|Solo Moreno: You Gave Destruction A Bad Name|
11 comments10 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.
"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! [link]
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 clearer...you 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 Articles
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