#denotation versus connotation | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

siena-cawrse · 1 year ago

Text

The Glamorous Versus The Undesirable: Barbie's (2023) Addition to Our Current Landscape of Feminism

Midterm Assessment

To begin analyzing Barbie (Gerwig, 2023) from a theoretical perspective, I will introduce the sources used to provide the theoretical framework for my analysis. The first text is Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s “The Culture Ideology as Mass Deception.” In this work, Horkheimer and Adorno discuss how the culture industry deceives mass audiences by providing them with art that follows a specific formula in order to maximize profit[1]. Not only that, Horkheimer and Adorno push their analysis further to state that the culture industry also enforces social conformity, which results in the individuals and the art that participate in the culture industry lacking a meaningful identity[2]. The second text is “Some Points in the Semiotics of Cinema” by Christian Metz. Throughout the text, Metz develops ideas of how semiotics apply differently to cinema than to other texts. Specifically, he discusses how connotations with respect to cinema are always specifically constructed to convey meaning to the viewer[3]. The third text is Jean Baudrillard’s “Simulacra and Simulations.” Within the text, Baudrillard expands upon the ideas of masks and repetition in poststructuralism by showing the process an image goes through to become a simulacrum. He also gives examples and explanations of simulations in real life, that seem to imitate real life but are too good to be true[4]. I believe a synthesis of these three frameworks of theoretical analysis when applied to Barbie can help us understand what the film is trying to be, and more importantly, what it actually is in our behemoth of a culture industry. Barbie is touted as a piece of prominent feminist media in many current discussions, though just as Barbie is a doll parading through a plastic world, Barbie as a film parades through our world with plastic, shallow feminism. In reality, it promotes the capitalist underpinnings of the culture industry through the signals implanted throughout the film. By simulating a reality where women are in more positions of power than men, the film provides an escape for those who do not want to face the horrors of our current reality.

Section 1: Commonalities and Overlap in Theoretical Analysis

Similarities between these theorists include their analysis of our culture as it relates to our consumption of art. Horkheimer and Adorno posit that the mass consumption of art that has been specifically created for mass consumption has transformed our society into one that is incapable of creating new and innovative art[5]. Baudrillard also discusses that which is created for mass consumption; in his work, he uses Disneyland as an example of a simulation that is designed to keep participants happy and spending lots of money[6]. Metz separates this effect of mass consumption into categories of viewer and filmmaker. The viewer is the one the filmmaker creates art for, and therefore has the viewer in mind when constructing a specific shot, frame, piece of dialogue, and sequence of editing. Metz hones in on connotation, which he finds is the most important part of semiotics in cinema. The reason for this is that, as Metz describes, every moment in cinema is motivated, therefore all of cinema contains connotations rather than denotations[7]. Denotations would be moments that do not carry external meaning, which cannot happen in cinema because the audience arrives to the film armed with their knowledge of society and other films they have seen[8]. Horkheimer and Adorno would perhaps give a reason for this phenomenon being the repetition and careful curation of the art—such as films—that populate the culture industry, which doesn’t allow for much difference in representation[9]. Baudrillard would relate this constant repetition and creation of a singular narrative in the culture industry to the simulated aspect of an image[10]. By his standards, our current culture industry is a simulation in the fourth stage of an image; it no longer represents or reflects our reality accurately. Instead, it projects a simulated reality where idealized versions of ourselves live out vibrant and extravagant lives in the form of stories[11].

Section 2: Differences and Disagreements in Theoretical Analysis

Some differences that appear when putting these theorists in conversation with each other. Mainly, comparing and contrasting them show that their interpretations of our society and the art we create are not entirely aligned. Where Horkheimer and Adorno—as well as Baudrillard to a certain extent—have negative outlooks on the culture industry and the way it transforms our art, Metz mainly discusses film from an objective perspective. His analysis focuses on why we interpret cinema in the way that we do, using semiotics as a basis for this analysis[12]. Horkheimer and Adorno spend much of their work discussing the negative impacts of the culture industry, most of which can be directly tied to cinema, the Hollywood system and other related industries. They mention how the idealization of not just the characters in films but also the actors that portray them provides an aspiration for the “normal” citizens to dream for[13]. The repetitive nature of cinema, sticking to one form of storytelling and method of presentation, also prevents other interpretations from emerging in cinema. New and original art is dismissed while that which is similar to what came before is uplifted[14]. Baudrillard also uses his analysis as a way to criticize the simulations such as Disneyland that have popped up over the years. He makes a point of distinguishing that the simulated version of the image masquerading as reality is intentionally deceptive and is used to draw in consumers[15]. A critical lens is extremely important when looking at the culture industry because it is so all-encompassing. This is why Horkheimer and Adorno and Baudrillard’s analysis is so valuable. But being able to simply understand how the culture industry is able to manipulate our understanding through cinema is also valuable, which is what we take away from Metz’s work.

Section 3: Theorists in Conversation

One scene in particular exemplifies the rampant materialism that Barbie promotes, as well as alluding to the surface level feminism that the film portrays as a genuine attempt at feminist critique. This scene appears early on in the film—the “refusal of the call” if we are to follow Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey monomyth. In it, Kate McKinnon’s Weird Barbie presents Margot Robbie’s Stereotypical Barbie with a choice. She may stay clueless about the Real World and return to her normal life, or “learn the truth about the universe”—direct quote from the film. The “forgetting” option is represented by a pink high heel, possibly the most iconic symbol of a Barbie to ever exist, while the “learn the truth” option is represented by a worn in, brown Birkenstock sandal. This moment evokes the Matrix’s red pill or blue pill scene in what must be an intentional way from Gerwig. However, the trope of the hero choosing to “accept the call” is subverted because Barbie does not want to discover things about the Real World; she would much prefer to live her life never remembering that she had flat feet or—dear gods—cellulite. Another subversion comes with Weird Barbie’s reveal that she can’t actually forget, and it is extremely necessary for her to go on this journey of self-discovery. This moment, of course, is the catalyst for Barbie’s personal journey of self-discovery where she learns not only what it means to be a woman, but what it means to be alive.

I would like to bring this scene in conversation with the works of the theorists I have discussed thus far because I believe their work can help analyze the machinations of the materialistic culture industry that are at work in the scene. More specifically, the relationship between beauty, womanhood and humanity is something worth dissecting further.

If the pink high heel represents the path of least resistance, the one where Barbie gets to forget and return to her perfect, plastic lifestyle, then it becomes very clear that Barbie as a brand represents the idealized versions of humanity that the culture industry touts as a way to keep individuals wishing they were better, or more. Horkheimer and Adorno might chalk this scene up to the idealized versions of ourselves that we see in the culture industry through actors, artists and other celebrity figures. The choice between the heel and the sandal could be seen as a pipe dream set up by the purveyors of the culture industry, who would like individuals to believe that they have a choice in their lives, that there is a possibility that they could ascend to the levels of stardom the famous people in films and television have[16]. The lie, of course, is that the chances of that happening are one in a million. There is no choice; it is a matter of circumstance (and economic status—lots of famous people already come from pretty well-off families who can support them in their careers). With the heel representing the idealized version of ourselves that are always out of reach, the film connects Barbie with the symbol of unattainable beauty and wealth that come with the idealized position celebrities find themselves in. The Birkenstock is for the plain, the everyday, the ones that will blend in with the crowd and lead a totally normal, unglamorous life. But with the illusion of choice, Barbie presents audiences with the idea that you can choose to take the path that leads to this high beauty standard and economic privilege that comes with it. This illusion is presented to the audience in a way that makes it feel like a simulation; the product we are seeing is not what is actually there. Baudrillard posits that the simulation is meant to draw us in and keep us happily engaged in contributing to the capitalist system, whether that be spending or making money[17]. In the context of Barbie, the simulated choice between an expensive-looking high heel and a cheap, run-down looking sandal makes the viewer think that one is clearly the more high-end option that will bring them to a higher social standing, despite the fact that Birkenstocks can actually rack up pretty decent prices for a pair of shoes. However, the film rejects the idea that a choice between the two is even possible, with Weird Barbie doubling down on the fact that the “right” choice is the sandal, also known as the “normal” life option. Perhaps this is the film’s way of accepting the fact that unrealistic beauty standards and the materialistic aspects of Barbie the brand are not accessible to everyone.

Metz’s work tells us that audiences come in with preconceived notions to a film, which is why even the slightest details are worth analyzing since they can affect someone’s perception of the story. Going into Barbie, we can assume that everyone in the theater has played with, seen, or at least heard of the toy for which the film is named[18]. Therefore, the intentional association of Barbie—the brand��with a pink, plastic high heel shows how the film is intentionally connecting a symbol of womanhood with strict beauty standards and materialism. In opposition to that is the Birkenstock sandal, which is an ugly brown color and seems to be quite well worn. Opposing a more laid back lifestyle through a shoe that is associated with a lower beauty standard with the classic shoe style worn by beautiful women—one of whom being Barbie—also opposes a (non-gender specific) human lifestyle with that of womanhood. The signs are there: heel or Birkenstock. The underlying connotation would be that women will have to choose between conforming to a strict beauty standard (one that is partially set by brands like Barbie) and living their lives more freely but having to sacrifice their femininity to do so. Also, not taking a pluralistic approach to femininity severely damages the feminist dialogue the film is trying to create. I think a more shallow reading of this scene—just looking at the interpretation of the two shoes there are to choose from—could be saying that there is no one way to live as a woman. However, the fact that Barbie immediately wants to choose to “forget” and go back to a perfect lifestyle puts that performance of femininity on a pedestal, something to reach for but never truly attainable—unless, of course, you are Barbie.

Conclusion: Synthesis

To conclude, the theoretical works discussed in this analysis provide much-needed insight on the underpinnings of the culture industry that are masquerading within Barbie. Though the film may contain feminist messaging and truly does a good job at introducing new feminists to this type of thinking and language, the film does not live up to the hype it was getting as a great new piece of feminist media. Mainly these problems come from the idealization of capitalism and materialism through the brand of Barbie itself, which encourages material spending and sets a beauty standard that is basically unreachable for most women, limiting the kind of beauty to a specific expression of femininity. Barbie also simulates a choice for viewers that further encourages the idealization of celebrity figures, though in reality the choice is a matter of circumstance. Though it claims to be a piece of feminist literature for mass audiences, Barbie ends up as feminism for—and by—the ruling class.

[1] Horkheimer and Adorno

[2] Horkheimer and Adorno

[3] Metz

[4] Baudrillard

[5] Horkheimer and Adorno

[6] Baudrillard

[7] Metz

[8] Metz

[9] Horkheimer and Adorno

[10] Baudrillard

[11] Baudrillard

[12] Metz

[13] Horkheimer and Adorno

[14] Horkheimer and Adorno

[15] Baudrillard

[16] Horkheimer and Adorno

[17] Baurdrillard

[18] Metz

@theuncannyprofessoro

#oxyvisualanalysis

1 note · View note

eelliottarts245-02 · 2 years ago

Text

Process Blog 5

This week in ARTS 102 we read ch. 15 which was about user interface design. The reading discussed the importance of designers taking into account how users interact with products. For our fifth project, we were tasked to analyze a product in 4 different forms: I chose to look at 4 types of hats. They included a beanie, baseball cap, trucker hat, and a dad cap. By breaking down each type of hat into a basic category and form I was able to really explain each one. For the syntax we had to describe the object's visual elements and relationships. So this part was like an alien description of the object using colors and simple shapes to describe what it looked like. For this part it was difficult to describe the hat in a very basic way. For example with the smiley face trucker hat I had to figure out a way to describe the smiley face without saying "there is a smiley face in the center of the object". Then we had to describe the semantics of the object which broke down the denotation, expression, and connotation. Finally we had to describe it's presence, so places where it would blend in and be normal to see versus places where it would stand out and be weird to see. Overall this project helped me understand how to break down an object and to better understand syntax and semantics.

0 notes

nopoodles · 3 years ago

Text

I'm begging people to stop saying "said is invisible"

It's not invisible, it's a simple locational device. It shows the reader nothing more than who is speaking. Which is super useful!

Use said effectively and appropriately as you would any other dialogue tag. But for the love of all that is good please stop pretending it's invisible. If every dialogue tag you use is "said" it gets really visible really fast and it goes from visible to annoying pretty sharpish after that too.

The solution to the Dialogue Tag Problem is learning when to use a tag at all versus when to not. (I have a whole video on this here if you want it but)

There are 4 ways to denote who is speaking and the primary and most important one is Context

If you have 2 people in a conversation and one says something, then there's a line and different dialogue - it's the other person speaking.

Eg:

Context, Merry and Kalik are sparring, they are the only two people in the scene.

"Why would I find someone else when you're right here and almost willing to help?" Kalik asked

"Almost?"

"Almost."

Another option is Action Blocking (sometimes referred to as stage direction), where you describe what a character is doing and follow it up with dialogue, or dialogue then character action.

Eg:

Kalik pulled a crystal from his pocket. "What colour is this crystal?"

"You wanna spar?" Kalik was already shifting over to the sparring mats in anticipation of agreement.

Then there's Dialogue Tags that come in two forms: specific and generic.

Specific Dialogue Tags are ones that have specific connotations like yelled, hissed, snarled etc - these should only be used with intent and purpose. And they should be used sparingly lest they undermine the message of your story and dialogue. Characters should match one another and, in all likelihood, you won't need to use more than one each unless the character is actively changing tone.

(context, Merry and Whitclé are the only people in the scene)

"No," Commander Jonathan Whitclé said flatly.

"What do you mean no?" I snapped.

"You are not suitable for the position."

"Well why the hell not?"

Then there's Generic Dialogue Tags which are used as locators to remind or out and out tell the reader who is speaking but not how (or that they're speaking in a level way or you can pair them with an adverb of piece of description like "through clenched teeth" or whatever but I digress). These are your saids, your askeds, your respondeds and answereds, things like that.

These should also be used with purpose. Ask yourself if the reader needs to be reminded who is talking. Pair them with a chunk of description or internal monologue to reorientate the reader to who is/was talking. Use them to make the point that one character is emotionally heightened and another is not.

All this to say, said is not invisible it's just plain, like a palate cleanser between rich courses of a meal. It's a shitty meal if all you get is palate cleansers.

(also the reason your English teacher told you not to use said was so that you would get familiar with using other dialogue tags so you could do what I'm describing in this whole post. It's not their fault some people clung to that task and never let go. This is the blue fucking curtains all over again!)

#writing advice #said is dead #except its not #said is invisible #except its not that either

7 notes · View notes

fixyourwritinghabits · 5 years ago

Note

Hello there! Personally I like the way I write, but I am aware that I have a bit of a problem. I'm a creative writer used to writing short vignettes with a lot of purple prose, and I'm currently trying to write a longer, more plot heavy story. However, I've noticed that purple prose tends to slip into my story a lot, and since so much of my story is based on emotional growth and thought patterns of the protagonists, I feel like I can't get rid of it all. How do I strike a balance?

I personally feel like fear of purple prose is overwrought (one of my favorite books has half the reviews saying it was too difficult to read, but I feel the language is justified*). The often repeated advice is “Are you using a long word when a shorter one would do better?” - But again, context is essential. Language is meant to be used.

When approaching the thorny issue of purple prose, ask yourself a few questions:

Can we understand what you mean? Are your sentences too lengthy, stuffed to the gills with words that require a reader to take five minutes to comprehend? Are your paragraphs pages long? Your challenge there is not being too purple, it’s not thinking about readability. Restructuring your work for easier reading flow will go far in fixing a lot of things that aren’t really the issue.

Are you using a word that’s not distinctive enough? Hey, did you know the word bemuse can mean ‘confuse’ or ‘amuse’? What the fuck, English. While not all words are like that, and some will boil down to connotation versus denotation, unless you’re trying to deliberately confuse, be sure the context is clear. (Bemuse, by the way, is a very handy word that I heartily recommend using - just make sure we know if it’s an amused or confused reaction!)

Are you getting feedback that’s useful? Not everyone is going to be a useful beta reader, and that’s okay, but if all you get is ‘this feels like purple prose’ and not any stated reasons, you may need to seek out new readers. You need to know what’s getting this response in details (sentence structure? Too many complicated words at once? etc) before you can tackle any issues.

Don’t fear purple prose! It is not the devil it’s made out to be, and fixing it just requires approaching how you write and what you can do to reach your audience.

(*The book in question is Riddance: Or: The Sybil Joines Vocational School for Ghost Speakers & Hearing-Mouth Children. It is a heady, esoteric read, but the language use is justified and in character. If you liked House of Leaves, give this book a shot!)

#writing advice #language #purple prose #archetypal-archivist

90 notes · View notes

atrayo · 4 years ago

Text

Channeled Angelic Wisdom of the Jewels of Truth Series and Favorite Quotes of the Month of September

Hello All,

I always have the bad habit of waiting until the tail end of the month to make a channeled angelic entry here to Atrayo's Oracle. Since I'm also a PC gamer I'm also tied into enjoying the retail release of Amazon's Game Studio of New World come this Sept. 28th. I'll be gaming with my online gamer community of 17 years now that I've been a member of online. They're called "The Older Gamers" one has to be over the age of 25 yrs old to become a member. I'll be the guild leader for the US/EU branch on an East Coast North American server. (shameless gamer plug)

Tonight's trio of Jewels of Truth statements is channeled angelic wisdom, metaphysics, and mysticism. On the topics of a Multi-Dimensional Soul where I channel a historical figure named Josephus the old. Next, there is To Be the I Am which dispels one of the pet peeves I hear often in New Age circles. Where innocently someone remarks we're born into this reality just to learn and grow like this realm is an elementary school for souls. I roll my eyes when I hear this due to my cultivated relationship as an angelic channeler via claircognizance. (claircognizance is the psychic ability to channel knowledge and wisdom beyond one's lifetime.)

Lastly, the final topic is a zinger on two counts! It's titled the Younger Dominions of God. Where not unlike the metaphysical author of Neal Donald Walsch of "Conversations with God" a famous book series. I also channel this statement from God him/her/itself, which I've done on past occasions. This topic blew my mind when it flashed before my mind's eye as an inspiration. Basically, our Creation and the afterlife of heaven and hell are the godly early forms of the Supreme God of all gods Absolute. Meaning these are the terrible two's, tween years, and teenage raging hormone years on a human equalivent scale of God itself.

The Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of Macro Supreme Realities dimensionally speaking. These realms of ours of the endless Infinite hells, Creation (ie our Meta-Universe), and the Majestic Heavens are the stratification of the evolutionary growth of God in a meta sense if compared to maturation. These realms astral or otherwise are the goldilocks years of God(dess) akin to a nursery for all souls, angelic kind, including elder angels. As the lesser deities of countless faiths or dead religions as mythologies to us in our modernity.

Before I go too deep on the topic allow me to just write down the channeling from the Creator him/her/itself.

Also, a shout out to Tessa Luna Lluvia my original online mentor as an expert psychic-medium. She's kindly listed my books of the Jewels of Truth Series on her website. (bottom 8th row of the book listings)

As always no matter if these topics seem too fringe for your imaginations and spiritual belief systems. Allow them to just kindly expand your horizons of the immense grandeur of God Everlasting. Amen.

Multi-Dimensional Souls

3081) Here are the many fields of splendor possible within the grasp of the human condition by far. Nay beyond humanity itself can this spectrum of countless possibilities co-exist to exemplify all lifeforms in unison as Children of a Living God(dess). What I "Josephus the Old" will explain is that the godly soul of all spiritual beings when incarnated experiences a buffer of contrasts when alive on Earth.

For example, when a person commits wrongdoing as grotesque evils. That reincarnated soul as an individual entity has siphoned poorly from the evils metaphysically from the godless Hells, hereto unknown to humanity. Again another primitive example is a godly pious person of righteousness does good in the world without seeking high praises of whatnots. That individual spiritual entity of God has channeled the God Blessed Heavens robustly and directly upon this Earth. Whether this happens unwittingly or not.

The final example is whether a person is neutral and allows good or evil to flourish without personal involvement regardless of what occurs. Such a soul enters into a form of Limbo upon the world swayed easily without guile or reservation as a direct cause and effect. Akin to a sub-set of Karma upon the earth reality sphere of governing elements metaphysically.

The trio of the fates as conundrums of paradoxical fits and starts are prevailing winds of the afterlife set upon all mortal kind be it human or otherwise as creatures. With direct inputs and outputs upon the world and the meta-universes be they cosmic or of a metaphysical unholy/neutral/holy matrix of experiences as existential realities go.

To this end do not allow the oversimplification of these crude examples to paint only a black, gray, and white picture as a canvas of these meta-realities. There is a relativistic spectrum of contrasts akin to manifold kaleidoscopes of endless pigments of possibilities. As configurations of good, neutrality, and evil encompass universally as archetypes of behavior in all lesser Universes combined!

We have exhausted our range or scope of expressions without first mentioning as all souls are in the One Supreme Loving Image and Likeness of God. Denotes all Souls as a united continuum are multifaceted dimensionally as metaphysical entities before being people with physical bodies with an aura upon your current age or eon of your Earth.

As God(dess) is everything as Omni-Present denotes your souls in God are also everywhere God is forever. No matter you as the lesser children of God realize this in your global religions or not. It makes your magicks work as expressions of divinity constantly. Amen. ---Ivan Pozo-Illas / Atrayo. (Channeled Source Entity of Josephus the Old.)

To Be the I Am:

3083) Many in New Age spiritual circles inquire from fellow advanced participants and elders what is Life? Most respond with confidence that it is a school for young souls to evolve and grow further. This canned response is only partially true, however, it is incomplete in its scope of a response generically.

Life and Death as contrasting phenomena are far richer than such a one-dimensional interpretation of our spiritual unified reality with God(dess), and the Heavenly Host Infinitely meets at large always and forever. There are actually seven dimensions of spiritual being, if not more overall as archetypes of a universal basis of our united divinity with God(dess).

For Instance, the aforementioned scope of Life as a school is true but as one dimension so as to learn and grow as eternal souls having a human experience. Next in no particular order of grace of any of these roles is to Love like God(dess) and the Angels. Unconditionally in moderation so as to avoid fanaticism or zealotry as obsessive traits of passion and/or of true love.

Next comes to be of Service in moderation not necessarily as a selfless saint or angel that lives to extremes. However, to cultivate humanity or divinity on Earth with mutual compassion and empathy for those in need or of want. To serve in a volunteer capacity versus being employed in commercial industries denotes a deeper form of caring.

To be just as civilized and law-abiding or hospitable in the world. Followed closely with having a noble personality of character as benevolent in the human-divine holy nature like God and the Angels in the endless Heavens.

Next is to create or destroy like God in the universe. If destroy is too strong a negative connotation then let it be to uproot, erase, or recycle like God at the human micro-scale of being alive. As God(dess) is the Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of macro realities en masse by Infinite scales and over the corridor of eternities.

The last two dimensional roles go hand in hand as fellowship or socialization with positive impacts of compassionate norms be it caring for one another as God has cared for each of us. Lastly to worship Inclusively like God(dess) as an unceasing with positive moderation with mutual respect and adoration to positive foreign beliefs and other cultural traditions of God in our shared world. Amen. ---Ivan Pozo-Illas / Atrayo.

Younger Dominions of God:

3080) To the one that reads these simple words come away with a wider understanding of what "I am that I am" is as the Constant Creator, God of all Totalities United! What "I am" is not simple but complex beyond human total comprehension. So in childish terms of "I am" is utilized all around for all levels of basic comprehension as my living beautiful souls.

What you call as Creation as a meta-construct of reality as the Universe(s), Galaxies, Solar Systems, etc... This is merely one of my countless younger expressions of my Ultimate Majestic godly nature, fully seeped upon material physicality and so much greater yet still.

What humanity denotes as the afterlife of Hell as the underworld. The neutral reality of metaphysical limbo or purgatory as either a realm of heightened enlightenment or for the uninitiated as numbing detachment as apathy. With the stupendous exalted Heavens are all grade school versions of my adolescent corpus of my total Supreme Creation as the Absolute Self.

The Infinite and timeless Hells, Limbos, Creations, and Heavens are each stratum of my youthful forms of expressions. As the Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of cosmic and ethereal realms of pure totalities of "I am" essence and personified substances. For To Be the I am that I am as the God of all gods plural in a Supreme Fashion has other greater dominions of realism. Each by far beyond the rudimentary tenure of my youth as the Hells, Limbos, Creation(s), and the Heavens can contain forever as my meta corpus.

For example, every dominion where good, neutrality, and evil are located is a moot point having never existed prior. There is no such power struggle of contrasts of differences. A Uni-polar reality versus a multi-polar existence of Principles that tranquility reigns constantly. Only in the realms of my godly youth does contrast stand out in stark terms of the illusion of a good versus evil approach as an eternal useless struggle.

In my youth like environs of ethereal and otherwise physical existence goes. That my younger created lesser children such as humanity and other permutations of my infinity of expressions. Truly mirror my existential struggles of archaic yesterdays as eternities of long ago. I have matured far greater and this creates, sustains, and destroys for another set of challenges and opportunities elsewhere in my Meta-Verse of cosmic and ethereal Superiority as the Apex God of all gods. Amen. ---Ivan Pozo-Illas / Atrayo. (Channeled Source as God(dess)

You can never run away. Not ever. The only way out is in. ---Junot Diaz.

Nature is not a place to visit, It is home. ---Gary Snyder.

Grace is the ability to redefine the boundaries of possibility. ---Manning Marable.

One of life's most fulfilling moments occurs in the split-second when the familiar is suddenly transformed into the dazzling aura of the profoundly new. ---Edward B. Lindaman.

What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are. ---C.S. Lewis.

Ivan "Atrayo" Pozo-Illas, has devoted 26 years of his life to the pursuit of clairaudient Inspired automatic writing channeling the Angelic host. Ivan is the author of the spiritual wisdom series of "Jewels of Truth" consisting of 3 volumes published to date. He also channels conceptual designs that are multi-faceted for the next society to come that are solutions based as a form of dharmic service. Numerous examples of his work are available at "Atrayo's Oracle" blog site of 16 years plus online.��You're welcome to visit his website "Jewelsoftruth.us" for further information or to contact Atrayo directly.

#Jewels of Truth #Atrayo's Oracle #Ivan Pozo-Illas #Angels #God #Josephus #psychic #channeler #spirit guides #spiritual teacher #spiritualwisdom #spirituality #metaphysics #mysticism #To Be the I am #Multi-dimensional Souls #Younger Dominions of God

1 note · View note

farmerlan · 5 years ago

Note

thank you so much for the honorifics post, it's super helpful!! can I ask a question? sometimes I see 老师 used and I can't tell why that specific term is being used versus 师尊? am I missing some connotation? also, any ideas on what an appropriate way would be to address someone else's shizun (as a disciple)? thank you again!!

Oh yeah! 老师 means teacher, you can use it to refer to any older person in an instructional capacity. I’m no expert, but even though this is the de facto word used to address teachers nowadays, I actually don’t recall this being a common term used in period dramas.

So I did some googling and even though the phrase itself has its origins in the the Shi Ji by Sima Qian way back around 94BC, it seems like using 老师 to refer to teachers really only entered common vernacular post-Xinhai Revolution when modern day China was founded, in the early 1900s. So it’s not wrong to use this, but...I really don’t think I’ve encountered it very often in historical fiction. In one of the author’s other novels, Scum Villian’s Self-Saving System, she uses 老师 a lot more than she does in MDZS because of the nature of the main character, but this is used in inner dialogue (which makes sense), and never used as a form of address externally.

The simplest way to address someone else’s shizun back then would just be 前辈/ qianbei, since you’re not directly related to them and they’re in a more senior position relative to you. There’s no (AFAIK) specific word to denote someone else’s shizun.

Nowadays, everything is much simpler and you just refer to everyone as 老师 or 先生 haha.

#honorifics #meta #mdzs #the untamed #mo dao zu shi #魔道祖师

36 notes · View notes

hellomynameisbisexual · 5 years ago

Text

Pansexuality as a concept goes back to the time of Freud, but has achieved new currency as celebrities and an increasing number of millennial youth have claimed a pansexual identity (Grinberg). Whether it connotes a sexual/romantic orientation in addition to an identity is unclear; who is pansexual rests on a proverbial slippery slope.

Pansexual could refer to someone who is sexually and/or romantically attracted to a person regardless of that person’s biological sex — It’s not their biological equipment that is most critical. Sociologist Emily Lenning expanded this definition by centrally including gender. Hence, pansexuality is “a sexual attraction to all people, regardless of their gender identity or biological sex.” Others extend even this broad definition by delineating pansexuality as being not about the sexual equipment of the individual or how feminine or masculine the individual is or feels (gender identity), but about the person as an individual — inclusive of just about anything.

As a working definition, though, most researchers would follow Morandini and colleagues:

“Pansexual is often conceptualized as a label that denotes sexual or romantic attraction to people regardless of their gender expression (masculinity or femininity), gender identity, or biological sex.”

They reported that among nonheterosexual pansexual individuals, five times more women than men identified as pansexual. Also more likely to identify as pansexual were nonheterosexuals from younger generations and those who have a gender identity, gender expression, or gender role that society considers inappropriate for the sex one was assigned at birth (aka “noncisgender”). Finally, pansexual individuals “overwhelmingly represented their sexual/romantic attractions as falling within the bisexual range of the sexual continuum.”

This last point has been problematic for many, including the singer/actress Miley Cyrus, who recently came out as pansexual. In a 2016 interview with Variety, she said:

"I always hated the word ‘bisexual,’ because that’s even putting me in a box. I don’t ever think about someone being a boy or someone being a girl… My eyes started opening in the fifth or sixth grade. My first relationship in my life was with a chick… I saw one human in particular who didn’t identify as male or female. Looking at them, they were both: beautiful and sexy and tough but vulnerable and feminine but masculine. And I related to that person more than I related to anyone in my life."

I agree that we should be very careful to distinguish pansexual from bisexual individuals, even though many pansexuals have “bisexual” attractions and behaviors. However, as Morandini and colleagues pointed out, pansexuality per se “explicitly rejects attractions based on binary notions of sex (male versus female) and gender (man versus woman).” Lenning noted, “Whereas bisexuality implies a dichotomy, pansexuality suggests the possibility of attraction to a spectrum of gender identities.”

In addition, there are also many individuals who are exclusively or mostly straight or gay in terms of their sexual orientation who also identify as pansexual. They and others who are in the middle sexualities of the sexual continuum stress additional aspects of the person — such as their personality, temperament, likeability, or body type.

Here are four young men I’ve interviewed who identify as pansexual — note their emphasis on “the person” and on their own fluidity:

Charles, 18: “Sort of don’t think of myself as straight or as only attracted to girls. Don’t think of myself as gay or bisexual, but just attracted to all people the same. Attracted to the person and not the gender. Nothing to do with them being male or female.”

Marcos, 19: “Gender is not an issue. It is the person, the personality.”

Dave, 23: “Pansexual because depends on the person. I tell people I’m bisexual, but I like girls more, and that I’m sexually attracted to guys, but more into girls, because I find more qualities that I like and find sexually attractive.”

Kenworthy, 23: “Pansexual. It’s easier to say than bisexual. It depends on the situation. I might say straight…Whatever is true to go with sexual attractions and infatuations at the moment.”

The reality is that we actually know little about pansexuals and pansexuality. For example, we don’t even know the prevalence of pansexuals, largely because "pansexual" is seldom offered as an option in research studies. We also don’t know pansexuals’ developmental milestones, sexual and romantic histories, personality characteristics, variations among sociodemographic variables such as race/ethnicity or social class, or even societal attitudes and beliefs about pansexuals.

This is unfortunate because pansexuality is a real thing with repercussions and importance among millennial youth who are searching for identities that adequately reflect where they are with their internal sexual and romantic compass. Pansexuality offers teenagers an opportunity not to rule out anyone solely because of their sex or gender (Papisova). It explodes traditional categorical identities, such as straight, bisexual, and gay.

23 notes · View notes

largemaxa · 5 years ago

Text

The Spiritual Path to God

For those of us who believe that God is the pinnacle of being and the ultimate reality, surely an encounter with him would be regarded as supremely Good—perhaps as the one supreme Good towards which our entire lives trend. Perhaps the experience—the reality—of constantly dwelling in his nature would be the final aim of human life, if that could be done. But how are we to reach him or dwell in him? And are we even sure that "reaching" him is the best conception of what we need to do? There have been many proposals for man's attitude to God over the millenia, and they are not all in agreement that "reaching God" is the proper aim of human life. Even if we set aside those who claim that God does not even exist, there is also another persistent set of claims from the major world religions that argue that we are not supposed to pursue God directly at all, and our aim should rather be to live in accordance with guidelines—and within appropriate bounds—that he has set out for humans to follow.

In this essay we explore the option of growing closer to God by pursuing a "spiritual path" that is independent of outer institutions and structures. This proposal has a few components. We must accept that the entity called God exists. We also accept that our aim is to grow closer to Him—as opposed to us ignoring him and him ignoring us. And then there's the the method of doing this—via the spiritual path. This implies that there are other methods. What is the nature of this "spiritual" approach and what distinguishes it from the other approaches?

What's in a word?

By the 21st century, the word "spiritual" has become overlaid with so many different meanings that it is hard to tell what exactly it refers to. Does it refer to the search for meaning in human life in general? Is it a neutral-sounding code word for specific Eastern religious doctrines that are incompatible with Western religious doctrines and attempting to supplant them? Is it a meaningless term that can have no meaning because the realities it purports to describe don't exist? This vagueness can be offputting to those who value pragmatism and rigor. Though the word shows no sign of declining in usage now, those who value the word and what it means should at least attempt to take care of its usage. After all, we have seen a backlash against the word "religious", with a trend towards people using the qualification that they are "spiritual" but not "religious" because of the negative connotations from the rigidities and archaic qualities of religions, so it's not entirely out of the question that if negative associations to the word "spiritual" develop, the word may develop a similar disrepute among serious people.

I cannot claim to give a single watertight definition of "spiritual" or "spirituality" that will match the usage of all people—that would cover, say, all of the senses listed in the previous paragraph. After all, the nature of language is that words change their meanings over time in accordance with human usage. Instead I will make one attempt at tracing out a vision that I believe this concept corresponds to, and will also claim that this use has a certain justification and correctness, even if it cannot claim to be the absolute correct usage of the term for all time.

But even to make an initial definition as to precisely what I mean for this specific context is difficult: spirituality can have many different definitions because we can emphasize different things about it, just as when looking at a diamond from different angles we may see many different gleams, facets, and shapes even though we're looking at the same object. We could define spirituality in terms of the individual or in terms of God; in terms of actions, or in terms of a worldview; philosophically or from a historical perspective, contrasting it to other concrete choices one may be facing. We'll start with the idea of "spirit", which is the Divine essence which lies behind everything in the material world—in the case of man, that Divine essence which lies beyond the external manifestations of the body, mind, and emotions. Our initial definition of spirituality is that it is a way of living with the aim of contacting that Divine spiritual essence and bringing out its expressions in life. And the spiritual life, or the spiritual path, is the life path we walk when we live this way.

This definition may seem quite harmless—who could disagree with the aim of living life with an aim to express the inner spirit? But to better understand what exactly the spiritual approach is, it's most helpful to contrast it to two other possibilities of life, the religious life and the material life. By doing this, we'll gain more specificity in our definition of the spiritual life by adding both positive and negative parts to our defininition of spirituality. The idea of spirituality might be simple, but following it out to its full potential requires individual independence and an eventual departure from other recognized forms of life.

To a religious worldview, "spirituality" is vague and wishy-washy concept, denoting an overly permissive practice that would seek to avoid the rigors and sound structures of religious tradition. A second criticism might come from a pragmatic and/or secular perspective: to this way of thinking, "spirituality" would denote the pursuit of chimeras and invisible enigmas, a way of living that shies away from the demands and practicalities of real life. In other words, the religious would hold that the approach to God that the spiritual perspective advocates is not possible outside of its institutional structures, while the secular pragmatist would claim that the approach to God is not even possible at all because it contradicts what we know of normal life.

But if there really is a substantive method of approaching God in a more purely spiritual way—that is, if the spiritual path as an approach to God really exists—then it must turn out that these these criticisms have no real force.

The material life

By "the material life" we refer to all possibilities of human life that are not tuned to God or the spirit in any significant way. This would include, for example, the lives of those who are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise secular and don't profess any active belief in God, but it would also includes the broad swath of people who are formally religious but don't practice in any significant way. It could even include those who are concerned with the deeper meaning of human life, who seek a life of meaning and purpose and could be said to be engaged with with the "human spirit" in a broad sense, with more emphasis on "human" than "spirit"—for example, artists and philosophers who explore mental and emotional idealism but are not oriented towards pursuit of God or the Absolute.

In the mundane life, there are other objects and goals that are seen as more worthy of pursuit than God: career attainments, sensory pleasures, money, family life, glory of country, support of the community. Even pursuing high ideals like philanthropy and service to humanity, while not incompatible with the spiritual life, are not necessarily spiritual in themselves if they are done with a purely secular attitude. While it is true that all of these things are forms and expressions of God, the crucial difference between the material and the spiritual life is that in the material life these are viewed as ends in themselves and not as so many expressions of God through which to approach him. The spiritual life is actually made out of some of the same ingredients as the normal life: someone following the spiritual path still uses money, still engages with friends and family, still conducts work according various to ideas and human organizational structures, but the difference is just that the spiritual seeker only pursues those activities which bring one closer to God, and sees them as expressions of the spirit rather than ends in themselves.

In practice, one who pursues this mundane life will have some fixed point beyond which they refuse to see, a point past which they stop caring about seeking for the truth of God. It may be romantic love or one's family, it may be one's country, it may be artistic expression, or it may be the idealistic service of all humanity, but as long as there is any barrier at which one feels content, uninterested, or indifferent about continuing to seek for God, it is not yet the spiritual life. Once again, this does not mean that the spiritual seeker does not engage with these forms in the outer life: someone with the proper spiritual attitude could be living with their family, doing work that is of national service, and deeply involved with the community, and as long as she sees these as being tools and forms of the spirit, meeting the outer demand with the proper spiritual attitude.

One way to view this is in terms of consciousness and unconsciousness. We could say that people who pursue the material life are still themselves expressions of the spirit in things, but they have not grown not conscious of that fact yet, while those who pursue the spiritual life have reached the point where they are conscious of the spiritual nature of life and want to express and explore it fully. This should not be viewed as any sort of deficiency on the part of those who choose to live the material life—most spiritual philosophies would hold that they are living in the way that is correct for their level of spiritual maturity, and they may be drawn to the spiritual life later at the appropriate stage of spiritual growth (perhaps even in another human lifetime).

Another way to view the difference between the material life and the spiritual life is in terms of the gratification of the ego versus the search for God. The ego is a psychological construct evolved by evolution that causes each individual to view him or herself as the central and most important being in the universe. But the ego is capable of extending itself and incorporating larger forms as well, so that the individual transfers his or her egoic identification to other things: someone could be selfless in one's contribution to one's family or country but still be attached to the family or country as an extension of one's ego, in which case they are engaged with the mundane life as opposed to the spiritual pursuit of God. So long as there is any finite form or object in the universe that the individual identifies their ego with more than the enthusiasm to dissolve the ego into service and devotion to God, they are still living the material life.

The religious life

The religious life is another conception of life that we can contrast better understand the spiritual life. In some ways, the religious life is more similar to the spiritual life than the material life is—the important similarity being that the religious life, like the spiritual life, is directed towards God. One question important we must ask, then, is whether these are really two different things. The primary distinction is that in the religious life, one relates to God specifically through through the rituals, forms, and social institutions of an organized religious tradition. The major world religions—Christianity (in its Catholic and Protestant variants), Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism—each provide their own social and ritualistic structures for doing this. The details vary greatly, and are subject to extensive scholarly and lay commentary study, but some common features include regular worship services that draw the entire community together, an official institutional hierarchy distinguishing between clergy and laypeople, and a system of social norms for living that is suggested by the institution and enforced by the social community.

For our definition of spirituality,—the attempt to contact and bring out the inner spirit—we didn't specify that the relation to God must take place within an organized religious institution; but we also didn't specify that it must *not* take place within a tradition. So if these are two ways of relating to God, what is the difference between them? In fact, there is no absolute line between the two, and they are not strictly contradictory to each other. We could say in principle that the religious life is one form of the spiritual life. But it is possible to participate in the structures of an institution while paying little or no attention to the truly spiritual aspects—that is, the possibility of being religious without being spiritual, just as there is the possibility of being spiritual without being religious. One could say that it is possible to pursue a spiritual path either inside and outside a religious tradition, but the religious life isn't necessarily spiritual.

There is no absolute conflict between the spiritual and the religious conceptions of life. But the purpose of this section is ostensibly to attempt to understand the spiritual life by contrast to the religious life. Where, then, is the problem, contrast, or condtradiction? One seed of discord between the two approaches lies in the difference in their goals and purposes. Religions tend to be about organizing the religious life of a community, whereas the spiritual approach is about the relationship between the individual and God, without necessarily excluding the idea of community support. One possible result can that religions can devolve to the point where not much spirituality is involved at all, and adherents meet all of their outward obligations to maintain good social standing in a religious community, making a purely outward show of faith without having a real inner relation to God at all. Or it can lead to outward concerns and priorities overwhelming spiritual priorities; a common pattern is for the institution to become dependent on secular sources for funding and compromise its spiritual integrity. In Christianity, for example, we see the story of Jesus' anger at the moneychangers at the temple, or the later example of the Catholic Church's use of indulgences in the middle ages. Usually a religious reform movement arises within the religion itself whenever the inner spirit of a religion fails to meet the spiritual needs of its adherents; at that point it must either change its forms, ossify into a spiritless shell, or fail completely.

While the previous examples show some things that can go wrong with religious approach, they don't prove that the religious approach will always fail or that the spiritual approach will do any better. After all, if religions sometimes ossified to become too involved with money, they were also often restored to a more spiritual nature by powerful saints and prophets, to the spiritual benefits of many adherents. And of course, so many billions of people have in the past and present found refuge for their souls within these institutions. From a spiritual perspective, there is no reason why a particular set of rituals, spiritual doctrines, and religious community should be inherently in conflict with the spiritual impulse to seek God, especially since the professed goals of the religious approach is to seek God as well. Therefore, in principle, one could still satisfy the spiritual need while working within a religious institutional structures. But, of course, if there was no conflict between the spiritual impulse and religious structures, there would be no reason for any individual to seek out an independent spiritual path we are discussing here.

In practice, we find that the independent spiritual path meets a need that is not satisfied by religious institutions, as there are specific issues that individuals with a spiritual inclination may find when participating in currently existing religious institutions:

-Truth: Organized religious traditions may profess beliefs—and require them to be professed by adherents—that conflict with what intelligent and conscientious individuals know to be true about the world from perspectives and ways of knowing outside religion. One of the most prominent examples over the past several centuries has been science, with the most famous and influential individual conflict being Galileo's disagreement with the Catholic Church. But religious traditions continue to make claims that conflict with what cutting edge science says about the universe.

This is not to say that science is the highest standard for truth that we have as spiritual seekers. But there are more and less convincing ways for a religious tradition to reconcile its doctrines with those of science, and there are different preferences that one may have for evaluating the reconciliation. If the religious doctrine cannot square itself with the rest of what an individual knows about the world, it can't be an eventual fit. Science isn't the only way that religious doctrine can conflict with one's sense of truth; another possible issue could simply be belief in the religious claims that the religion is making, whether they are about ancient prophesies, supernatural miracles, or interpretations of historical events. Rationality is not the ultimate standard or arbiter in matters of the spirit, but at the same time, if the claims of a religion cause a strong and irreconcilable conflict in the rational mind, it is not likely that it can be a permanent spiritual solution for the soul.

-Ethics: Similarly, if a religion conflicts with what the ethical sense of an individual knows to be right, they may not find alignment with that religion. For example, if a tradition supports overt or tacit discrimination or different treatment against any group or class of people, or institutionally encourages regressive political policies that one does not agree with, that is something that will impair the ability to feel connected to it. The conflict may be about purely religious matters, as well, rather than political ones—for example, some religions profess the doctrine that only adherents of that tradition will receive the ultimate spiritual salvation. For any of these social, political, or religious matters, there will almost certainly be justifications that are given in terms of the religion's doctrines, but the individual has to evaluate whether they make sense in terms of the individual's own moral compass.

-Aesthetics/Heart: In some cases, the symbols, rituals, and forms used by a religious tradition may simply cease to fascinate and individual and thus may lose their ability to continue drawing them closer to God. Just as one may have a long and fulfilling marriage, fall out of love, and go on to find love again with a second marriage partner, so is it possible to cease being enraptured by the symbolic system laid out by a religious tradition while still loving God and go on to find another set of symbols that is more resonant. Within the framework and exclusionary claims of a given religion, of course, adherents don't have the freedom to make choices based on whether they are aesthetically fulfilled by the symbols, as from within the perspective of that tradition, there is simply no other choice available. But if you believe in the potential for individual spiritual freedom and you do not feel inspiration continuing, there is the option to make another choice.

-Restriction: An individual may chafe at the specific restrictions that are advised or required by a religious tradition. Religious adherents may be required to perform rituals according to institutionally prescribed schedules or undertake dietary restrictions that are not desired. There is also generally pressure to participate in social structures that may not be appealing, such as marriage by a certain age and/or restricted to a certain group, childrearing expectations, rigid gender roles, or restrictions on social circles. From within the perspective of the religion, this could be seen as a matter of discipline, of living a well-regulated life in the way that God prescribes. It's true that some form of discipline is necessary for any endeavor in life, including spirituality, but it needs to be appropriate for the person: the regimented schedule of an army recruit is suitable for those pursuing that profession, but would be inappropriate for someone seeking to be a novelist. The question is whether the discipline that is laid out by a particular religion is suitable to an individual's mind and nature.

-Spiritual options unavailable within religions: It could be that an individual sees the possibilities for spiritual fulfillment that are not readily accessible within a given religious tradition. All religious traditions have certain practices that are possible, while others are less advised and may even be viewed as heretical. One may find that spiritual development requires techniques that are not supported within the confines of their existing religious tradition. Someone who is embedded within Catholicism may not find that their community is supportive of several hours a day of contemplative meditation; someone who is involved with the American Buddhist tradition may realize that they don't want to do hours of meditation and want more tactile ritualistic methods but not find that their clergy is able to provide them. In both of those cases, the desire to pursue spiritual practices that are not supported by the organized religious tradition may lead to ways to practice outside tradition. Unfortunately, as with human relationships, it is difficult to go outside the institutional relationship to have spiritual needs met and still remain on good terms with the institution.

-Trust: One of the most crucial needs for an individual's spiritual framework is a basic trust in organization or religious tradition to be the caretaker of their spiritual development. In fact, all of the above factors could be viewed as relating to an aspect of this kind of trust. Any organized religion claims to be representing God on earth and doing his work. The question for the individual is whether they trust the institution in this capacity. Much can be forgiven intellectually, aesthetically, as to matters of discipline, even ethically if there is a trust that the institution really is representing God . This is similar to a child's relationship with their parents—it could really be that the institution knows better what it is that God asks, and if you trust them with your heart and soul then that is for the best.

This is why there is no sense in finding out if religions are absolutely true or absolutely false according to some given external scientific or philosophical standard: they are representing God for those who find that representation useful, regardless of whether others do. Do you trust the priest and hierarchy at a personal level as representatives of God—do you trust that God is speaking through them to you? Or is there another way that you find God speaking to you—another person, text, image, or experience? Do you trust the laypeople in the organized religious community is the community through which you want to serve and relate to God? By "trust" here I don't necessarily mean trust at the purely ethical level, as in whether the organization can be trusted to conduct themselves with ethical financial management and being free from lurid scandals. The trust here is deeper and more profound—whether the organization can be trusted to be your soul's intermediary to God. Does the organization feel like a way that God is speaking to you, or a way that God is speaking to anyone, or just another work of man?

Authority

The reasons listed above could be generalized to evaluate one's participation in any organization or activity, not just religion, as they are essentially about seeing whether the soul is aligned with a given possibility or not. But it can be harder to make dispassionate judgements and choices when dealing with the question of whether to participate in a religious organization in particular. One major reason for this is that for many people, religion serves as the foundational source of a worldview—the collection of fundamental beliefs about how the world works, what is right and wrong, how one should act, and so on. Further, religions claim that they have the legitimate authority to be the source of their worldviews; one of the ways to understand what a religion even is is as a worldview and an accompanying social structure. In contrast, the considerations above were discussed from a perspective that assumed the individual would have their own worldview separate from that of the religion that they could use to evaluate the suitability of the religion for their individual spiritual path.

This is not only an individual choice but also the result of a civilization-wide change in the perceived source of authority. In earlier eras, religion itself was the highest source of authority, and it was not possible for individuals to bring their own judgement to the issue of whether a religious doctrine and tradition should be followed. The authority was enforced by more rigid hierarchical social structures, and attempting to circumvent it could lead to the risk of social censure or even violent persecution. At the current juncture in history, though, we hold that each individual has the capability and the right to choose their views for themselves. This change happened over many centuries and has many causes, but one major identifiable turning point was the Enlightenment, a Western philosophical movement from the 18th century. The philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Rousseau and Voltaire stressed the importance of individual reason and liberty against the oppressive authority of the Church and monarchical government. They were largely successful, and these ideals are still held as having paramount importance in the world today.

However, the independent spiritual path existed before the Enlightenment and is not dependent on it; when people were strongly motivated to pursue it, they carved out their own structures like the institution of sanyassi (renunciation) in India, or the underground transmission of hermetic philosophy in Europe, even at the risk of persecution. Therefore the ability to choose one's worldview is not something that is granted by the invention of particular philosophical ideas but is a fundamental human capability. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily easy to change one's worldview— it generally is not. An individual who questions their worldview may go through an intermediate period of teetering between seeing a religion as the fundamental source of a worldview versus seeing a worldview outside of a religion and religion as a choice to participate in. Social bonds, pressures, and emotional attachments an complicate the question further. In the spiritual view, it is ultimately the individual soul that decide what sorts of structures it can best flourish within. And if the soul grows so that a given religious worldview is incompatible with it, they will transfer to a more independent spiritual path.

Religious life is a form of life where the individual relates to God through the rituals, social structure, institutional structure, and ideological worldview of a particular organized religion. The spiritual life is the individual's search to grow closer to God, the Divine, or the ultimate spritual reality in general. As we have noted, there is no conflict in principle. We could say that for many individuals, their spiritual life and the religious life coincide; or perhaps we could say that they are able to pursue the spiritual life through their involvement with the religious organization. But there is also an independent spiritual path that can be pursued outside of religious organizations. This becomes necessary when the individual's mind and temperament become incompatible with the structures of religion due to a combination of outside influence, personal evolution, and evolution of the world, and perhaps changes within organized religions themselves, but they still want to continue searching for God. The soul ultimately demands freedom in its search for God, which is why the notion of the independent spiritual path exists at all. But it is not only religious structures that the spiritual path might lead us past: in fact, the spiritual path demands potential freedom from all contrary influences as the soul submits to God.

Freedom as as essential characteristic of the spiritual path

There is one area where the independent spiritual life departs from both the mundane and religious conceptions of life, and this is the area of freedom: the spiritual life requires that we allow absolute freedom to the growing inner spirit. As the lives of saints and martyrs show us, the pursuit of God may lead us to contradict every secular authority, societal convention, and even religious authority itself. The religious life requires adherents to stay within the ideological and lifestyle boundaries set out by the religion; spirituality means that one may feel called to take up practices or live a life that does not fit within those boundaries.

The material life, on the other hand doesn't seem to offer any lack of freedom, especially in those countries where political freedom is valued. However, the sort of freedom offered by the mundane life is deceptive. The foundation is what is called "negative liberty" in political philosophy: the individual has the power to undertake consensual actions that do not break the laws of the state. But the freedom that the spirit demands is a higher standard: one must be free from societal expectations as well as from the demands of one's own lower nature. While the "negative liberty" of political freedom assures that there will not be limits on action from the state, the individual may still encounter subtantial sub-legal resistance from members of society. In practice, one who follows the spiritual life, choosing to follow God and the dictates of inner spirit, will find themselves in conflict with family members, employers, friends, relationship partners, and others who expect them to continue acting within accepted, conventional structures that do not accord with the callings of the inner spirit.

The spiritual life may require you to take actions that set you at odds with the social body in general, whether we conceive of this social body as the body of the religious community or the secular community at large. One may feel compelled to make changes to one's diet, personality and comportment in casual conversation, choice of career or hobbies, or social circles in ways that lead to criticism, interpersonal tension, or even ostracism from the religious organization or secular community. One example could be a set of parents who expect their child to go into the family profession of being a lawyer, inheriting their parents' business and political connections, while the child wants to pursue a career in the healing arts. It would require an act of strength in the child's spirit to follow that calling in the face of disapproval and possible withdrawal of material support from the parents.

But a the second issue is that spiritual freedom requires going beyond the desires of the lower nature as well. Spiritual freedom does not mean that we should be drawn to libertinism, rebellion or iconoclasm for its own sake: one who follows the whims of the lower nature to indulge in excess is no more essentially spiritual than the one who follows all the conventions of the normal world, never questioning their rightness. An important part of the spiritual life is accepting the restrictions of the world created by God and without chafing at them arbitrarily. The freedom demanded by the spirit is not the freedom to pursue the arbitrary whims and desires of the lower nature.

For example, one degenerate interpretation of secular freedom is the freedom to generate wealth and keep posession of arbitrary amounts of wealth. There is no contradiction with the idea of wealth in a spiritual worldview; wealth is a power of the Divine, especially if it is generated and used responsibly in accordance with an individual's nature and their highest vision for themselves and others. But if one's motivations for generating wealth are greed, envy, and the desire to impress others, it's better to give up those desires rather than continue to believe in this notion of "freedom"; the spirit may be able to find what it needs to survive within even seemingly slight conditions, such as a the pleasures of a modest but well-organized and decorated apartment where one has space to do one's private devotions.

There is a certain paradox to the nature of freedom: the spirit has the right to decline any circumstance if it finds it too restrictive; and yet the spirit must be able to find the freedom within any circumstance even if outer circumstances don't change. Spiritual freedom is not, say, the ability to wave one's wand after a natural disaster and declare that everything should go back to normal by fiat but rather to stay connected to the soul and see what the possibilities of the soul are even within difficult situations.

Direct Experience

But perhaps the most significant difference between the spiritual worldview and a nonspiritual worldview, whether materialist or religious, is the idea of direct spiritual experience: in the spiritual worldview, the experience of a higher spiritual reality is possible and open to all. That is, unlike the mundane life, the spiritual worldview sees that the experience of a higher spirituality is possible and desirable; and unlike the religious life, these higher and ultimate spiritual experiences are not just accessible to the chosen few prophets, priests, or renunciates—they are not restricted to those with a special chosen birth, institutional social position, or those who have waited through multiple rebirths before seeking the experience. This is not to downplay the large amount of effort and commitment nor the possibility of substantial individual differences that may occur in spiritual development. Still, in the spiritual worldview there is no insurmountable separation—neither a religious institution nor simply the impenetrable dullness of reality—standing between human life and the experience of the Divine. In fact, the very purpose of the spiritual life is to seek the fullest possible expression of this experience, rather than being counseled to pursue worldly aims as in the mundane life, or encouraged to follow a regulated life within the boundaries of human experience as in the religious life.

Therefore, the concept of "belief" has a much different role in the spiritual life as well. In the non-spiritual life, great emphasis is placed on what one "believes" about God and about the nature of the universe. These beliefs are mental ideas that individuals hold and debate but never directly experienc. In the spiritual life, since direct experience of the content of the beliefs is possible, belief is no longer a mere mental idea that one needs to hold on to tightly; rather, it changes into a matter of provisional guidance. Consider the relationship of a physics student to the laws of physics before and after their university study. Before the university, the student is not aware of the details of physical laws, but trusts that they work on account of the trustworthiness of the professors and the successful demonstrations of science. But they are able to learn the details of physics for themselves in university, and after the university, they know the details and therefore do not need to take them on "faith" any longer.

Similarly, in the spiritual life, we hold a "belief" about God or the nature of the universe fully expecting that one day we will come into contact with the reality that the belief professes; it is not about a mere idea that one is expected to entertain about faraway things. A spiritual person "believes" in God but expects to eventually experience God; this is different from a position in a theoretical discussion or debate about whether something imaginary does or does not exist. In the spiritual life we can accept guidance and teaching of those who have gone farther on the path, but ultimately we don't need to "take anything on faith" indefinitely, as everything can be experienced for oneself.

Spiritual practice

And because the aim of the spiritual path is to have direct experience of a higher spiritual reality, the idea of the spiritual path is inseparable from the fact that someone on the spiritual path must be actively working towards that potentiality. The actions that one takes to reach this goal are called one's "spiritual practice": just as a student of piano has a rigorous schedule of exercises and studies to work towards the goal of proficiency at piano, so does the spiritual seeker have practices that are used to work towards the spiritual goal. As we noted earlier, there are multiple ways to define spirituality depending on the aspect one focuses on—in our initial discussion we used the provisional definition that spirituality is about an individual's search for God or a higher spiritual reality. Taking another perspective, one can just as easily define spirituality as being about spiritual *practice*—perhaps we could even say that the spiritual path is essentially about the practice one does, as any spirituality that doesn't involve practice in some form can only be some sort of theoretical speculation. Spirituality is not a mere worldview but rather the act of spiritual practice along with the resulting spiritual knowledge that one holds that grows deeper with experience.

What, then, is this "spiritual practice"? Suppose God lived in another physical city on earth. Then spiritual practice would be a simple, straightforward matter of taking a physical journey to God. But we know that that is not the case; spiritual practice is not as simple as making a physical journey. It's more confusing because supposedly God is everywhere, surrounding us, making up the very matter that makes us up. Lucklily, there are many specific spiritual techniques that have been devised and passed down over the ages. In fact there are potentially *infinitely* many techniques for doing practice. More important than being wedded to any one specific practice, though, is to understand what spiritual pratice *is*; for if you understand what spiritual practice is, then any practice becomes possible, or any activity or all of life can be your practice.

One way of understanding spiritual practice is that it is the process of turning one's energies towards God. In a metaphysical spiritual conception, the human being has a certain amount of cosmic energy flowing through them, and a choice as to how to allocate this energy. No matter what our circumstances might be, there is always a choice of how to direct our energies, towards something lower or something higher, whether towards destruction, pessimism, and hatred or love, peacefulness, and constructive action. Even someone stuck in a locked cell with few apparent outward options is still animated by cosmic energy and can choose to work with the tools of intention, faith, contemplation and prayer as long as they are conscious.

Spiritual practice can be thought of as the act of directing these psychological energies towards God. In the normal, non-spiritual life, as we discussed, psychological energy are turned towards the normal activities of labor, leisure, reproduction, amusement, culture, and so on, but for the essential gratification of the ego rather than God. Spiritual disciplines take these energies and redirect them through concentration, prayer, spiritual service work, ritual, and so on. But even these tools can be seen as ways of training one's consciousness to have the correct spiritual attitude throughout all activities, no matter what we are doing—the attitude which results in all of one's life and energy being devoted to God.

And getting to this point, where one's psychological energies are fully devoted to God, is what ultimately removes the separation from God. So the spiritual path is not a physical journey but the journey of changing one's psychology so that it is capable of doing this. But this is not an trivial process: while man is a creation of God and made of the substance of God, in another practical sense, man is truly separated from God. We are separated from him by our mind and chaotic life-impulses, the dense and intricate structures that constitute our body and our consciousness. We undertake spiritual practice to remove this separation. The separation can be removed internally by going inside oneself to commune with one's God-nature. But separation doesn't need to only stop at inner states. We must be in contact with God in our outer lives as well, when we aren't absorbed in contemplation, prayer, or meditation; hence the importance of spiritual practices we can work with in our outer lives as well. The process of doing this progressively throughout our whole being while remaining outside of the limiting confines and influences of any fixed religious institution is the independent spiritual path.

#spirituality #philosophy

1 note · View note