Solo Moreno: You Gave Destruction A Bad Name    
 You Gave Destruction A Bad Name11 comments
picture8 Nov 2009 @ 01:09, by Jeffrey Trenton Crace

Creativity. It's one of the terms one always sees included in the conveniently marketable phrases hawked by those promoting the typical rainbows-and-sunshine, New Age self-help approaches. "Increase your creativity," they often say.

For the most part, people do not need more creativity. That's likely what got them in their mess in the first place. They need more destructive ability.

Potentiality and actuality are inversely related, i.e. the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. I discovered this as I contemplated the notion of "infinite potential" one day. The only way in which it is possible to have infinite potential is no have no actuality--no games. Another way of saying actuality is 'rules.' Thus, the more rules to which one has agreed, the less potential one has to play as one wishes. And this is typically why people seek help in the first place. They cannot move/play/create as they wish. Is the answer then creativity? Is the answer to simply create one's way out of the problem?

In a broad sense, this is exactly how one goes from being a god to a dysfunctional, unhappy, delusional homo sapien. For if one started out as such a god, then one's potential was huge, one could say infinite. Armed with omnipotence, a being goes about creating a game. But the game fails. The being created a game and it went awry. Considering the being's creative potential, this may not have seemed like an immediately pressing issue at the time. The being could simply turn around and create another world, another space, another scene, another game that was ALMOST as grand and majestic.

What cannot be ignored however is that the being withdrew from an area in which it was still responsible. It doesn't come as a surprise then that Geoffrey Filbert once wrote that entrapment results from withdrawing from an area in which one is still responsible. Entrapment is limitation, impotence. The fact of the matter is that there is still actuality in place. Since potentiality and actuality are inversely related, that being lost potential. One could even envision it as programming. The being programmed itself to play a game and instead of erasing and rewriting the appropriate commands, it left them in place and moved on to another game. Do this myriad times and one may see a god arrive as a maladjusted human being.

In summary, when one encounters a limitation, the answer is probably not to create one's way out of it. The answer is to destroy whatever is keeping that limitation in place. The weapon of destruction is truth. But one must know how to wield it. The "how," the method of truth, is the process one uses. The process, or group of processes, is the technique, or as it's usually referred to, the "technology."

If truth were immediately accessible, then looking out one's window would reveal the Kingdom of God. But truth is many times not immediately accessible. One needs a technology to access it. Technologies are designed to systematically cut away the chaff from the truth to reveal and then vanish the actual creation, that which was serving as a limitation upon one's potential.

This cutting away can also be referred to as truth, but it is doing truth as a verb. Scientology only used one word to comprise both the verb and noun aspects of truth, and they called it "as-isness." Ed Dawson made this incisive discovery, brilliantly linking "as-isness" as a verb to the the concept of "ofun," one of the sixteen olodus found in Ifa, an ancient religion hailing from West Africa; and "as-isness" as a noun he linked to "oyeku," another one of the sixteen olodus of Ifa. Oyeku is, strictly speaking, infinite potential. What this means is that when one is doing truth as a verb, if one has the appropriate process in one's hands, one eventually arrives at infinite potential. At that point, one is then restored. Once that happens, one should very comfortable, and very ABLE, to create once more. Until then, be a student of Shiva.

[< Back] [Solo Moreno]



10 Nov 2009 @ 13:08 by mortimer : Interesting Article
Thanks for sharing.  

10 Nov 2009 @ 13:47 by susannahbe : I didn't. . .
understand it all, as I had no frame of reference for certain things but found the things I did, really interesting. thanks for the article.  

10 Nov 2009 @ 14:18 by mortimer : Reference for certain things

"as-isness" as a verb linked to "ofun - ethics(Honesty/Deception)"
"as-isness" as a noun linked to "oyeku - transformation(Life/Death)"

I don't see the application yet.
Guess I gotta go study difference between noun and verb.
I dunno....

"Destroy" has become a 4 letter word but the truth---in order to create something you must destroy something...  

10 Nov 2009 @ 17:11 by susannahbe : Thanks for . . .
that info Mortimer. When I read "that entrapment results from withdrawing from an area in which one is still responsible." I found that interesting and it gave me something to think about. When you said - "Destroy" has become a 4 letter word but the truth---in order to create something you must destroy something... do you mean that to use the same 'matter' you must destroy one of its forms to create it in another?  

10 Nov 2009 @ 17:20 by mortimer : Context
I mean axiom as a founding principal of the Universe. Fundamental Truth.
---in order to create something you must destroy something.
I first heard Max Sandor say it and I have not been able to invalidate it.  

10 Nov 2009 @ 18:49 by solomoreno : If I may deign to explain Max;)...
"In order to create something, you must destroy something." To me, this comes from envisioning creativity as a NEGATIVE process. In other words, a creation doesn't come about by EXPRESSING that which is created, but by SUPPRESSING every other possibility. Or, one might say, by destroying every other possibility. For instance, the Tao is described as being the "uncarved block of wood." In carving it, one is actually taking something away, not putting something into play. Another interesting facet to all of comes from the notion of "decision." If one inspects the action of decision, it is the process of choosing one potential possibility over all others. Yet the etymology of the word suggests it's not an action of choosing what one wants, but NOT choosing what one doesn't want. In latin, 'decidere' means "to cut off," i.e. to cut off all other possibilities.

This is why in resolving decisions, or to put it in the context of my article, destroying actuality, one is returned to a state of infinite potential, oyeku. Oyeku is the Void, but it is not empty exactly. It is full of infinite potential. What that means to me is that everything is already created, but it has just not been materialized. I had an ascension related to oyeku back in 2005. It was awe-inspiring, to say the least.

Susannahbe: could I help you with a frame of reference? You could help me make a better article!

Mortimer: Thanks man! Are you familiar with the Four Wheels? If so, ofun's relationship to oyeku should become more clear.  

10 Nov 2009 @ 18:59 by solomoreno : Susan, you might want to read...
Ed Dawson's article, "The Four Vectors of 'So-Called' Creation." He probably explains all of this better than me!

Like any olodu, ofun can manifest a number of different ways. But one of the best ways to describe how it manifests is "deconstruction." It's the opposite action of oshe, which is usually rendered as "beauty" but more specifically it is an action of "compilation resulting in meangingful togetherness." If one deconstructs enough, or does ofun enough, a creation will vanish, receding into infinite potential--oyeku!  

10 Nov 2009 @ 19:22 by susannahbe : Thanks
. . . for the link - I will read it now. :-)
you said - could I help you with a frame of reference? You could help me make a better article! What exactly do you mean?  

10 Nov 2009 @ 20:46 by solomoreno : You said...
that there were things that weren't clear to you for lack of a frame of reference. Maybe I left something out, maybe I could have written things could help me fill in the missing info.  

10 Nov 2009 @ 20:51 by susannahbe : Right thanks :-)
You explained it very well, I am just not at all familiar with any of these theories or words. I just found the bits I could grasp intriguing. By the way, nice to meet you :-)  

10 Nov 2009 @ 21:45 by solomoreno : Nice to meet you as well!

Other entries in
20 Nov 2010 @ 18:40: A New Koan: Pigs Can Fly
11 Sep 2010 @ 17:48: The Sharpest Image
22 Jul 2010 @ 13:16: Cartographers of No Man's Land
20 Jul 2010 @ 04:01: Burn the Motes From Thine Eye
15 Dec 2009 @ 16:36: Notes On How To Act
7 Dec 2009 @ 15:17: Two to Tango
13 Nov 2009 @ 04:07: Schizophrenia, or The New You
28 Oct 2009 @ 13:44: The Anointment of Noah Drake: "The Eclipse"
26 Oct 2009 @ 16:19: The Anointment of Noah Drake: "Our Mother the Mind"
21 Oct 2009 @ 12:45: The Reality of Unreality: Insights on Morphic Fields

[< Back] [Solo Moreno] [PermaLink]?