• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.



Page history last edited by PBworks 13 years, 4 months ago

Making Meaning Maniacal.doc - 

This is my final project.  It is a remix of a work I did last year.  It is an attempt to explain the process of meaning in sacred texts and maybe all texts.  I would say it's a mix genre piece that is meant for people to enjoy and think about or just remix themselves.  The cover in theory is below...





As I skim-read the assigned readings I realize the connectiveness of everything.  It can all be tied back to something someone finds sacred.  How is piracy or peer-to-peer work sacred?  The advancements made highlight the shared brilliance, the connective nature of the universe and the efficient benefits the community see.  Not only this, but shared work helps strip of us of our hubris.  When we recognice how nothing is truly individual but built off of successive discoveries, we are in the mind frame of benefiting the whole.  But can copyrights be sacred?  To be the devil's advocate, maybe they are.  Maybe individual creativity needs to be protected in such a way that people can appreciate its value and connection to its creator without simply using it freely.  There is an almost inherent nature to mark your work.  We naturally identify with what we make and protecting that couldn't possibly be wrong. 


That was just a short excercise of exploring both sides of Rabbit's reading.  Honestly though I think that free culture did not persuade me.  By looking at the pharmacuetical research and copyrights, a strong argument for the need for copyrights arises.  Simply without restrictions on a free market I think creativity would be stifled.  Currently pharmacuiticle companies have a patent for an effective ingredient for a few years before other companies can mimick the drug.  If pharmacuiticle companies could not have their patents protected then they could not afford further research for the next disovery.  All the other competitors would just copy the effective ingredient immediately.  The emphasis would not be on the next drug but on reducing the costs of production on the current drugs.  While I am a huge advocate of affordable healthcare and healthcare for everyone, this example proves how copywrights can be effective to spur creativity as opposed to hinder it. 




"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.”  by Thomas Jefferson.  A big theme that I think about is God helps those who help themselves and Thomas Jefferson seems to agree.  The reason these sayings work for me is because the get me to work.  I feel betteer when I'm productive and have a feeling of control.  Now maybe the reality is that my actions in the scope of the things, in the universe over only a life time is so minimal but that reality isn't necessarily getting me to do good work.  Even now thinking about my smallness only makes me want to sit down or go to bed. 







The media is on my mind.  How many peolpe find it sacred. 

We worship sports, fashion, sales, TV, Movies, music, shitty music, cars, coins, $, sex, technology, video games, drinking, drugs.. 

Is it wrong?  Is it right?

It is.  It is real, Consumption is a way of life which can itself consume a life.  But does it consume a life or add meaning to it?  Someone who loves sports, makes a career of sports and finds meaning in competion, physical excertion and mental toughness can have meaning.  The same can be said for any other form of media. But can you truly say that these are meaningful lives?  I don't know.  I want to say no in the worst way but maybe that's small minded. 




The New Thought Movement reminds me a quote that I've often heard but never fully embraced until Mobius said while talking about the I-Ching.  "God helps those who help themselves."  Helping yourself becomes so much easier when you reprioritize your life  and place contentment before financial success, social status...  Also when you fully appreciate yourself as divine, you realize a certain  true uniqueness and incredible awesomeness  within yourself.  This is not the same as saying that you do what you want because of your own sacredness but that because of your sacredness you have an ability to do what is most right even if it is the hardest choise to make.


The part I most dislike about this movement is the same as Christian Scientist though because it seems to devalue science and its ability to medically heal a person.  I think that a more honest balance should be mentioned within its central documents. 




Gospel of Truth:


“Just as there lies hidden in a will, before it is opened, the fortune of the deceased master of the house, so (it is) with the totality, which lay hidden while the Father of the totality was invisible, being something which is from him, from whom every space comes forth. For this reason Jesus appeared; he put on that book; he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. O such great teaching! He draws himself down to death, though life eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him. Having entered the empty spaces of terrors, he passed through those who were stripped naked by oblivion, being knowledge and perfection, proclaiming the things that are in the heart, [...] teach those who will receive teaching.”


This paragraph is from the gospel of truth.  As the rest of the text, it is vague, filled with pronouns which have questionable signified objects and is dense with long sentences and abstract images.  I would guess that it refers to itself or was titled “the gospel of truth” because of these qualities.  In other words, it is true because it is so vague, so mysterious that it cannot be argued to be untrue and more deeply, its meaning allows for endless possibilities of truth.  “O such great teaching” then to me seems both honest and sarcastic.  This quote follows one of the more difficult sentences of this paragraph.  What does “he put on that book” mean?  Even more intriguing, the book that “he put on”, he publishes as the edict of the Father.  I take this to mean that Jesus understood that his life’s work would be captured in text and his life’s meaning would be partially captured within text.  “he put on that book” can then possibly mean that he fulfilled the role in which he was destined for; in his dying, he published it because it was his death that was meant to be the most significant event because it opened the gates of heaven.    




EVIL is.  GOOD is.  I believe that at the core, EVIL does not exist in a relative state to GOOD but that it simply is and would be even if there was no GOOD.  Transversely, GOOD exists in the same manner, autonomous to EVIL.  These two forms are not the only forms of good and evil but the at the core of the matter, beyond perspective and beyond the sensory world are the most elemental.


Good and evil (without caps) are two relative terms based on idealogoies and still very real diads but only contextually to whatever relative scenario.   Good in some cases may involve destruction (forest fires which leads to regrowth - a natural phase) and evil in others may involve good (the hightened public  awareness of the Middle East caused by 9/11).




The Yoga Sūtras

Book I

3. Then the Seer comes to consciousness in his proper nature.  Egotism is but the perversion of spiritual being. Ambition is the inversion of spiritual power. Passion is the distortion of love. The mortal is the limitation of the immortal. When these false images give place to true, then the spiritual man stands forth luminous, as the sun, when the clouds disperse.


This is the crux of the text for me.  The Seer has been reborn, having shed material worldliness and realizes how the universe operates.  Notice egotism is perverse, not inverted.  We must love ourselves (the spiritual we) as part of the universe.  Personally, the most difficult sentence follows.  “Ambition is the inversion of spiritual power.”  I take this to mean that we cannot seek our own goals but the higher ones which we all are called to seek.  Spiritual power would be a goal that has no personal end because true spiritual power evaporates self into everything.  As we accomplish such awareness, not only are we understanding our immortality but even our mortal being radiates with such life.





Chuang-tzu is the philosophic Albert Einstein.  Einstein took on relativity through mathetimatical proofs; Chuang-tzu though philosophy.  When we look at up at the stars, do we really look up?  Our head faces up from the ground, and even more so we our in the Northern Hemisphere.  But... what makes North up?  What if our solar system were upside down in the universe?  More realistically, does the universe have a right side up? 


One of my favorite Chuang-tzu stories is when he has a dream that he is butterfly, fluttering, flying, floating and landing.  When he wakes he wanders whether he was dreaming of being a butterfly or whether a butterfly is right then dreaming of being Chuang-tzu.  This is a sort the sort of relativism that is a standard thought process of Taoist and of "Eastern" culture.




Gity toodu?  Is it all relative or is there something more essenital?



Filling the Void










The below quote from Carl Jung's foreowrd to the I-Ching is to me the best explanation of the reasoning behind it.


In other words, whoever invented the I Ching was convinced that the hexagram worked out in a certain moment coincided with the latter in quality no less than in time. To him the hexagram was the exponent of the moment in which it was cast -- even more so than the hours of the clock or the divisions of the calendar could be -- inasmuch as the hexagram was understood to be an indicator of the essential situation prevailing in the moment of its origin.

This assumption involves a certain curious principle that I have termed synchronicity,[2] a concept that formulates a point of view diametrically opposed to that of causality. Since the latter is a merely statistical truth and not absolute, it is a sort of working hypothesis of how events evolve one out of another, whereas synchronicity takes the coincidence of events in space and time as meaning something more than mere chance, namely, a peculiar interdependence of objective events among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers. [bold not in original text]


Synchronicity for the Westerner can be frightening because at first it seems to take autonomy away from the individual.  It might be that this is just the opposite.  The I-Ching may empower the individual to both control an enviroment (as Yoganada's instructor was able to) and understand the enviroment in a truly incredible way.  The synchonocity of events [which at this current moment happens to be a stall in my writing] gives everything a reason of being how it is.  Regardless of it's truthfulness, at the very least it offers council for those looking for it.  Without any orcale, they will find in it that they become the creator of meaning giving at least some autonomy to the individual. 



Aleister Crowley's The Book of Lies which is also falsey called Breaks is a big mess of understanding.  He notes that Breaks is a pun.  The pun could be that in possibilities of the meaning of break.  When you break a bowl it sepperates into parts.  While the function of the bowl as a bowl is now no more, the pieces now have individual characteristics and possissibility of potential.  A sharp edge of ceramic could now be a cutting utensil, a piece in a mosaic, a small ruler, a weapon, charm,...  Breaking has thus created.  This might be the pun.


Another possibility could be in reference to Tennyson's poem where he made a work of art out of a destructive word.  Even the poem itself deals with polarizing images of dark and light, joy and dismal.  





The I Ching doesn’t work well for the Westerner.  In Carl Jung’s forward, he states the constasting views: “While the Western mind carefully sifts, weighs, selects, classifies, isolates, the Chinese picture of the moment encompasses everything down to the minutest nonsensical detail, because all of the ingredients make up the observed moment.”  What can be drawn from this is a hypersensitivity to all things, sensed by our senses or understood by our soul.  This hypersensitivity extends beyond our surroundings and into ourselves.  At any given time, everything has relation to each other then in synchronicity.  


Can I Cracker handle the I Ching.

Why I Cracker and not I Bring?Openness

And understanding to a text of great

Unraveling of the synchronic babbling.



But that is my worry, I read only babbling.



Magis: In Latin it means “more” and in Jesuit philosophy is equated with generosity, magnanimity and selflessness.  To be the best for God and for others.



Autobiography of Yogananda: Ch 16

""Man is soul, and has a body. When he properly places his sense of identity, he leaves behind all compulsive patterns. So long as he remains confused in his ordinary state of spiritual amnesia, he will know the subtle fetters of environmental law."


We are not our names, we are not our color.  We are not our age, sexuality, gender, or class.  We are not our ethnicity, our social security code or our possessions.  We are not our known identities, only known for them in a wordly sense.  We must be in this world but not of it , respects the materials we work with but above the materials we work with.  Our daily habits of this dayINage are meant to be transcended in order to allow the higher universal patterns to let themselves be known.  If we continue to be wordly, the laws of this world will exist.  There is so much more to be discovered, what is Outof Thisworld to be unearthed.  But if we continue living blind to the sacred, we will live in this world, merely as our bodies and not as ourselves oursoul.  



This weekend I returned home for many reasons.  To see my family, celebrate family birthdays and to rest.  I went to my high school's alumni breakfast as well where the FDA commission FDA commissioner, Andrew von Eschenbach, spoke.  He said to be in this world but of it.  He told his life story, a young shy kid from South Philly who felt like he didn't belong.  He always questioned himself, but continually excelled.  When he had finally made his fortune as a doctor, he bought a porshe.  He drove around the autobahn and then shipped it home.  (This was before Porshe's were sold in the US).  When he first took it to the movies, he parked it far back in the lot, went in, got popcorn and sat down.  That was the longest movie he ever saw and didn't know what even happened in it.  He spent his whole time worrying that someone would key his love, or steal it.  He learned to not let his possessions possess him.  


He didn't talk about curing cancer or the struggles of FDA regulations vs. curing more sooner.  He talked about how to live, how to strive for more in yourself while not making goals of materials.  Here's man who is worth learning from.




In everything, there is really nothing.


"Heaven does nothing, and thence comes its serenity; Earth does nothing, and thence comes its rest. By the union of these two inactivities, all things are produced. How vast and imperceptible is the process!"


At the core of nothing lies serenity.  That which we fear the most is what we should attain.  Separation   Sep-par-a-tion     Se-par-a-shun   s-e-p-a-t-i-o-n.










(The below quote is 1/5 down the page)

"I am Tem in his rising. I was the Only One [when] I came into existence in Nenu (or Nu). I am Ra when he rose for the first time. I am the Great God who created himself [from] Nenu, and who made his names to become the gods of his company. I am he who is irresistible among the gods. I am Tem, the dweller in his Disk, or Ra in his rising in the eastern horizon of the sky. I am Yesterday; I know To-day 'I am the Bennu (i.e., Phoenix) which is in Anu (Heliopolis), and I keep the register of the things which are created and of those which are not yet in existence." The Company of the gods over whom "Father Tem" presided consisted of Shu and Tefnut, Geb and Nut, Osiris and Isis, and Set and Nephthys. According to one tradition, Tem produced Shu and Tefnut from his own body, and these three gods formed the first Triad, or Trinity, Tem saying, "From [being] god one I became three."


This is the Egyptian Genisis as far as I'm concerned.  Now here's my remix.


We are Penn State Football in our rising.  I was student born when I came to be, the administration wanted no part of me.  Student formed, student coached in the era of no shot gun.  From the roots I grew into a holy name, out of Atherton's era only slower to fame.  I am Pride as He came to be; in my my life I define central PAs history.  I am the irresistible opiate, the center of worship.  Joe Pa was born of me, became icon and will leave legend.  Others were born blue and white, even more grew to be blue and white.  I am, we are millions strong in belief, Penn State, blue and white. 




the authobiography of a yogi

human and divine

honest and mystical

balanced and supernatural

humble and extraordinary

clear and unbelielable






Ode to Remixes



I remix to write and write to remix

I remix to close read and close read so I can remix.

Remix to fix thoughts in my brain

Like centering a picture frame

But the opposite, tilting, can do just the same.

Please remix this, oh won’t you riff on this

For you to switch this ode to remixes,

Iron out and wrinkle it up with any new stitches.


remix this, you ask?

take some meaning, and regroup

into some new form

(haiku remix of ode to remixes, by Unfinished)


Remix this limerick, please do.

Take it and create something new.

Just twist things around

and make a new sound.

Your friends can then remix that, too!

(limerick mix of ode to remixes, also by Unfinished)








The Heart of Prajna Paramite Sutra Remix



When Avery Bond was a child he peered out the window of a 747 and watched Kennedy Airport disappear into a city which disappeared into cloud which became an ambiguous green mass before it once again disappeared into a puffy cloud. There was nothing else. That was the image he clung onto on his first airplane ride. He forgot the pressure in his ears, he forgot the nice flight attendant who got him a blanket and then again an extra ginger ale; he forgot the tiny babies crying, the boredom he felt, he forgot the vacuum of the toilet and he forgot the animal crackers he played with while he simultaneously ate. If it were not for others reminding him, he would have even forgotten that he went to Crater Lake in Oregon, the deepest lake in the US known for its deep blue hue.

As Avery grew he forgot plenty but held onto this cloud for an unknown reason. He would remember this cloud in his dreams, he would remember it while in geography and later on in anthropology; he even remembered it when he first kissed Mary Grace in third grade as she cried.

In college, he became discontent with education. He felt as if he was constantly snacking without ever eating and digesting anything of substance. He was a poor and hungry college kid too aware that this environment was not the real world. He began to be a lab rat for medical studies to get some extra cash and to learn more of himself. Obviously, he found a float tank study.

In his first float he saw the cloud he so vividly remembered appear in the middle of nothingness. The cloud consumed him until there was nothing sepperating Avery from the cloud. Everything was nothing.

Form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So, too, are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness.

Nothing was lost but even emptiness was empty. Nothing was destroyed but nothing ever was what it seemed. Nothing is and nothing was and nothing will ever be.


A religious instance trembled, balanced and danced just on the threshold of understanding for Avery Bond.







In Matthew 13 Jesus explains his reasoning behind parables. When His disciples asked why he spoke in parables 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” His disciples were given the grace to understand Jesus but the rest needed to work for it. It is as if Jesus gave them the wisdom without them working for it because he needed a group to spread the word quickly. This understanding must be a slow process which Jesus did not have time to cultivate in them. So for the rest of us, we must work for the understanding of these parables.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”

In his first parable about the displacement of the seeds, I think Jesus’ message is that some have grace and others do not. If you do not have it, then you will never understand. This predestination principle is haunting but you will never know what you are predestined for: heaven or hell. So once you get past this, you should have the mind set that you can understand, that you are meant to understand.

Another read of this would that it is not predestination but only his audience at the time who was not in tune to his message. It could simply be that they were all doubters from the start and only listening out of a curiosity but had already written him off in their hearts.

While reading this section I found it critical to make sure I knew who Jesus was talking to. At times he denounced hearing when talking about the audience but when he was talking to his disciples the senses were blessed. I think that these senses, the “blessed” are not literal but figurative.

A general theme of these parables is the power of the sower and the potential of the seed. The sower will only harvest those seeds which are fruitful and will burn the rest. But even the smallest of seeds, mustards seed, can and will grow to be the greatest of trees. For many, this is both disheartening and inspiring. I would guess that this is the point. We should realize our smallness in comparison to God but hope for the potential of the mustard seed.




A religious instance trembles just past the threshold of understanding. But the potential, the openness...




When I pray and really try, it still comes down to my mind wandering, mind wandering, wandering

When I read and really try, it still comes down to my mind wandering, mind wandering, wandering

When I write and really try, it still comes down to mind wandering, mind wandering, wandering

When I can't sleep and really try, it still comes down to my mind wandering, mind wandering, wandering

I wonder why my mind wanders.


After really exerting myself today mountain biking, I fell off my bike over some rocks. I looked up and saw the next ridge over and it was wandering too. The ridge kept slipping in the distance. The leaves in the trees closest to me vibrated so clearly. Their colors, texture, prescence so clearly alive and wandering.

I think this happened because my body wanted to shut off and as it was shutting down, everything became clearer.




Themes from discourse 6 in order of appearance: Language, intention, poet/language, poet/king, king/servant, understanding across different languages, connected purpose*, wind, reprimand/love, duality vs. oneness, purpose/light, truth vs appearance.

Rumi’s Discourse 6 has an abundant amount of themes. The jumps are subtle in the structure of the text, there are no markers of verse and the format is straight prose. But behind the structure lies a very complex system of weaving in and out of themes that is hard for the reader to keep up with. The strategy of jumping from parable to parable to an observation is a bit unsettling for the reader. When you combine this strategy with the layers of themes, I am left confused as to how Discourse 6 separates itself from another discourse except for the actual marking of **discourse ****6**. The intention is to confuse the audience while striving for a connection with the sacred. This serves a key purpose to not let anyone feel that they have reached the sacred so easily.

One of the middle themes here was connected purpose. I think Rumi tucks this in to acknowledge that each of themes has a connected purpose but is still very hard to assemble. In scrambling all these themes he wants his audience to find the connections. When I look at these themes and try to combine them I get universal oneness comes from God who allows us to feel guilt in order to love; we must search beyond appearances to find truth and oneness.





My new structure begins with today and still ends with today.



Realityor - I think it's interesting that you mention the Word was God, and I think more importantly, that the Word precedes God. It seems that language is a structure that God fits into, or even more explicitly, embodies. To prove this point further, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, God comes from the root "to call, invoke." God calls us into being, and language calls God into being. I also like your observation that "you" is not capitalized. If Word, or God, is the basic structure, all of us insignificant "you's" are just feeding into it. But considering what we can do with language, and the fact that it makes us who we are, I guess that's not so bad. - buster friendly


I think that there might be a Me inside of me and a You inside of you and that Me and You are tied into the Word but i am not quite tuned in enough to figure it out. At least I'm listening to Rumi and not saying i understand. - Realityor.




In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 (most commonly translated)


By using the verb "was" three times you nail home an existance without explicity saying existed. The vagueness of the term initially allows the reader the gloss over it the first time it is used. But in the same sentence it is used twice more and now it becomes slippery so that the reader must try to grab at the meaning. If we look at the Word as an entity and not even focus the meaning of word, we know that it was there in the beginning. Did the existance of the Word preempt the beginning AKA the Word created time or did the beginning begin on its own and the Word come out of it? Was there a VOID or was there always the Word who created the beginning? I take the first section of 1:1 to mean that the Word created the beginning but this is debatable. The fact that it is debatable allows for argument which brings people together to wonder. This seems to be a common trend in sacred texts. In it’s original language, I wander what word comes first Word or God because here Word precedes God here.


“And the Word was with God”


The only two accented words here are Word and God. The phrase itself brings Word and God together by making every other word unaccented. I would not be surprised if this was the case in the original language. What surprises me the most is the preference of the Word. Think of phrases like “The Holy Spirit is with you,” or “God be with you.” Holy Spirit and God have more authority than ‘you’. But here the Word is with God. (If you’re confused here, I pray that the Word be with you). If I am just looking at the phrase itself it strikes me as very odd. What I am guessing though is this only reflects the complexity of Jesus being one with God.


“and the Word was God”

Now Word and God are the same thing. It leads us back to the beginning of the sentences now creating a cyclical effect.




The first float...


The float was very disorienting in a pleasant way. I realized first hand what it is to see with your mind and not with your eyes. It was also very relaxing. The sensation of floating, the stillness and the slimeyness of my skin were all very new and enjoyable. Time does not exist in the tank because you can't mark by any passage of time except for thoughts or the occasional bizare occurence of vision or hearing. At one point my mind even centered on the scent of a skunk.

I saw a crack of light that spread to about 2 or 3 inches. I even looked away and then still saw it out of the corner of my eye. Sun spots were fairly regular, occassionaly they made shapes that were similar to animals. I heard sharp sudden noises that were as loud as a gentle clap but did not sound like a clap. It more ressembled books dropping in another room.



From the introduction of Rumi's Discourses

"Beware! Do not say, 'I have understood'"

First we are called to be, to exist. Then we are warned do not say, most likely meant to not even think. But I must beware myself to not assume to not think is a correct assumption. The focus in my opinion is on "I have understood." If I understand what this sentence means than I have already failed. The spiral of confusion begins which means I think I am in the right direction. I can only hope that if Rumi himself were apart of this wiki dialogue than he would respond, "Yes you are right. I agree with you too" just as he did to the Qonovi who argued about Rumi's agreement with other Religions. The caution here I think reflects the impossible nature of putting the Sacred into words. If we think we understand then we loose the wonder of the Sacred.


So... we are not supposed to understand. Then what are we supposed to do with this text? Maybe be open to it, ponder it and allow it to draw us towards the Sacred just like Inner bonds draw us to each other.



p. XIV

Rumi continues, “This whole world is but a

house, no more. Whether we go from this room to

that room, or from this corner to that corner, still

are we not in the same house? But the saints who

possess God’s jewel have left this house, they have

gone beyond..."


Rumi also calls God, One Reality. I interpret this to mean that this house or world is a reality that does not often breech (only in the case of the Saints) the One Reality but does not prohibit One Reality from entering this world. If we assume that the saints were human, it also leaves a small opurtunity for us to go beyond, to leave this reality for the One Reality while still existing in this world. The saints then exist both in this world and beyond. Is that heaven on earth?




Buster Friendly was talking about the connection between language and the sacred. From a few readings I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger">Martin Heidegger and what I read of his Poetry, Language, Thought there was a movement in the early twentieth century that made language sacred and replaced standard religions. People who were not satisdied with Christianity were moving to art as the sacred. Heidigger argued that poetry was the foundation of art the means to relate art; even sculptures, paintings and music were at their core poetry.


Language begins with a thought, and the potential for that thought has always existed and we just bring those thoughts to fruition. What those thoughts bring about (i.e. an revelation like Telebiometrics always existed before someone coined it) has always existed. So the scultpor does not create the sculpture, the sculptor only brings out of the marble what has always existed:art.




Genisis - Yesterday was the genesis of my wiki page. Today I will discuss the Genesis of the Bible. Throughout the book I appreciated the acts of humility from those who were in the Lord's favor. Theses stories serve as lessons, sometimes cryptic and sometimes straightforward. While the acts of humility may be a very straightforward lesson, the references of God talking to a group of nonmortals are not so clear. This is what I want to dive into.


In the creation story, we see a strong use of repetition with, " And God said" followed by "Let there be______" We see the power of God's words/will. The story references God as a single all powerful being right until Gen 1:26 where it reads, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over everything created..." Who is us here?


It could possibility refer to the holy trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This seems plausible. Creating something in one's image and a being to rule over all would require some discussion and group consensus. But there has been no explanation to the trinity prior to this so that someone who reads Genesis for the first time may have no idea about the trinity.


Another possible explanation is that this "us" is the type of rhetoric that kings use. In this case we see the emphasis that God is king over man who rules over creation. In other words, the writers of the story needed to inforce the fact that although mankind is ruler of the creation, we are still serviant to the Creator.





Filling the VOID


John Lilly begins his essay with literally filling the void of the page with the single sentence "Before the beginning was the VOID" centered on the page. The interesting paradox of VOID being in all capitals, taking up virtual/screen space and the actual referant of the adscence of objects shakes up the reader. Such a void that merits capitals borders the inefable immediately seeing as at least I cannot wrap my head around such a void. To throw everything out of my head until it is completely void would be the only possible way to imaagine such a void but would also disable any functioning at all.


So this wikijounrey begins with myself filling the page's void with my inability to really grasp the VOID. Clearly the pure concisouness is "the distinguisher yet the non distinguisher".


But maybe this beginning is not the only beginning... Check out the tenth dimension.

Then think about the each new page as it's own universe where we can jump from one to another and alter the future while looking to consider all the possibilities. (I'm not even sure if I made a proper connection with wikis and the tenth dimension but I tried, feel free to help out).



Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.