It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Language of Vampyr

page: 169
218
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana



That has me torn in two, we have to respect the hard work that made the giants, giants but on the other hand, we need to recognize that some are born more equal than others, get better all round nutrition. The question to my mind then, is how do we even out the playing field without undermining the relational dynamic that creates meaning?

That's what I am playing with any way. Amongst other things



All of a sudden it struck me that maybe that's what Pieter Bruegel the Elder was working on, too.

That really put oil in my lamp. Thanks for a stunning post.





posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Anaana

Perception is such a big part of it, isn't it?

The artist has an experience to relate, but the extent of this comes down to the limits of experience itself. Something that I feel has regressed in modern times as our technology has progressed. But, importantly, that also implies it is malleable (at least generationally).

So, the limits of the artist's experience meld with the viewer's. Sometimes stimulating growth in either party, but sometimes speaking concisely of the cultural story we share. The human experience colliding with itself, I suppose.


It is really odd. Due to recent events I had to completely shut myself off from the internet and tv because everything was just flooding me with symbols at such a rate that my mind just could not cope, and as comprehension partially dawned and made deeper connections I literally thought myself into a total state of panic that had me on my knees begging for it to stop. I am not prepared to wish that upon any one. Working out how to switch it on is relatively easy, switching it off was another matter entirely.

When I was ready to start letting outside influences reenter my head space I found that I couldn't watch anything particularly recent, or historical documentaries as it reawakened the anxiety. I just about managed to sit through an episode of Fawlty Towers. Nothing too alarming there. Moving on, Blazing Saddles. No, had to go and lie down. In the end, needing something that I could focus on outside of myself I opted for Three Days of Condor followed by The Conversation and Chinatown. And I was back home.

With the latter two films, I was so struck by the stark artistic execution of these films where camera and lighting are skillfully used to create atmosphere, the tones are so earthy and organic. Music is used sparingly and usually for a simple emphasis, as a herald for the key points in the narrative, but it is that beautiful unfolding, the slow reveal of a story expertly told which has me wanting to watch those films over and over again. There is a point I am attempting to extract, the reason I was comfortable watching these films is because there was no symbolism. There is homage to the principles of cinema verite and mise en scene in the carefully constructed shots, but it is still, today, fresh and dynamic storytelling in it's deliberate lack of showiness. And a glaring lack of product placement and concealed advertising, hence my ability to get through them. No occult messages concealed within, just a good story beautifully told.

If we take The Conversation, where Hackman's character is brought back into being in Enemy of the State and applied to an action-hero narrative, we take that simple realism and transform it into fantasy entertainment, using technology to enhance the whole experience, music, light and sound tell you, subconsciously, how to think and feel. The story isn't told, you're dragged along for the ride with the "hero". I like both films for what they are, however what they are, and what links them, also demonstrates a direction that has been taken in film making and promotion. Art in cinema still exists, as does realism, but those films that take command of our senses and lead us to a fixed, predetermined outcome, rather than on a quest of understanding, have devalued the artistic merit of the medium to some extent, and turned it into a homogenising industry where free expression is marginalised.

So, I think that it is about more than perspective. I think that it is also about which perspective is given validity, and support to prosper. How perspective is controlled and modified, as well as how little some want to broaden their own perspective in order to accept the validity of others to the opportunity to flourish and thrive.

Still working it through though. Early days and all.






posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
All of a sudden it struck me that maybe that's what Pieter Bruegel the Elder was working on, too.


Yes. Maybe. I like him, thanks, reminds me of Stanley Spencer's work.


originally posted by: Bybyots
That really put oil in my lamp. Thanks for a stunning post.



It's all grist for the mill



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana



Yes. Maybe.


Yah. And maybe Fulcanelli, too.

That's in part the premise of the Language of The Birds thing that he frames everything in Mysteries of The Cathedrals up with.

The Language of The Birds. Don't trust WikipediA. What it is, is like what David Ovason pulled out of any art concerning "The Fool" from the same era as Pieter Bruegel the Elder was active in.

After long and careful study of the same two books for 24 years I am left with the impression that part of the key to getting F's message is to try as hard as one can to share his vision of how the "Low-Brow Art" of the medieval era reflects some truth the public (the vulgar) understood, and lampooned, but could not be expressed in plain language.

I'm not sure what it might have been. Might have just been a bunch of sour-grapes on the part of a load of Mithraists that liked to write. Might have been something important. Not sure.

But Christmas is coming.


edit on 29-10-2015 by Bybyots because: goddamnit



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

I'm sure that was just the natural inclination of the Ingvaeones, children of Yngvi, or Ingwin of the Goths Holy, or Ingwaz the son of man, more commonly known as Frey or Frodi, progenitor of the Yngling lineage.

The concern is with the power of the 'Ing', which of course is a terrible thing, so you could certainly expect Ynglings to be concerned with the language of nature, of Frey and Freya, to know the way of everything, particularly verbs.

Also take into account Frey is of the Vanir, that branch of the divided Pantheon sourced within nature, whereas Mithraism was the spiritual phenomena of the Aesir or Asura.


edit on Kam1031301vAmerica/ChicagoThursday2931 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt
Yngling and Yeungling beer I wonder if there is a connection, out of sheer curiosity?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
...it is shame how this topic became offtopic...
Anaana, are you from that group?
95% of OT is made by you for some reason here now...
edit on 30-10-2015 by xoenneox because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xoenneox
...it is shame how this topic became offtopic...
Anaana, are you from that group?
95% of OT is made by you for some reason here now...


What's on topic? Just so I know what I am supposed to be sticking to.

Ta.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
Yah. And maybe Fulcanelli, too.

That's in part the premise of the Language of The Birds thing that he frames everything in Mysteries of The Cathedrals up with.

The Language of The Birds. Don't trust WikipediA. What it is, is like what David Ovason pulled out of any art concerning "The Fool" from the same era as Pieter Bruegel the Elder was active in.


I've barely skimmed Fulcanelli, and David Ovason I haven't heard of, sorry. From my limited understanding of what Fulcanelli understood the language of birds to be, that does definately seem to be the case, I think...particularly with Lords of Misrule, for which that kind of linguistic skill was of paramount importance, as well as the being able to adjust that according to the audience.

Also, thinking back to "annealing", naturally, and there is also that rinse and repeat of the mutus liber. The aim is not to simply parrot information, or to make noise, but to absorb and dispense meaning.



originally posted by: Bybyots
But Christmas is coming.



Bah!

Snow'd be nice though



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
After long and careful study of the same two books for 24 years I am left with the impression that part of the key to getting F's message is to try as hard as one can to share his vision of how the "Low-Brow Art" of the medieval era reflects some truth the public (the vulgar) understood, and lampooned, but could not be expressed in plain language.


I have pondered on this, and on second thoughts, I'm not sure I understand what you understand Fulcanelli to have meant by low- and high-art.

I have been trying to find out more about the monument I referred to. I had myself convinced that the artist and designer must have been a Freemason, in the speculative sense as well as the operative, but that does not seem to be the case. There are similarities in the language he uses, combined with that of other esoteric traditions, earlier and later. He served an operative apprenticeship, one therefore can assume that he learnt those languages in situ with the learning of the practical craft of his art. That esoteric understanding however only had potency, monumentally, because the Freemasons, and to a diminished extent the Alchemists, as speculative institutions, existed to interpret those meanings in accordance with the power they were intended to express.

I kind of feel that the distinction between high- and low-, in that case should be transposed, or taken as illusory, dependent upon perspective...

I wonder if the error is to assume that the message is fixed, merely because it demonstrates consistency or a sense of underlying familiarity? Or that the connectedness, even when disconnected, keeps on knocking and trying to find a way in?

*shrug*



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

Yeah but for me the key point in your post was "nutrition".

It's not a level playing field.

What levels the field?


edit on 31-10-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

There is no direct connection, Yeungling means a 'young un', from Jung/youth, whereas the Inguz rune relates to the creative principle;


Represented by the very ancient god image Ing, Inguz is a rune of male fertility. The English language participle “-ing” adds to any verb the idea of acton. Do-ing, Be-ing, See-ing, etc. The addition of “ing” represents action in the actual process of activity (rather than an object). Thus, even common elements within our most common language use “ing” to infer the process of creation.

Due to its shape Ingwaz indicate that this potential is interiorized, concentrated and introverted as a seed which possesses in her all the elements to develop a complete and organized life. However Ingwaz has to hatch to realize this potential. Still in gestation, Ingwaz carries with it all the energy of life. Thus Ingwaz symbolizes the rune of the concentration of the creative power just before its full appearance.


Inguz rune


Of course one can see relationship between the Inguz rune and that of the concentrated energy of youth and its potential.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Brotherman

There is no direct connection, Yeungling means a 'young un', from Jung/youth, whereas the Inguz rune relates to the creative principle;


Represented by the very ancient god image Ing, Inguz is a rune of male fertility. The English language participle “-ing” adds to any verb the idea of acton. Do-ing, Be-ing, See-ing, etc. The addition of “ing” represents action in the actual process of activity (rather than an object). Thus, even common elements within our most common language use “ing” to infer the process of creation.

Due to its shape Ingwaz indicate that this potential is interiorized, concentrated and introverted as a seed which possesses in her all the elements to develop a complete and organized life. However Ingwaz has to hatch to realize this potential. Still in gestation, Ingwaz carries with it all the energy of life. Thus Ingwaz symbolizes the rune of the concentration of the creative power just before its full appearance.


Inguz rune


Of course one can see relationship between the Inguz rune and that of the concentrated energy of youth and its potential.



The etymology of words sometimes is quite troubling. It really makes me wonder if the Gods were created as a way of expressing language as explained above (reminds me of Luna:sin) or a way to immortalize the worship of Gods through language.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt
I looked at that group of colored squares for about a minute and almost had a Seizure.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate


Yes considerable ingenuity is shown with regards to Runic lore, particularly with regards to the principle of ingeniare, to generate and create as of the cult of Freyr, but the sign of the quadratic enclosure as first principle of establishment toward dynamic creation does find correspondence in other mythologies, it facilitates the binding and concentration of energies, creates a field.


a reply to: Spader

Don't be doing it again then, those are the Giselian transmissions...

edit on Kam1031303vAmerica/ChicagoSaturday3131 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Anaana

Yeah but for me the key point in your post was "nutrition".

It's not a level playing field.

What levels the field?



By progressing beyond 27 to 35...last time I asked...if that helps.

In a literal sense, I'm taking a step back before I waste away, nutrition is an angry and accusing word for me right now.
(True, though). Nor am I the sharpest tool in the box at present, and in all matters, I err on the side of caution when it comes to foisting my ill-formed thoughts on others without thorough consideration of the implications and consequences thereof. I do learn from some of my mistakes, others remain a work in progress. Long and short, I am in no position to be telling anyone how to tend to their fields. For the present...

"Everyone goes through phrases."




posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
The etymology of words sometimes is quite troubling. It really makes me wonder if the Gods were created as a way of expressing language as explained above (reminds me of Luna:sin) or a way to immortalize the worship of Gods through language.


What Kantzveldt links to isn't based on etymology, seems more about grammatically meaning...not sure. An "Ing" is an enclosure of land, usually a flood plain enclosed by an earthwork to prevent the inundation damaging the fields. So it is a "close" or an "end" for a specific purpose denoted by the prefix, and as a suffix, grammatically, it does what it is.

Apply that, and the "Ing" is the element of protection.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

Yes it's a veritable Ark, or a Heavenly City, or the sheep fold of Dumuzid, or the field of Ninurta, a protected enclosure.





posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

I think what I'm struggling with post page 169, is the concept of language as a whole to the extent that I can relate to the premiss of FL. I guess I'm stuck with the thought of being trapped by language, a damned if you do and damned if you don't position.

We all have to agree on some level that a word properly relates to what is being expressed but it's not like we all sat down and agreed together. Language is interconnected in that similarities exist throughout most cultures that show a similar origin. Many/most/all root words are derived from various deities or what archetype they represent.

I don't know but recently I've been starting to see language, all language in fact, as the framing of the so called "control system". If the collective of humanity dictates reality by an agreement of a shared observation and that reality were to get hi-jacked for ones own purpose, what better way of doing so than hi-jacking the primary communication of a species.

As strange as it sounds, I keep getting visions of the movie The Neverending Story in that we just need to believe. As a people most have forgotten the Gods, yet somehow they managed to get immortalized through the tongue of every man, woman and child on earth without them even knowing.

That or this thread totally crossed wired my mental capacities, in which case maybe I need to retire this thread.

edit on 1-11-2015 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
I don't know but recently I've been starting to see language, all language in fact, as the framing of the so called "control system". If the collective of humanity dictates reality by an agreement of a shared observation and that reality were to get hi-jacked for ones own purpose, what better way of doing so than hi-jacking the primary communication of a species.


I think that first and foremost the "control system" is something framed in human language and that that could be why we are limited in our ability to comprehend it. I believe that there are systems of control and controlling systems, and that those are human constructs. The control system, as seen as something that seems to be able to break through that or those human constructs, for me defies description most likely because it doesn't abide by the same rules. It is not "human". That though is not to say it (assuming for the purposes of discussion that it is tangible enough to be given a solid "it" form) is alien, just not human. Our languages have developed as a means of navigating our environment, of mapping it out as it were, as a means of our collective survival. That collective survival has been at the expense of our own numbers, as well as other inhabitants of our shared environment.

We debate about the collective unconsciousness based on the assumption that we are the only conscious creatures to contribute our dreams (hopes and fears).

One of my favourite quotes is the crescendo of Queen Elizabeth the first's speech to the troops at Tilbury, "I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king." I like it not because of it's patriotism but because it demonstrates how weighted the English language is in form to emphasise meaning. Flipped on it's head, the sentence changes from a defiant battle cry to a plea for mercy. Strong stuff. Language is controlling. Or can be. It needn't be.

I am sure that you know that face to face, even when two people are from totally different cultures and neither speaks the other's language, that communication can be established. Words become irrelevent and we seek different cues. We examine each other's faces and body language until a framework of understanding can be acheived. That is a poetry in itself, and particularly for someone like me, who stumbles, bumbles and mumbles their way through verbal exchanges, refreshingly liberating to be brought into using my whole being.

Language is a boundary of our own making, which we have the means to deconstruct if needs be, but the situation, as I see it, is more that we need to recognise it for it's limitations and use it accordingly, while trying to understand how our environment interacts with us in other ways communicatively.

Perhaps?



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 166  167  168    170  171  172 >>

log in

join