Holy Weirdness
This article was written with help from Coyote Marie.
"New Age" reached old age, died, and was reborn as "Ascensionism," a belief that humanity is evolving into a higher reality. The aim of this article is to present linguistic and cultural perspectives on Ascensionism in order to de-mysticize it; to bring it back from the cosmos and ground it on the Earth for the sake of edifying this vital force in 21st century spirituality. [1]
The author of some of the material the article quotes asked not to be identified because she found some of my observations derogatory. They are not intended to be. Perhaps pride and having been the object of other peoples' sniping makes them appear so.
Warrior Speak
Here is a passage from the abovementioned author's work: "We were asked to stand in the 9D Stargate and hold it open down here on this plane while levels of our ONE family arranged into formation. As we were spinning a huge 12D vortex, sonic booms were ripping through the atmosphere and Armies of DEFENDERS of TRUTH were grounding in here. These Defender Warriors are groups that are the new levels of Protectors for the Guardian races and Christ Living Light Code Holders in this Universe."
Note the language of violence: "warriors," "defenders," "guardians," "armies," and "protectors." In dreams and visions, the psyche puts the ego's struggle in terms of war, cosmic war, Star Wars.
The ego's only substantive weapons are awareness and knowledge: awareness its shield and knowledge its sword. These are the weapons the cosmic war uses against the wars of man.
For the sake of clarity, in this article, "cosmic" is a spiritual term, referring to the individual's place in the universe -- which is typically at war with the individual's role in relationships, family, and culture. This war is cosmic war.
Techno-Speak
Mythic structure is used to activate receptivity in an audience and urge them to respond on their own mythic level, minus critical thinking. The number one American way of doing this is through images and connotations of technology, mechanical progress and "science." Not only do images of high technology and the use of techno-speak confer authority, but they activate deep unconscious processes to massage away disbelief. [2] This kind of "knowledgeable" language works similarly when the subject is occult. Consider these passages:
1) "The Resurrection template was aligned to be deployed to humanity with . . . the Festival of Easter. Now we are ready to experience (download) the energy transmission of the Festival of Buddha (or Wesak) on May 8th, 2009 which coincides with the massive Ascension Wave 5D coding."
2) "This is the location of the 9th dimensional Stargate which at the Galactic stations connects into the Andromeda constellation. Guardian forces have been clearing a network which they refer to as the Asian Grid. Since the second week of April our group has been involved in the 9th gate of Tibet pretty consistently."
Bureaucracy-speak
Ascensionist spirituality has a tendency to bureaucratize the cosmos, e.g., "Galactic Federation of Light," "Planetary Activation Organization," and "Nibiruan Council." Bureaucratic terms for cosmic bodies of governance are appropriated to establish authority greater than earthly government. Hence, God becomes a "federation" -- instead of a metaphorical body, the body sometimes called the "mystical body of Christ."
Otherworldly-origin speak
Another quirky characteristic of Ascensionism is its belief in Starseeds, which are, according to the Planetary Activation Organization, "evolved beings from another planet, star system or galaxy, whose specific missions are to assist Planet Earth and her peoples to bring in the Golden Age at the turn of the millennium." [3]
All about Starseeds gives these instructions: "For those who know they are starseeds, this is a ONE TIME ONLY activation process. For those who are not sure, this process will allow them to activate themselves. At this time, a lot of starseeds are not activated. Their energies are necessary to help anchor love and light to Mother Earth."
The Earth exists in a universe, so all earthlings do as well. Some are compelled to ignore the cosmic, and invest their identities in relationships, family and culture. Those who feel alienated from these are likely to be more spiritual, more cosmically oriented. Such are Starseeds. The belief that one is from another planet is a metaphorical way of identifying one's cosmic nature, of saying that one is firstly a citizen of the universe, a child of God. Until there is evidence -- other than dreams and visions -- of anyone being from another planet, the idea cannot be considered literally factual.
Here is one of a number of cosmic visions I have had of myself, this one of my male self, "George." In the vision, which I had in 2000, at age 32, George is a boy of about three:
Angels were carrying George through space to the Earth. Once they were quite near, a woman who personified the Earth greeted George. She looked at him with wildly bright eyes that said, "There is a lot of stuff going on here! Welcome!" George looked at her blankly, not understanding.
The vision shows that a cosmic aspect of me was in the process of manifesting. It does not mean I come from outer space.
All images produced by the psyche are metaphorical. They convey meaning, not literal, material fact. The psyche turns our cosmic nature into cosmic images. Many writers on the World Wide Web take the cosmic scenery of their psyches literally instead of metaphorically. They use Sci-Fi-sounding terminology to describe cosmic shifting in human consciousness, but the shift is seated right here, on Earth, in our minds.
Because I returned from being as psychotic as I can possibly become, from my perspective, all of waking-life is metaphorical, as it is in a dream. For me, people themselves are metaphors. Being made in God's image, people are metaphors of God. The space in the cosmos is a metaphor of the space within people. The world outside is a metaphor of the world within.
Sci-Fi and the Child
Sci-Fi ethos -- spiritual or not -- is an expression of the inner-child, the cosmic nature of the child; how the child is less removed from its cosmic origin than the adult. While the adult belongs to a society, the child belongs to the universe. The inherently cosmic nature of childhood is the rocket fuel for the Sci-Fi spirituality of Ascensionism.
Correlating Sci-Fi with the child in no way is intended to discredit the Sci-Fi aspect of Ascensionist spirituality. On the contrary, the expression of their spirituality, being genuinely and cosmically childlike, is intrinsically as spiritual as any religion. Like children, Ascensionists follow instinct past religion right to the Source, recalling this passage: "Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'" Matthew 19:14
Ascensionists are children in adult bodies who have wandered away from society and become aware of the cosmic spirit. There is no prescribed language for their spiritual experience, so they borrow a term here from technology, a term there from Sci-Fi, one over there from government. But the words themselves are not as important as what Ascensionists are doing: trying to restore the Earth to its Creator with conscious intent, light and love. Where traditional religion is more about God reaching down to people, Ascensionism is people pulling God down to Earth. As the above-quoted anonymous author put it:
"Earth's quarantine from the rest of the universe is lifting, and we are on schedule to be welcomed back into communion with the universe. Our movement out of separation from our home, the cosmos, is going to happen no matter what, so the only choice we each have is to heal ourselves to participate consciously in our cosmic birth."
Surely, many outside Ascensionism's number snarkily regard them as stupid children. As for my own initial, negative response to them, I stopped and wondered why I was having such feelings toward random strangers being completely open to their own holy weirdness. For all I know Ascensionists are healing the planet singlehandedly, doing reparative "gridwork" like workers on a bridge in the middle of the night making the spirit-world safe for the rest of us.
Perhaps people who regard Ascensionism snarkily feel threatened by it. Nothing is more important than cosmic truth, so some people are irrationally threatened by any cosmic suppositions that do not conform to their predispositions. When something appears to bogusly claim godlike power, some people feel obliged, out of the ego's need for self-preservation, to box the claim up and mock it -- a childish response. This type of mockery is like one kid telling another, "You still believe in Santa Claus!? You're such a stupid head!" Though there may be no reason to buy into Ascensionism, there is also no reason -- other than irrational fear and childishness -- not to appreciate it for what it is. This is a mature response to children, Ascensionist adult-children.
By "children" I do not mean, "stupid children." I mean "holy children" and "wannabe holy children." It is necessary to qualify "children" as such because people don't respect children, since they were not respected as children.
"The Prism of God-Consciousness"
Spirituality does not readily transmute by antiquated terms. Today, new language is needed to reflect a more direct experience of spirituality than was ever possible (except for mystics) in traditional cultures. Hence, it is as it should be that Ascensionism puts spiritual evolution into cosmic terms, inventing terminology to convey its novel spiritual experience.
Yet Ascensionists readily refer to central themes and figures of classical religion -- though rarely to quote them and never to glorify them. For example, the writing of the anonymous Ascensionist author who inspired this article is salt-and-peppered with "Christ," "Buddha," and "God." One quote reads: "Many of us are embarking in the first phases of the second coming!" [bold mine]
Does the true essence of classical religion -- the Christ from Christianity, the Buddha from Buddhism -- survive the quantum leap into the Ascensionist universe? Would it, post-leap, be represented by "Christ"/"Buddha" at all? Would the true essence be represented newly, in some way adaptive not to our current mode of apprehension, but to the facilities of post-Apocalyptic Earth-life?
The anonymous author writes: "We are being asked to comprehend that what we referred to as 'spirit' is actually many different levels of intelligence and that we may need to quantify that intelligence to increase our discernment. We are all the many facets of the 'One' yet we each have a unique note to play in the prism of God consciousness."
Notes
[1] The material the article examines is by no means representative of all Ascensionism.
[2] American Monomyth by Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence.
[3] Related to the notion of Starseeds are the Sirians, an amphibious race of beings said to be from the star system centering on Sirius. It is believed that Sirians have been watching and assisting humankind for millennia. They are actually metaphors for our own cosmic selves.
Image by soapylovedeb, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
- 10-1-09
- Amy George's blog
- Login or register to post comments
ShareThis- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Thank You
I enjoyed this article.
The exploration of archetypes, words and objective interpretations of Ascentionism as you call it, was done with a very joyful, loving and neutral energy. I found this article to be beautifully comforting.
My wonder-child-of-the-stars bows to the wonder-child-of-the-stars in you : )
-Alok
"When the power of LOVE overwhelms the love of power, the world will know peace" - J.H
Good Theory, but Possibly Incomplete
Interesting take on the concepts put forth by Ascentonists. I appreciate the Jungian connections being made. It makes an awful lot of sense. But I can't say I'm completely convinced of this perspective. Amy George speaks in definite terms in this article, which is not the most prudent way to approach a topic we can't possibly know about completely. For example, after quoting the anonymous author, she follows by stating what the passage really means. As if she has the correct, definitive perspective, and others do not.
She may very well be spot on, who knows. But I think it fails to adequately incorporate the UFO phenomenon. There's is ample evidence of visitation, including testimony by respectable, high profile people such as Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, airline pilots, etc.,etc. Not to mention some revealing transcripts from the Apollo missions at the NASA website. There's so much evidence regarding this that we shouldn't fail to include it in any hypothesis regarding ascension. If we are to incorporate the UFO phenomenon into this, we can easily take the "myths" of the Ascentionists quite literally as well as ancient "myths" such as those of the Summerians.
The good news is that no matter which way you choose to view this, the message is the same.
Guaging the Real
"Amy George speaks in definite terms in this article, which is not the most prudent way to approach a topic we can't possibly know about completely."
Are you sure? Science works pretty well with declarations over what it doesn't understand completely -- so I don't find this argument convincing.
Without declarative language, -- if science were always couched in "hmm, maybe" and "its conceivable that," -- then we would not know that the Earth orbits the sun, rather than the other way around. We would only be able to say, "It is a possible conjecture that the Earth orbits the sun," -- and then where would we be?
What I think is important is guaging "to what degree do I know or trust this thing?", and then reflecting that gauge reflect in our language.
The New Age assertion that "thou shall not declare fact," as far as I can see it, serves mainly to (A) keep it in the dark about the real, [thus hurting its own aims and highest intentions,] and (B) makes it ripe territory for control by those who figure out the social scene. That is, you can never use fact to your defence, if you find yourself smeared, -- because: "Who's to say? Who are you to claim that you know? What is video footage to me, when even the past can be altered by thought?"
"...but who knows?"
Scientists. People who study things deeply. Basically.
All that evidence you describe is insufficient, because it doesn't stand to scrutiny, independent verification, and the tests of time. Evidence doesn't equal merit; It can be used to establish merit, but in itself it doesn't equal merit, and often times it doesn't even deserve attention.
What we need to take literally, that the language of "imagination" fails with, is the reality of the human heart. The exploration of the imagi-real, -- that which is simultaneously imaginary and real, -- (and this includes the future,) -- that to me is the territory of investigation, that I think is the direction we really need to study.
Too little thrift for reality, though -- and you can't be or make anything real.
One very good article on the subject: CSI | Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures, by Karla McLaren.
I see what you are saying.
I see what you are saying. As far as we're able to PROVE, Amy's assessments are right where they should be. Since we cannot prove there is indeed a Sirian Council or the like, the point of the article is to see things thing for what we can prove through what they represent archtypally.
I read that link you posted. Karla McLaren does a good job illustrating what separates the two cultures, as she puts it. But just like many of those in the New Age community, who accept many things within that culture without much critical thought, we have a similar extreme in the skeptical community. Many folks who claim to be skeptics are not truly that. They can better be described as pseudo-skeptics, or even pathological skeptics. They fail to be skeptical of the very institutions that provide their data and the conclusions thereof. This is very important. There's a general assumption in the skeptical community that mainstream science is without flaw and without outside influence, or shennanigans, either political or financial. Medical science is a prime example. The Pharmaceutical industry has major influence over doctors, scientists, and universities. Alternative medicine is lucky to get a fraction of the research grants offered to patentable medicinal products. So naturally, we have far less research being done into it's benefits.
Basically, everything boils down to a belief. Everyone, including scientists, and skeptics ultimately have to concede that what they hold to be true, or factual is merely an exercise of faith to greater or lesser degree. Unless we are personally involved in a particular study, we have to faithfully believe that the results were not fabricated, distorted, or manipulated in any way. Even peer reviewed material cannot undoubtedly be immune to tampering. Google "scientists fabricate studies" and you'll see what I mean.
I appreciate skepticism in it's truest form. But it often succumbs to the ego like every other position. And as I've already mentioned, it's not skeptical of itself. It's rather dogmatic.
The Re-Evaluation of Belief
Basically, everything boils down to a belief. Everyone, including scientists, and skeptics ultimately have to concede that what they hold to be true, or factual is merely an exercise of faith to greater or lesser degree.
This is too forceful, and leads to error -- Consider that it is this "mere" exercise of faith that led to functioning computers, functioning airplanes, and functioning cell phones.
How did this happen? We were just exercising faith, right? So how did we end up on the other end of it with computers and cell phones, but not the second coming of Christ?
In the glasses of your explanation, all things, no matter how solid or vapid, appear like clouds without distinction; But we know that this is wrong. We know it's wrong because we live in a world, we know things, and we use computers.
When you catch yourself or anyone else saying "just faith," "just belief" -- challenge that, right there. "Yes, yes, faith, belief, of course -- But is it justified?"
Seek the real, seek knowledge.
This is a good start
Reading this reminds me of what Terence McKenna had talked about with regards to “Skepticism and the Balkanization of Epistemology”, where he said in the face of human uncertainty people erect all these different ideas about what may be occurring, i,e. globally, universally.
I'm not saying the contents of this article ARE an example of that but that the topic and content touch on how the broadness of the ideas and beliefs that exist out there. Some may be exaggerated unintentionally or not perceived all that well. I think the author brings up some good points. I don't find here analysis to be truth - not that I don't believer her but that I don't think she is trying to saying "see these people have it wrong and this is how it is".
From some of the quoted examples given from the unnamed author I get the sense that some of those in the "new age" or "Ascentionism" realm have similar aspects to those of the highly charged religious advocates - I tried not to same "fanatics" as that word has a lot of negative connotations. I think that coincides with that child-like aspect, in the sense that they may be those who do not think critically. The mention of Christ and Buddha are of significance. The core of their teachings, or core of the stories about them are things that are very organic and near to us as people and of this earth - compassion, truth, etc. Things we can all experience and don't involve "9D stargates", etc. I find that interesting how those near and core aspects can be coupled with the the more "cosmic" things like the "9D gates, defenders" etc. It makes me think of how some religions may be snowballed after many years - core, near truths, principles, etc. get mixed together or even lost amidst...maybe I'd call it "fantasy"? and or things that draw away from our direct experience.
The literalization of the Ur-Text
Hi Amy,
1) As you say, it is important for us not only to access the higher dimensions of experience, but also to figure out how to speak of them. Perhaps this is even more important than the experience itself; for our speaking changes the reality perceived.
As we have seen so often in the combat between “religions”, it is all too possible to speak of “oneness” while continuing to use the archetypal power of language to divide. Thus as one speaks of a “9D Stargate” and a “12D Vortex” one simultaneously claims to be a “Defender of Truth”, who is among the “Protectors for the Guardian races and Christ Living Light Code Holders in this Universe." In other words, one is right back where one started—as a proponent for the dualism that one has struggled to overcome. Quite simply, by reflex mechanisms of speech one has already divided the one preexistent egg.
One has bravely attempted to wrest the absolute into language; when perhaps, after all, it was only necessary to play.
There are several primordial powers that are often associated with the act of speech; speech possesses the power to create, yes, but it also possesses the power to divide. In speech is concentrated the magic potency of “Maya”—to a superabundant degree; with all of the “Through the Looking Glass” tendencies that accompany such a force. In the earlier Hindu texts, Maya is often spoken of as a means of bringing something about; as the fuel that makes speech pregnant.
As a divine power, it was not regarded as something negative or positive, in and of itself. The early yogic-poets nonetheless advise that we proceed with caution—again, not because this primal force is negative, but rather because it projects us headlong into the object or the drama that we have created; thus almost guaranteeing some peculiarity of perspective.
A certain metaphysical irony is perhaps essential; as we acknowledge how easy it is for each named entity to become its opposite. One both is and is not intoxicated with the play that one has set in motion. Thus “Wholeness” and “Truth” do not need armies to “defend” them. Such “defenders” will—in almost every instance—do more harm than good.
As the “One Family” is holding open the “9D Stargate”, and by the force of their intent causing a huge 12D vortex to revolve, there are other presences that are looking down as on their over-excited children. These “presences” have been “present” from a time before the beginning. They have perhaps guided our steps from the time that the Earth was a swirling dust cloud—a fossilized wisp of god-speak in a dream—and will be there when the Earth is once more tucked inside a metaphor.
2) In “Revenge is a dish best tasted cold”, a short memoir about my experience in parochial school, I wrote:
“Some hard kernel of insight has survived my scorched-earth war against the “Savior”; who, as an omniscient god, should have known better than to hang around with Christians. “Thank god that I am Jung, and not a Jungian!” exclaimed Jung. In a tone that we can imagine to be incredulous with disgust, or perhaps relief. A foreknowing Christ should have followed Jung’s example. I would argue, too, that a “Monotheist” is the greatest enemy of the One. They have named “G-d”, though in a somewhat generic form. To make an idol, they have shrunk the haunted oceans of the Void. They have cut down the Tree of Life. Omphalos is now horizontal. They have literalized the interdependent meanings of the Ur-Text.”
Clear[er] Articulation
Well, Amy, Brian, I think you know my own thoughts on the question:
The way to construct new language and the way to explain it is simply to speak it as clearly and simply as we can.
If you haven't read my myth of the formation of the 21st century, please do.
That can involve telling numinous stories, like George MacDonald did, and it may involve writing simple essays (also like George MacDonald did.)
I believe in new words, and giving meanings to new words.
I am not very fond of mysterianism and paradox -- I think it often confuses not just others, but ourselves as well.
If our truth is so obscure that most everyone is thinking that magical green dragons are literally flying around us, and that UFOs are materially landing and picking us up, -- or that we should doubt that men landed on the moon, or that AIDS really exists and has a molecular agent, -- than I point my finger to the prophets the people are listening to, and I say: "You created this; I hold you accountable."
The prophet shrugs, and says, "What can I do, if people mis-understand me?", and I reply, "Well, you could have spoken a little clearer. Tell these people that the green dragons aren't literally flying around." But then the prophet shrugs, looks away, and pretends that he doesn't hear me. "You are too idealistic," they speak into my mind telepathically -- "You are not sardonic enough to see the truth of the situation."
I hold you in regard, by the way, for speaking it as it is.
The great thing about George MacDonald's writing, (or Madeline Le' Engle's writing, or any of these people's writing,) is that by the way they do it, -- I'll take the Golden Key for example -- it is clear that there is not materially a place where the story is taking place. George MacDonald is quite clear: This is a true story. But he is also quite clear: This dirt isn't that dirt.
Honestly, the temptation for me is to just literally paint a picture showing the connections between the domains.
The Taoist might shrilly cry "articulation! articulation! eep! eep! eep!", and Brian George might (might) accuse me of naming God. But when it comes down to it, I believe in the development of what is form towards the formless; I refuse to hole up in consciousness like a cave, like Amaterasu no Omikami did.
What are the worlds of form for, if not to evolve?
Clear[er] Articulation
Well, Amy, Brian, I think you know my own thoughts on the question:
The way to construct new language and the way to explain it is simply to speak it as clearly and simply as we can.
If you haven't read my myth of the formation of the 21st century, please do.
That can involve telling numinous stories, like George MacDonald did, and it may involve writing simple essays (also like George MacDonald did.)
I believe in new words, and giving meanings to new words.
I am not very fond of mysterianism and paradox -- I think it often confuses not just others, but ourselves as well.
If our truth is so obscure that most everyone is thinking that magical green dragons are literally flying around us, and that UFOs are materially landing and picking us up, -- or that we should doubt that men landed on the moon, or that AIDS really exists and has a molecular agent, -- than I point my finger to the prophets the people are listening to, and I say: "You created this; I hold you accountable."
The prophet shrugs, and says, "What can I do, if people mis-understand me?", and I reply, "Well, you could have spoken a little clearer. Tell these people that the green dragons aren't literally flying around." But then the prophet shrugs, looks away, and pretends that he doesn't hear me. "You are too idealistic," they speak into my mind telepathically -- "You are not sardonic enough to see the truth of the situation."
Kudos, Amy, for speaking it as it is.
The great thing about George MacDonald's writing, (or Madeline Le' Engle's writing, or any of these people's writing,) is that by the way they do it, -- I'll take the Golden Key for example -- it is clear that there is not materially a place where the story is taking place. George MacDonald is quite clear: This is a true story. But he is also quite clear: This dirt isn't that dirt.
Honestly, the temptation for me is to just literally paint a picture showing the connections between the domains.
The Taoist might shrilly cry "articulation! articulation! eep! eep! eep!", and Brian George might (might) accuse me of naming God. But when it comes down to it, I believe in the development of what is form towards the formless; I refuse to hole up in consciousness like a cave, like Amaterasu no Omikami did.
What are the worlds of form for, if not to evolve?
A visit with my knife-wielding, back-stabbing best girlfriend
I find this article to be very presumptuous. There is a presupposition that the unnamed author is manipulating his or her audience, using tools such as ‘techo-speak’ to snow others. And it assumes that the audience of so-called ‘Ascensionists’ are followers, eating up whatever they are spoon-fed. Why not assume that the unnamed author is conveying his or her truthful experience? Why not assume that the author’s audience is capable of discernment?
There is a strong bias towards the author of this article’s own experience with almost no allowance for other points of view or even other experiences. What does the author’s interpretation of his/her dream (that he/she does not come from outer space) have to do with anybody else’s interpretation of their own dream or dreams? I grok the perspective that the world is a dream, but I don’t see why that would necessarily disallow multiple perspectives and/or the existence of multiple dimensions.
This article purports to “present linguistic and cultural perspectives on Ascensionism in order to de-mysticize it…” Then there’s a semi-colon, which normally suggests that a sentence will follow that will hinge on the previous. But here, the following phrase negates the prior suggestion of bias-lessness by hinting that the phenomenon in question is ungrounded and in need of edification.
It’s the same in the next paragraph, where the author explains that the quoted author found her observations derogatory and claims they weren’t intended to be, but then turns around and suggests that one of the seven deadlies, pride, is probably what’s making him or her think so. I feel like I’ve just had a visit with my knife-wielding, back-stabbing best-est girlfriend in the whole world. Ick.
for public discourse
Ms. Osorojos, you are totally right that it was a shitty thing to ascribe “pride” to the unnamed author. We don’t believe the author was trying to snow anyone. We assume the author was being totally sincere. Sincerity does not preclude being free of delusion.
This article purports to “present linguistic and cultural perspectives on Ascensionism in order to de-mysticize it…” Then there’s a semi-colon, which normally suggests that a sentence will follow that will hinge on the previous. But here, the following phrase negates the prior suggestion of bias-lessness by hinting that the phenomenon in question is ungrounded and in need of edification.
Here’s the full sentence: “The aim of this article is to present linguistic and cultural perspectives on Ascensionism in order to de-mysticize it; to bring it back from the cosmos and ground it on the Earth for the sake of edifying this vital force in 21st century spirituality.” There is nothing there about approaching Ascensionism with biaslessness.
Why not assume that the author’s audience is capable of discernment?
Why should we assume any audience is capable of discernment?
We hope we did not imply that we assume “the audience of so-called ‘Ascensionists’ are followers, eating up whatever they are spoon-fed.” If Ascensionism is the belief that the world is undergoing an ascension to higher consciousness, then we are Ascensionists. The article is simply a critique of perception, a psychoanalysis based on our knowledge and experience, that we feel merit disclosure.
I grok the perspective that the world is a dream, but I don’t see why that would necessarily disallow multiple perspectives and/or the existence of multiple dimensions.
We believe there is one truth we all may answer to, and we have offered a piece of what we believe this truth to be. We are not trying to impose our truths. We only want to present them for public discourse, if we may. AG & CM
Good exercize
* * *
Be sure to check out my book, Mediacology (http://mediacology.com/the-book/)
From Unity to Unity
“Today, new language is needed to reflect a more direct experience of spirituality than was ever possible (except for mystics) in traditional cultures.”
This seems to me to be the crux of Amy’s point.
Many anthropologists have studied the evolution of human consciousness from five million years ago to the present and beyond, and have categorized their findings into developmental steps from (for instance, in my own words) Unity without ego, to unity with weak ego, to separation with weak ego, to separation with strong ego (where the average human is today), to separation with transcending ego (where a wave of change is now flowing), to unity with transcendent ego (the leading edge of mystical consciousness), to Unity. (Yes, consciousness is evolving from Unity to Unity)
In the past, I had read several accounts of others who have had mystical experiences, and had been hard-pressed to interpret their words; their descriptions seemed otherworldly to me; too far beyond my comprehension. In more recent years and months I have had several of my own mystical experiences. While I cannot put my own experiences into words yet, I am beginning to comprehend the descriptions of others, which I used to find incomprehensible. Looking at the current state of my evolution from a broad perspective then, I am confident that I will one day have mystical experiences that I will be better able to put into words.
Since the common language from which words describing future states of consciousness are chosen is still anchored in materiality, they will no doubt be few (as are words used by today’s mystics) because there are still too few properly descriptive words available.
The new language that clearly describes a more direct experience of spirituality will have to wait, I’m afraid, until a critical mass of humanity crosses the threshold from separation with strong ego, to unity with a transcending ego (a huge chasm to cross), before symbolic expressions can be crafted and then universally understood within the general population.
In the meantime, the only language available will be clumsily put to the task, resulting in much confusion and misunderstanding, as Amy has demonstrated in her fine article above.
In addition, many people (myself included) are trying to describe, with a language foreign to their future self, what their present self is going through. It is a difficult balancing act to have one foot firmly planted in a current state of consciousness while “knowing” that their other foot is reaching across that chasm to the next state; reaching back with obsolete words, while simultaneously reaching forward, toes barely touching, to their new home.
Only currently available metaphors can be put to the task of describing future states of consciousness, and in the meantime, if we acknowledge this to be the case, then we might all be better able to ascribe sincerity to those who have had such experiences, and to appreciate that they are honestly using the closest descriptive expressions available to them. Bless them all....
To fuss over this situation, as some comments above have done is, in my opinion, to miss Amy’s point entirely.
In addition:
In addition…
Persons with a particular worldview (please see below) will interpret their experiences with respect to their particular worldview and will use language reflecting that worldview to describe their experiences to others.
For instance, a person with a World as Battlefield worldview will use metaphors appropriate to their view, and others with that same view will apprehend those metaphors, understanding completely what is being communicated. This group therefore will have a better opportunity to understand the mystical or spiritual experiences of each other than will members of a different worldview group. If a member of a group who interprets the world as a classroom reads the description of a spiritual experience of someone who interprets the world as a battlefield, there will be much to cause confusion and misunderstanding between them.
Simply the realization that members of this state of consciousness are en route to the next state of consciousness therefore is not quite enough to understand the dynamic occurring between states of consciousness. In addition, it would be helpful to realize that members of this state of consciousness, thus evolving, are also divided into different horizontal groups of world views within this state of consciousness as suggested above and as outlined below.
Such an encompassing realization of our varied states and stages of being would go far to easing the tension between us all as we all struggle with this ongoing mutation in consciousness. May we strive to comprehend our differences in order to appreciate our similarities.
WORLDVIEW METAPHORS
1) World as a Battlefield: Where good and evil are pitted against each other; where I am a soldier, and where ultimately, I believe I will win or lose the battle.
2) World as a Classroom: Where, if I study hard I will graduate to other arenas and rewards. If I don’t pay attention “in class” I will fail to move on to the next level.
3) World as a Trap: Where I try to disentangle myself from whatever trap I perceive entangles me. I’m always trying to extricate myself from the trap I believe has fooled and ensnared me, and by extension, the rest of humanity. I’m trapped in this nowhere job; this toxic marriage; this back water town, etc.
Ayn Rand, for instance, thought that she and the world were trapped by Altruism, and brilliantly extricated herself by erecting a philosophy of Egoism in its place. (See the book: For The New Intellectual by Ayn Rand)
4) World as Duality: Whether I prefer a predictable, objective, mechanistic worldview (The World as a Machine), or a chaotic, subjective, intuitive one (The World as a Ghost in the Machine), I recognize the existence of the opposing worldview. The Universe is therefore dualistic—Everything is “either-or”.
(Whether “winning or losing”, “graduating or failing”,“freeing ourselves of imprisonment ”, or “preferring “A” over “B””, the above four worldviews suggest competition, rather than cooperation with the different aspects of our world.)
5) World as Lover: Where I behold the world as a most intimate and gratifying partner, and I feel myself in an intimate erotic embrace with the world; penetrating, and being penetrated by the primal energies of the realm of our human existence.
(Though a “World as Lover” type of person ceases to compete and begins to cooperate, it still recognizes a distinction between itself and its “other”. Importantly, this person has transcended “either-or”, and now exists in a world of “and”: (My Lover ‘and’ I). A World as Lover type of person senses all of the above levels in their own self, and realizes that all worldviews exist simultaneously in each individual in one form or another.)
6) World as self: Where I become one with my World-as-Lover, where the subject and object are no longer separate. I see the world in all its parts as an interconnected whole. In this worldview, cooperation is just another way of viewing competition. Duality ceases toexist, hierarchy becomes holoarchy and holistic unity occurs.
World as Lover & Self
A prayer I wrote in 2000:
Belonging
I belong to myself as myself belongs to me
I belong with everyone as everyone belongs with me
I belong in the world as the world belongs in me
I belong to the cosmos as the cosmos belongs to meYour idea of competition being the seed of cooperation reflects an idea of Coyote Marie's (my co-author) that violence --> sport--> dance. War is Shiva's dance.
peace & goodness, Leon
starseeds
The one thing I took offense to in this article is the supposition that because the phenomena of starseeds cannot be proven, presumably by science, that it is only "metaphorical," and not literal fact. The things that are "literal fact" in this 'reality' are things that people can perceive with their senses- illusions. When you KNOW you're a starseed, there is nothing metaphoric about it. No Earth human nor Earthly science could take away from the self-awareness that an activated starseed has nor the intense longing to go back to their star system of origin. I sometimes cry during meditation and long for Sirius, it is such intense estrangement. Earthly society is very oppressive to the human heart. It seems like one broken heart after another, like you're done healing one incident, and on comes the next! I'm hoping this ends during the ascension.
This is the one observation I have made about the difference between starseeds and Earth humans that I saw mirrored on the starseed link you provided:
Many starseeds are practiced in rapid "spiritual weight loss". Starseeds can throw off in a few years the limiting behavior patterns and fears that Earth humans might take many lifetimes to accomplish. This is because starseeds, having been on similar missions to other planets, are quite familiar with the procedures and techniques for raising consciousness.
As a 28 year old Sirius B starseed, my peers (the people I really relate to) are other starseeds, and magical women into their 40s and 50s with psychic and clairvoyant abilities. Anyone else I just become a therapist to and try to help them deprogram since I have accomplished the process for myself in about 10 years, beginning from the time I realized I was programmed at 18. I say jokingly- but truthfully- most Earth humans would shit in their pants at the hell I have voluntarily under-taken to learn the most corrupt programs to aid others in similar deprogramming. I have no other medal- and must take pride in my deprogramming process- as humanity does not recognize nor give thanks for the fact that I am sending draconians and demons away from Earth on a daily basis to make safe a population that doesn't even understand me. It's an odd fate, and the one honor I received from the angels as encouragement was sainthood. I wonder sometimes if humanity will ever "get it."
Another amazing website about starseeds and ETs:
www.siriusascension.com
Metaphors for self-realization?
Enjoying the article and comments! Like to add my tuppence on Amy's words.
All images produced by the psyche are metaphorical.
I would restate that as 'all reality experienced by the Self is metaphorical'. All we really have is images; reality itself is a reflection of the Self. In this view, any belief about reality necessarily reflects our mythology of the Self. That seems to be the perspective of the article, if not my own.
They use Sci-Fi-sounding terminology to describe cosmic shifting in human consciousness, but the shift is seated right here, on Earth, in our minds.
This is where the author appears to miss her own point: if all of reality is metaphor for the Self, then Sirian helpers may be just as real as our cosmic selves. If the Self is an apple tree you can expect to find apples everywhere.
To divide Self and not-Self invites illusion and suffering. Beliefs about not-Self are reflected in our experience of reality, ultimately signaling us to change our perception and our myths. The Ascension meme is an example of such a change, it seems.
The particular metaphors we use--Sirians vs. cosmic selves--are ultimately up to artistic license. The point is that we are expanding our concept of identity; integrating our unconscious; and hopefully making space for love. We're willfully using metaphors for self-realization.
cosmic elfs
John from the Temple: yes,
a request
Thank you for your comments John & High-Klaas. Say there are two groups, each redeemed via the Ascension. One who flies off to Sirius with Sirians; and the other never has any contact with Sirians, and remains on the Earth to celebrate for a metaphorical 1,000 years. Everyone would be very happy, but humanity will have diverged into parallel realities that never meet.
Until I make love to a Sirian, they will remain - in my mind - as the product of a collective dream without the objective material reality embodoied by a given earthling. So please Universe, let me be introduced to one.
funny, i said the same thing
funny, i said the same thing this morning - i generally don't believe things (metaphors) until i experience them for myself. bring on the aliens!
but that still doesn't mean they could be right. thing is, i do the same thing - i sit high and dry on the almighty metaphor. but i think the trick, the real trick, is to recognize the fantasies of your own psyche.
check out the cosmic schmuck principle for reference :)
http://deoxy.org/wiki/Cosmic_Schmuck_Principle
Sirians
alienation from the self
I see, I think. So a fundamentalist might see Sirians as Satanic - a metaphor. Starseeds and company see Sirians as Sirians. And I see Sirians as metaphors of the Cosmic Self; the Cosmic Self being a metaphor as well. I guess we have only to wait and see which metaphor bears the most fruit: Satan, Sirians or the Cosmic Self.
I have had encounters with aliens that turned out to be projections of my Cosmic Self. They inhabited my body and I gave them a tour of my city, during which they decided they liked the flesh so much they were going to kill me. Pysch! It's true though: the alien/Cosmic Self does want our flesh. See this blog entry I wrote some time ago: Alienation from the Self.
Never stop reaching for the stars!
@Amy George
If I've understood correctly, you admit the possibility of such objective realities, but until they are verified you see these beliefs as purely metaphorical of the life of the psyche. I agree. However, the life of the psyche is metaphorical as well--it is a projection of the Self.
There is only Self and its infinite reflections; the subjectively existing Sirian is just as much a projection as the objectively existing Sirius star system is. All phenomena are metaphorical of the Self, which projects into all reality--inner and outer, subjective and objective, shared and collective.
To say that one metaphor is more real than the other seems like nonsense from this perspective. How can you state that your psyche exists on Earth rather than on Sirius, if both are projections of the Self? To put it differently, if we all 'ascend' and find out that Sirius and Earth are in fact metaphorical projections of a singular higher reality, you will be able to make love--with your Self.
The only difference, the only qualifier, is how our myth makes us relate back to the Self: does it unify or divide? Love or fear? And that is a whole other discussion ;)
@High_Klaas
I'm probably being a cosmic schmuck right now. Time will tell!
Yes!
I guess we have only to wait and see which metaphor bears the most fruit
If the Self is an apple tree, you will find apples everywhere. :) Thanks for this pleasant exchange.
Deliberate Confusions & and Dis-respecting the Imagination
If by "reductionism," you mean "explaining things," then I don't see the problem with reductionism. All of my and your stories are reductions of a whole into parts.
It's important to make sure our language matches what we're talking about. If someone says "It's all just beliefs," then the question is, "which beliefs are more in accord with reality?"
If Amy says, "That's a metaphor," and then someone says, "But your own thinking is metaphors" -- the question is not, "How many metaphors can we identify," but rather, "What metaphors more closely match reality?"
If you force all things into one box without justification, you find yourselves confused
It's just as if you're talking with someone, and they don't like what you're saying, so they just say "Words, words, words; Everything is just words." Well words have meaning, (otherwise they have no use.)
All this talk of being from Sirius is not materially real. It may be real to the intuition, but that's radically different than being materially real. Since by default people generally mean "materially real," you should make it clear that you mean "it's real to my sense of self," rather than lead people (including yourself) to think "Oh, it's materially real." Sciences understandings are quite justifiable and legitimate here.
Joan of Art is quite right that Earthly society is oppressive to the human heart. Her hope for ascension is basically the human hope, since time memorable -- Egyptian, Christian, Islamic, what have you. It's the only hope that really makes sense to me, at any rate. It makes sense to me. We feel it in our chest.
So for the sake of bringing it to reality, we need all of our faculties, including clarity about what's real and what's not. We cannot go far without pragmatism. Calling this all "illusion" is a quick trip to nowhere -- for an illusion, it's remarkably consistent, and as PKD said: Reality is that which continues to exist after you cease believing in it.
I think it is interesting that Joan said: 'only "metaphorical,"' -- metaphorical. I would put the scare quotes differently: "only" metaphorical?
Because the New Age mind (and the contemporary scientific mind) sees imaginations and metaphors as contemptuous, and because the scientist has a legitimate iron grip on the literal material reality, the New Ager is always trying to invade: by either claiming Quantum Mechanics as their realm and their science, or by repositioning the meaning of the word "real."
If only we saw that imagination itself is a priceless treasure, and that there's nothing "mere" about it, then the tension would be diffused.
metaphor
Lion, that says a lot of what I was feeling, but which I could not have articulated myself...I would not say one metaphor is more real than another, but metaqphor certainly measures. It measures perspective. The metaphors of Satan, Sirians, and the Cosmic Self present 3 different faces of the same thing; each saying something quantifiably unique about whomever sees it.
reduction of the metaphor
i guess the flag happy people
are always lingering to plant that on the full moon.
or maybe they have a phobia to Uncle Remus?
at any rate right on Amy! you roll my metaphor-dice.
Help! Discordia!
@LionKimbro,
I don't think anybody was implying that metaphors are meaningless, that words are just words, or beliefs are just beliefs. I don't know if you were addressing a specific poster, the author, or yourself (or Self, in any case), but I was describing a perspective of metaphor beyond a distinction of 'reality' from 'one's sense of reality'.
As long as I maintain it, this non-dual perspective of metaphor in both phenomena and noumena allows me to integrate all experience in my mythology of the Self. It's about realizing a metaprogram for wholeness, recognizing that everything is showing my identity, without boundaries. In that sense, it is a very pragmatic stance on cultivating love, but has very little to do with perceived boundaries--i.e., 'what's real and what's not'. If I see a lion, I still run away :P
@RevolutionRabbit
i'm grounded in my earth man.
If that's what you wanna call it! You're blunt but you have a point.
blunt?
boats on a sea of Self
John, I think I understand the place of transcendent wholeness you are coming from. I have come across such perspectives before; perspectives that dismiss subtle attempts at understanding by emphasizing the Reality that transcends the distinction between 'reality' and 'one's sense of reality.' “All is one, and there is nothing else to say.”
While I think this place is perfectly valid and real, for me it cannot serve as any more than a reality check; a point of meditation; an ideal; a truth transcendent of fissure with limited relevance to the present moment. While waiting for Reality to become a conscious reality in the collective mind, I think it serves Self well to be as analytical as we can about the memes and half-truths underlying various forms of consensus reality – Ascensionism being one such form.
Even if the psychology behind what Coyote Marie & I have said is just another metaphor – just another island fated to sink into the sea of Self - with no more validity than a Sirian, we still will not dive into the sea before the land beneath our feet is gone. The fact and truth of Self is a vital reality check, but it’s not reality either. as long as we are still mortal, taking inventories, having psychoses, and hanging out with aliens nobody else can see.
Tom Atlee on Wholeness
Amy has already said everything I have to say in response; I guess the only thing I add is this link, to Tom Atlee, on Wholeness, explicit and implicit.
I still do not know when it is the right time to confront, and when it is the right time to leave things alone, and let things work out on their own. But it is clear to me that the answer is not "always float in non-confrontational non-dualism."
(I suppose there is a third and a fourth and a fifth way, one being to confront without appearing so -- but I am not so good at that -- I have only so many advantages, and there are many things that it is best that I hold my tongue, and let other people do.)
i flag myself
hip hip hippie hooray
....for ascension,for all light beings in what ever form or metaphor they choose to take.
But most of all....a big hip hooray for the man is back...gotta tell rog....and the petty flaggers arent even worth noticing....into Ascension they are not....too many posts to flag....total losers....
rog
rog and may gork, or the drog shop people
p.s, tried to post my blog, no drog
so with out feather a doodoo, here it is:
revolutionrabbit.blogspot.com... cosmie pinko rabbit
little mischievous darling
`Do you know, I was so angry, Kitty,' Alice went on...`when I saw all the mischief you had been doing, I was very nearly opening the window, and putting you out into the snow! And you'd have deserved it, you little mischievous darling! ~Lewis Carroll
they say Sirians are cat people.
"In the time of Bast, all types of genetic samplings were embraced"
"The Goddess Bast champions the unrestricted potential of all creation"
(excerpts from Pyramids on Montalk 1995)
by the way
Blessed schizoid dualism without which I would be lost
Relating to 'ordinary' life: Paying bills, following traffic-rules etc in an absolute sense (with fixed values) shouldn't be a problem for anyone living in a society not too totalitarian and on a level above existence minimum.
Likewise it's easy to appreciate the value of e.g. the map, science has made of its own selfdefined macro-cosmic physical territory, as long as it (science) stays there. It's also easy to evaluate the pragmatic consequences from micro-cosmic quantum mechanics.
But the situation is different, when it comes to more lofty, non-mundane aspects of existence. Our physical senses recieve, at best, only a few percent of the signals around us in the physical part of cosmos; we percieve even less; our intellect functions at 10% of its potential, when we process information; and negative emotions such as greed, fear, fragmentation and fanatism will more often than not mess up a considerable part of the whole outcome in our private 'fantasy factories'.
This background simply doesn't allow for big, absolute, ultimate answers at the present, and only individuals with a strong need for existential certainty (:philosophical positivism) would postulate such. The main attitude from this group is often manifested by setting up a black/white situation, where approximate reality (:philosophical relativism) is described as 'dysfunctional'; or even worse by unjustified hijacking of scientific concepts such as christians do with 'intelligent design' and the new agers with some quantum hypotheses to 'prove' ultimate points of belief.
In my, beyond boring-point, hobbyhorse epistemology, we have a set of tools ranging from empirical observations to abstract analyses and then back again via pragmatism, and strangely enough this process has led to a functional and relativistic map, ... quantum physics. I don't think I fall into any overinterpretation, if I say, that according to this map, things are 'true' only in relationship to other things. We have approximate truths/realities, and 'beliefs' are only tools for the duration, until this map expands or is changed and new relationships emerge.
A further discussion of the consequences of this cosmic model has been made on occasion formerly on RS (e.g. about 'dualism' etc) and I won't go into details as it's too encompassing, but only point out two possible perspectives, which later most likely will be of great importance:
1/ The acknowledgement that even epistemology is a chinese box (epistemology needs its own hyper-epistemology), and that semantics/communication will turn out to be a crucial point in this. Not because this automatically will lead us closer to ultimate answers, but because common assumptions can give us the respite to survive long enough to find any answers at all.....
and 2/ We DO have a group of experiental, pragmatic explorers, mystics of all denominations, who seem to be the most coherent group of all in human history, when it comes to approaching 'reality'. It would do well to listen to them. It has been noticed on this thread, that only mystics understand mystIcs' 'language', but then, how many people understand the mathematics behind theoretical physics? Even Einstein needed help on that point.
And as it's probably easier to become a mystic than a theoretical physicist for those interested enough, this communication obstacle isn't insurmountable.
I'm all for rabbitholes, especially if I can bring a lunchbasket along.
warrens/lunchbaskets :)
speaking of lunchbaskets....
the mystics i seem to prefer have quite a bit of theoretical fractal physics and fractal cellular biology in their baskets :)
nassim haramein
bruce lipton
both have their own sites, and both hava presence on youtube. enjoy :)
two sense
Amy, I really appreciate that you re-described ascensionism as 'bringing god down to earth.' I'd always felt a distrust of ascensionist...theory? cause I'd so often see it framed as something like 'lifting humans from the earth.' Y'know, the old xtian transcendentalist matter/spirit duality bullshit, which seems/ed to often afflict even New Age thought. so i was very glad to see it reframed this way. Yeah, God could perhaps stand to come spend a little time down here.
Re: the metaphor debate--seems to me that it's like a grain of sand in an oyster shell--that is the let's call it a 'fact' of a person;s identity, or a historical event, a scientific discovery, whatever--what they resonate with beyond a shadow of doubt, like Joan is a Sirius starseed, or this person is a human being. Everything else after that, whether it's 'satanic', cosmic self, schizophrenia, too much vitamin c or whatever, is like the layers of pearl wrapped around that grain of sand. Ultimately, the pearl is what we think of when we use the word 'reality'--that is, a grain of something wrapped up in layers of interpretation (pearl).
"God sends meat, the devil sends cooks."
pearly Self
Thank you for your comments, Jeff. I am glad the piece resonated for you. Special thanks for your thoughts on the pearl and sand – a perfect metaphor, in my opinion, for reconciling these divergent views; and which is inclusive of Self as well, if we understand Self to be represented by a globe or ball. I love that the metaphor frames divergent views in terms of something beautiful,
God sends the Flesh and the devil sends feed lots, slaughterhouses, consumers, and cooks.
the crystal ball within the crystal ball
once upon a time there was a great crystal ball within a crystal ball.A great Madame was she in the beautiful land.All the children of the star came to listen to her marvel through the moon like orb.One day a rock fell from the sky and fell right on Madame Mu's lovely pearly ball, and it shattered into a thousand and one fractal fragments.And the children of the star fell from the sky, and the land was sunk in a terrible funk.They never were able to put that darn ball back together again.Even so, some of the pieces told of things once remembered.And the great mystic madame went into a trance that lasted many ages, and the children grew up.One day in a penny arcade there was a machine with a mechanical lady in it, she had on a huge turban with pearls and jewels and her great cats-eye eyes looked out of the glass that protected the box, that had a slot for some coins.And on this fated day some teenagers stoned on LSD happened to drop some slugs into the box, but the great madame awoke from her trance.Her eye lights went on, and she began speaking in a strange tongue, in a flow of musical syllables, the bozoed teens were captivated and because they were loose and wildly open, the strange language went straight to their third eye.
The story begins....
revolutionrabbit