to the section where King Mob hits the King-of-All-Tears right between the eyes with the Word, and the Supercontext absorbs him.

To avoid sending this thread to the comic area, I'd like to ask; do you think that some of what GM is talking about here is at all pertinent or applicable to our world, or is it entirely metaphor? Does it have anything to do with, or does it negate, what we've already discussed above?
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
16:02 / 30.01.06
the tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

the name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

so, what's in a name?

--not jack
 
 
Fell
16:23 / 30.01.06
The super-context is a good metaphor. The occult, as I teach it, is a hidden wisdom which comes about through the study of abstractions in art and symbolism, coupled with an experience of the introspective and phenomenological realms. Together, these produce wisdoms for which there are few to no words for in English. The closest we have is poetry, in which I often relate the poet to the magician.

A poet can alter reality, societies, and entire eras. They reinterpret the information for the readership, and re-arrange reality into a new light. This is where the irreality of reality gets tricky, as it's still there in its manifest form, but the user's experience has changed and s/he interprets the data from around them differently now. "Reality," as a holographic structure containing all the information of the whole broken down into any whichever fragment — such as Yeat's entire world in a grain of rice, or was it sand? — is a holographic structure because of our observation of it. Whether it is completely a subjective experience or an inter-subjective matrix is up for debate.

If you can spend time in your own mind, beyond the barriers of language, you will begin to hold on to truths that there are no words for: occult wisdoms, hidden wisdoms. Via the concentration exercises of chaos magic or the Zen meditations of Japan, one can actually ellicit an occult knowledge of aspects of their reality, such as stones, flowers, insects, geometry, colours, et cetera. This is an intuitive understanding beyond, say, the word "flower" or its aroma or colour or shape. It is all of them combined into one primal sense of what it is, but also as it is defined by you on a subtler, deeper level of mind.

It is hard to explain unless you try it yoursel… or try Salvia divinorum or other entheogens.



Also know that for every psycholocial term we have in English, there are approximately four in Greek and forty in Sanskrit. They refined the definitions that much more as they did more work with the psyche.

So back to words, it's like in the design field of typography. Good typographic design is 90% management of white space, and 10% management of the symbols and fonts on the page. You have to start looking inside-out, especially in this case of language.

The exercises are simple in concept, but take time to master. I definitely suggest trying them:

Relax yourself, sit or lie down, and try to relax your mind to its not a disruptive cacophony. Choose an object to stare at, but nothing of any huge symbolic worth (ie. religious artefact, porno mag, photograph). A flower or coffee mug or rock will do. Do not think. Just observe. By maintaining the act of persistent interaction via the visual sense — our strongest sense and most complex — the subtle interactions that make up your relation to the object on the occult level will begin to become more apparent to your sense. Not immediately, but as you state, you will find the rest of your sight blur out and it will eventually only be you and the object. That is where and when you will have the answers to questions posted in this thread.

I believe a version of this is in the beginning of Liber MMM, by Peter J. Carroll:

http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/libermmm.html
 
 
Fell
16:32 / 30.01.06
Just another note, as this was something odd that I observed this week. There is literature about the so-called "occult name" of an object, as I talk about just above, or the occult name of a living being, a human, or the occult name of an entity such as an angel or demon or whatever. Knowledge of the name is the power over the entity. It is not a word, per se, but this intuitive sense and wisdom of the being at their core. I've done flowers and cups and corners in a room, whatever is there, but I got my first sense of someone's occult name just in the past week.

The odd thing is that they are not close to me, as it's the sister of a friend of mine. We get along fine, but I only ever see her a few times a year. We've not a lot in common, either. But over Christmas, at a party, there was a particular glance I caught and, like happens hundreds of times a week, you make genuine eye contact. We had conversed over the course of the evening, flirted a bit, but nothing out of the ordinary.

But whenever I think back to the evening, I'd logged that particular glance and through simple meditations on it, I came to a particularly clear knowledge of Who/What lies at her essence, who she is, perhaps the part of her that is before and beyond death and this realm, Malkuth.

How I can further use it is not of concern to me now, as is my further analysis of the headspace I need to relax and navigae to to feel her "occult name." I will pursuing this further with others in the future, to confirm that it is in indeed an acute wisdom of the nature of a human being.

This grew out of my work with the visualisation and meditation exercises prevalent in chaos magic and various schools of Buddhism.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply