The Paradise and the esoteric origin of mankind

[litewave 520]

Ok, some of you knew this was coming, and here it is. An esoteric interpretation of The Paradise Edition. :love:

 

"You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman.

Genesis 3:4

 

It was a race of sorts, the conscious Principalities attempting to beat the fearful to materialization upon the physical plane. The conscious Principalities arrived first.

In a forest-covered river valley upon this very earth at the edge of a fertile plain they took on the luminous garments of the first human biology. Though their uncontested stewardship of this region of the earth was brief by eternal standards, it was nevertheless sufficient to see the Creator's intentions flow through human form into the creation of exquisite fruit, vegetation, and animal species. From this time have arisen the human myths and legends of paradise. As the legends also recall, this era was not to last.

All too soon, it seemed, the Dark Principalities arrived, angry at the disease they had acquired and at those in whom it had originated. Shortly after them arrived the many entities like yourself. Not long after your arrival on the physical plane you began to think of yourself as separate beings, cut off, distinct from your source. You developed a strange habit of storing identities within your psyche as one might store dresses or suits of clothing in a closet, preserving them with herbs of self-importance and spices of fear.

Your overall awareness was still predominantly centered in the currents of love; you were certainly not "evil" at this point. For many centuries you continued to share the same equatorial region of the earth both with the fallen Principalities and with Principalities who had not lost their eternal awareness, all of you in human form. You knew times of great joy and happiness as well as times of doubt and confusion. Yet with each additional passage of the moon the implications of your overidentification with form appeared more and more forcefully around you.

Ken Carey: The Third Millennium

[Lana Del Rey 753]

I don't get you

[lola 6,644]

What exactly are you interpreting?

[YUNGATA 14,955]

2deep4me

[Beauty King 1,708]

Isn't this more like an esoteric interpretation of the human condition? I'm not really seeing the crossover with Lana's music, unless you're suggesting that it's the ultimate symbol of humanity. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it seems like there's nothing beyond propaganda and theories on existence in that selection.

[Madrigal 2,616]

I feel like my knowledge of Milton's Paradise Lost might come in useful here, but I think this is definitely going over my head. O _ O

[litewave 520]

 

 

What exactly are you interpreting?

The basic theme of Lana's album. I made esoteric interpretations of some specific songs too on the now defunct ldr.fm forum, but I put one of my posts on my blog here.

 

Isn't this more like an esoteric interpretation of the human condition? I'm not really seeing the crossover with Lana's music, unless you're suggesting that it's the ultimate symbol of humanity. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it seems like there's nothing beyond propaganda and theories on existence in that selection.

Esoteric accounts of the human condition (as well as the big religions) say that in the beginning the human was in a state of union or harmony with the divine. Some describe it as living in a garden or paradise. That era didn't last, because the human misused his will and separated himself from the divine instead of cooperating with it. In esoteric interpretations, this was a split within the human himself: his separatist masculine part (ego) suppressed his integrative feminine part (soul); there was a narrowing of consciousness and a limitation to the physical sensory perception. This spiritual fall then led to the diminishing of human vitality and ultimately to death, both spiritual and physical. I find it interesting to imagine that Lana's album (songs and videos) reminds us of the fall from that original happiness, by portraying sexual relationships that went wrong and in which Lana plays the suppressed/abused feminine part (soul).

[litewave 520]

I feel like my knowledge of Milton's Paradise Lost might come in useful here, but I think this is definitely going over my head. O _ O

That is definitely one of the most famous versions of the Paradise myth.

[Coney Island King 26,125]

I came here for some blown up lips and hair brushing, this too much for me

[litewave 520]

Bel Air

 

Children's voices, echoes of the time when the ego was still weak and the light of the soul shone more brightly. Here she comes again, emerging from the mists of the unconscious where the ego has relegated her for an age. No longer deterred by his defenses, for the time is ripe for them to meet again, in that place of lush and sublime beauty, in your vehicle of flesh and bones, where spirit and matter unite.

[lflflflflflflflflflf 3,722]

I listened to Lana's interview with Stitcher radio earlier this week.

 

She's really interested in metaphysics, the origins of man and space travel. I fell even more in love!

[Lanakai 662]

Bel Air

 

Children's voices, echoes of the time when the ego was still weak and the light of the soul shone more brightly. Here she comes again, emerging from the mists of the unconscious where the ego has relegated her for an age. No longer deterred by his defenses, for the time is ripe for them to meet again, in that place of lush and sublime beauty, in your vehicle of flesh and bones, where spirit and matter unite.

 

I want what you're on dude...

[litewave 520]

Isn't it interesting how Lana's relationship with Barrie has become more visible since September? It seems like her life really kind of imitates the concept of the alienation between soul and ego, and, coinciding with the Paradise Edition era, their eventual reunion. Along with her rise from obscurity to the world stage.

[Coney Island King 26,125]

Or maybe they're just having more sleep overs like any other couple.....

[litewave 520]

Body Electric

 

“Elvis is my daddy, Marilyn’s my mother, Jesus is my bestest friend”

An interplay of the separating masculine archetype and the unifying feminine archetype draws out the potential of their common source into creative manifestation. Their background source could be considered a feminine extreme in that it contains everything in a state of undifferentiated unity. In this unity, the masculine and feminine orientations are inherent as naturally as plus and minus are inherent in a zero. The masculine differentiates reality while the feminine integrates it, the result being individual entities arising and interacting in mutual relations. In my understanding these are the fundamental principles of creation and consciousness. In Christianity Jesus is the ultimate example of this manifestation, being regarded as an incarnation of God in human body.


“Whitman is my daddy, Monaco’s my mother, diamonds are my bestest friend”

In this verse I identified archetypal ideas similar to those mentioned before. Whitman is one of Lana’s favorite poets while Monaco represents her idea of beauty. By words we define things and make them explicit/clear. Beauty, on the other hand, is implicitely/vaguely felt. Words analyze beauty while beauty integrates them in a harmonious whole, both actions enhancing the creation and its meaning. Diamonds symbolize a creation that is simultaneously clearly defined and beautiful. Such a creation is also durable because it prevents disintegration into parts by the analytical process and dissolution into vagueness by the integrating process.


“Heaven is my baby, suicide’s her father, opulence is the end”

Here I represented heaven and suicide with upward and downward tendencies, respectively. Fall leads to death, as the masculine/analytical process separates a part from its source, while ascension leads back to heaven, as the feminine/integrating process reunites the part with a larger reality. The two processes alternate in a cycle, resulting in the creation of multitudes of forms, our planet with its biosphere and human society being the richest place we know of. The Christian God descends to earth to die on the cross on Good Friday, only to be resurrected on Easter Sunday and ascend back to heaven. This story reminds us, who got stuck down here, that there is more to life when we open up and expand our perspectives.

[Monicker 3,035]

I see a lot of the traps of binary thinking (ontology is more complex than a set of binaries, no?) in these interpretations, along with complementarianism, social constructs passing off as "truths," dogma and moralism. Also, don't you think we should be moving away from the kind of language that uses he/him/his to represent all peoples?

[litewave 520]

I see a lot of the traps of binary thinking (ontology is more complex than a set of binaries, no?) in these interpretations, along with complementarianism, social constructs passing off as "truths," dogma and moralism. Also, don't you think we should be moving away from the kind of language that uses he/him/his to represent all peoples?

Traps are everywhere! Regarding a binary ontology (or maybe epistemology if you like) here is a quote from a song by Katie Melua: "The piano keys are black and white, but they sound like a million colours in your mind." I am interested in getting to the root of things, so I note differences and similarities and try to create general categories. Social constructs, dogmas etc. reflect something too.

 

I didn't understand your question about using a he/him/his language to represent all... I think I always use it in connection with she/her/her.

[Monicker 3,035]

Traps are everywhere! Regarding a binary ontology (or maybe epistemology if you like) here is a quote from a song by Katie Melua: "The piano keys are black and white, but they sound like a million colours in your mind." I am interested in getting to the root of things, so I note differences and similarities and try to create general categories. Social constructs, dogmas etc. reflect something too.

 

 

I can agree with that to an extent even though i'm very wary of binaries, especially as absolutes, or absolutes of any kind, really. We're on the same page with the piano analogy, but not for the same reason that i imagined was your intent in making the analogy: the piano and its black & white keys are a human construction--not rooted in a natural phenomenon--much like the social construct of reducing being down to these polarizing masculine/feminine "fundamentals." BTW, the harpsichord and some fortepianos, which both predate the pianoforte, have the black/white key scheme inverted.

 

 

I didn't understand your question about using a he/him/his language to represent all... I think I always use it in connection with she/her/her.

 

What i was referring to is bolded in the following:

 

Esoteric accounts of the human condition (as well as the big religions) say that in the beginning the human was in a state of union or harmony with the divine. Some describe it as living in a garden or paradise. That era didn't last, because the human misused his will and separated himself from the divine instead of cooperating with it. In esoteric interpretations, this was a split within the human himself: his separatist masculine part (ego) suppressed his integrative feminine part (soul); there was a narrowing of consciousness and a limitation to the physical sensory perception. This spiritual fall then led to the diminishing of human vitality and ultimately to death, both spiritual and physical.

 

Also, a lot of this soul/ego duality is sexist and too reductionist and essentialist. Why should these ontological attributes have to be tied to gender? Does that have any real value? Is it not dismissive of our complexities and ambiguities? I mean, integrative = feminine and separatist = masculine? I find that rather insulting. What do those qualities really have to do with the socially constructed ways in which men and women have been segregated throughout history? And what about those who don't fit into a gender binary? I just don't get why this stuff has to be described in terms of a male/female dichotomy.

 

 

P.S. I do enjoy reading your posts, so i hope you don't take any of this "the wrong way."

[litewave 520]

I can agree with that to an extent even though i'm very wary of binaries, especially as absolutes, or absolutes of any kind, really. We're on the same page with the piano analogy, but not for the same reason that i imagined was your intent in making the analogy: the piano and its black & white keys are a human construction--not rooted in a natural phenomenon--much like the social construct of reducing being down to these polarizing masculine/feminine "fundamentals." BTW, the harpsichord and some fortepianos, which both predate the pianoforte, have the black/white key scheme inverted.

 

I think Melua in that song was making a point that you can create a richly diverse reality out of a pair of opposites but you’re right, I didn’t intend to imply that the dichotomy I am talking about is an arbitrary social construct. At least some traits in appearance and behavior that are traditionally characterized as feminine and masculine are not just a social construct but also reflect biological differences between sexes. Although the patriarchal society has rigidly emphasized and used these differences to justify subjugation of women, another error would be to deny their existence. By the way, I don’t imply that women are or should be only feminine and men only masculine, just that the balance is usually tilted toward femininity in women and masculinity in men for both biological and social reasons.

 

As for your quote of me using masculine pronouns with regard to the human I guess it would be more gender-sensitive to use “their” or “his/her” instead of “his”. Or even “her” if I wanted to sound super feminist or affirmative action-like But it seemed kinda awkward to me…

 

Also, a lot of this soul/ego duality is sexist and too reductionist and essentialist. Why should these ontological attributes have to be tied to gender? Does that have any real value? Is it not dismissive of our complexities and ambiguities? I mean, integrative = feminine and separatist = masculine? I find that rather insulting. What do those qualities really have to do with the socially constructed ways in which men and women have been segregated throughout history? And what about those who don't fit into a gender binary? I just don't get why this stuff has to be described in terms of a male/female dichotomy.

 

Ok, the integrative feminine and separatist masculine comes for example from the fact that men are usually more aggressive/assertive. This is probably influenced by their higher testosterone levels and physical strength. Women on the other hand tend to be more conciliatory and empathetic, which may be related to maternal instincts. Also, I once read an article which said that when men communicate they tend to stress their individual differences, while women tend to affirm what they have in common, which seems to fit with what I observe. Then there is the popular notion (not sure how much supported by formal research) that women are better at multitasking, which would indicate that they can encompass a larger scope of things in their attention while men are more stuck in focus on a single thing. In general there seems to be a kind of inclusive softness in femininity and a stronger emphasis on boundaries in masculinity. Some of this may be a cultural add-on but ultimately what I describe is a dichotomy in every person (separatist ego/integrative soul) and to do so I use generally understood notions like masculinity and femininity.

 

Speaking of binary ontology, there is a wave-particle duality in the fundamental nature of matter, which has some similarities with the feminine-masculine duality. Depending on the situation, an element of matter can behave as a definite, localized, separate particle or as a wave spread out in space that encompasses probabilistic possibilities of particle manifestations in different locations and can also connect different elements of matter in the so-called quantum entanglement (separatist particles/integrative waves).

 

I am suggesting that reality has a fundamental dichotomy that manifests in various forms. It is a separatist-integrative dichotomy and I don’t even find it surprising because it expresses relationship between part and whole, or entity and its environment, which you will necessarily find everywhere.

 

P.S. I do enjoy reading your posts, so i hope you don't take any of this "the wrong way."

Thank you. I take it as an opportunity to clarify my thoughts.

[Monicker 3,035]

I think Melua in that song was making a point that you can create a richly diverse reality out of a pair of opposites

 

Yeah, that's what i took it to mean, too.

 

By the way, i didn't intend to deny any biological differences between the sexes, if this how it came across. I'm not Judith Butler

 

By the way, I don’t imply that women are or should be only feminine and men only masculine

 

I know. What i was questioning is the idea that certain attributes (eg. integrative/separatist) are inherently "masculine" or "feminine."

 

As for your quote of me using masculine pronouns with regard to the human I guess it would be more gender-sensitive to use “their” or “his/her” instead of “his”. Or even “her” if I wanted to sound super feminist or affirmative action-like But it seemed kinda awkward to me…

 

Using "her" would be the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction, no? I think that's a misconception to attribute something like that to "super feminist" (whatever that term even means). Nothing to do with Affirmative Action either. If you were talking about, say, Asian people in an all inclusive way, to represent the whole of the continent, you wouldn't keep referring to them as Chinese, would you? I didn't realize using "him/her" or "their" when speaking of all people could be awkward. It goes beyond just being gender-sensitive.

 

Speaking of binary ontology, there is a wave-particle duality in the fundamental nature of matter, which has some similarities with the feminine-masculine duality. Depending on the situation, an element of matter can behave as a definite, localized, separate particle or as a wave spread out in space that encompasses probabilistic possibilities of particle manifestations in different locations and can also connect different elements of matter in the so-called quantum entanglement (separatist particles/integrative waves).

 

Does this have to do with the double slit experiment with photons?