creativity, spirituality

Metaphysics and mineral collections

Earlier this week, D and I dropped by a local mineral shop. I picked up a gorgeous little pyrite and an agate sphere which looks like a planet. Today, I took the minerals off of the windowsill where they had been clearing in the sunlight, and got back into the box I have of little mineral specimens. That, in turn…has gone ignored for months, on the altar table which has also gone ignored, for months.

It’s been a while since I’ve dealt with minerals — especially, openly with the metaphysical properties of minerals. Although I hesitate to ascribe official meanings to minerals, stones, and crystals, I definitely feel a connection to certain specimens of certain stones. I’ve also felt those connections change. Whether that’s truly one-sided or vibrational resonance or what, I’m not entirely able to say.

Anyhow — the last time I dealt with people taking metaphysical properties of crystals seriously, it was in Hawaii (at a bead store which mostly sold gemstones). Historically, I’ve hesitated to ascribe metaphysical properties to my beadwork, as they’re unproven and generally taken on a basis of belief (or as selling points). The suspicion that metaphysical properties of gems are an economic ruse to generate perceived value; ecological concerns; and cost concerns; have been reasons I haven’t updated my stone collection (or my semiprecious bead collection) recently. Before this week.

It is a fact, however, that some stones do cause a primal response in me. I wouldn’t trust that I could untangle what all of these are, however; or whether any of them were more than subjective.

At one time I had an encyclopedic text called Love Is In the Earth (which has many additional pieces that go with it, which I never obtained) — this went over metaphysical mineral associations and/or properties. I must have sold it, however: I have not seen it on any of the bookshelves I’ve checked tonight.

What’s weird and/or interesting is that when I went into the box that contains my mineral samples, things felt different than usual. It’s like they cleaned themselves. Like they’re ready for me to feel them in my hand again. I’m thinking that it may have to do with my own clarity…

In particular, I have a wand that I bought maybe a decade ago, which I never used: both because of not being able to find a tradition I connected with in which I could use it, and because it just really did not seem to conduct my energy very well. I have two wands. One is alder wood with a quartz point; the other is pewter with a lead-crystal point. Whereas before, the alder wood felt active to me (like an extension of myself) and the pewter wand felt like a piece of tubing, I’m getting a feeling of conductivity from the pewter, now.

Could be nostalgia, or it could be something else.

I do think that it’s appropriate that it’s a Fire wand. I believe Alder is connected with Water. Of course, the four-element association is not universal (the Alder wand in particular may be given meaning by Druid tradition, if memory serves); but I’m thinking that I could take the best elements of the Fire that helped me through a dark time in my life (the will to live), and move forward that way, guided by myself and not so much by pre-established paths which don’t fit me.

Of course, now I’m sounding like a Chaos Mage, although I know not to randomly and constantly wish for stuff from the Cosmos, which is what the few Chaos Mages I’ve known (when I was about 25) seem to have been into.

I wonder if Chaos Magick is still a thing. Even when I was investigating it, they were shifting further underground…

I suppose Liber Null and Psychonaut (a foundational text for Chaos Magick) actually is here.

Not to mention that there are useful ends to wish for, at this point in history. Like, non-selfish ends. I mean, I shouldn’t consider casting self-crafted healing spells for the planet and its life and peoples to be offhand a waste of time (because I don’t know)…and it could help give me some self-guided spiritual direction.

That was what I saw in the little agate sphere…a reminder of the preciousness of this planet. Now I have three planet-looking spheres: a Rose Quartz, the Agate, and a black fiberoptic sphere which looks like a Gas Giant. (It was something my sibling bought online because it was advertised as “Black Materia” from Final Fantasy VII and we were silly that way. Of course, the Black Materia was actually a pyramid, but don’t tell anybody.)

I also feel the need to mention the fact that I’m reading a book right now which is trying to scientifically quantify a lack of empathy, which the author sees to be at times (though not all the time) associated with the capability for cruelty (not all the time, at least because one can have a lack of empathy and still wish harm on no one). I’m not sure what I think about it, yet, though after I get through with it — if I see it to hold water — I should post on it a bit.

Hmm. Then, there’s that whole Lightworker thing…which I mention because…a certain neural network just fired and it’s making me think it’s relevant. (I accidentally picked up a self-published Lightworker book also about a decade ago, without which I’d have little ground to even know what I am meaning, right now.) The point of Ascension (or failure to Ascend) just seems to be getting very much closer, and the stakes are getting higher.

I’ll keep the rest of what I have, on that…

painting, philosophy, psychology

Getting sick of English language

I’m not sure if it’s the effect of having had to read so much technical and academic writing (actually, it likely is), but I’m beginning to have a sort of dread toward reading in English. It’s also possible that my current vision is…well, I know it isn’t good, and that isn’t helping. I’ve just ordered a couple of pairs of new glasses, but still: my current prescription is the same as the last.

I’m not entirely assured that it’s accurate, particularly as it was done by a student, after a night where I stayed up much too late, devouring a couple of eBooks. So…I’m not entirely certain what was up with my eyes, that day. (My previous prescription was stronger than what the student would have given me, so she deferred to the prior prescription.)

Anyhow…it will be nice, once I’m able to read things for pleasure, again — without my eyes burning. The glasses I’m using now have anti-blue-light coating but no tint outdoors, after years of having gone with Transitions lenses…which normally have a slight tint, even indoors. It’s kind of tough to have no sunglasses which one can see through, let alone drive in…

Right now, for pleasure reading, I’ve got some stuff lined up on why evil exists (seen through a lens of biology — which is much less triggering than reading about failures of certain political projects), and the apparent human tendency to be delusional.

The annoying point is that the person leveling the claims to the latter only relates it back to religious faith, claiming that irrationality is religion’s fault. No, religion is an outgrowth of inherent human irrationality. On top of that, irrationality isn’t always a bad thing — I say as someone who has lived much of their life studying the Humanities: religion, philosophy, language, culture. (But I have to say that, or else my life so far has been wasted, you see.)

I’ve also had to deal with delusions, before. This is to the extent that I can now recognize the basis of it, in the normal human population. The biggest issue I can see as regards the danger of faith, relates to a kind of slippery-slope fallacy, which leads me to the question: If we are able and willing to believe one thing without proof (or in the face of vastly inherent improbability, keeping in mind that life existing is also apparently inherently vastly improbable), how many other things will we also accept as reality, without proof?

And for that matter, what counts as proof? When you’re a writer, the supposed magic behind the writing and organization of a work — I mean, writing and literacy does still kind of seem like magic to me, largely because I still don’t understand how learning works — it’s still a little far to claim that anything expressed in writing is of necessity, holy, because of the form of its transmission.

At the point of having reached the question of where we draw the line as to claims we accept as real without verification, I’m led to question the motivations behind the claims. I think in a normal debate, though, we would be worried only with the claims, not the motivation of the person making the claims. The question of qui bono is there, and that’s a good thing, but I’m thinking…it may be too limited for my purposes, which is to figure out the motivation behind claims and actions, instead of taking those claims and actions at face value (as though they came from a machine, or other logical source).

Although…that kind of gets into the question of why anyone writes, or says, anything; why we create meaning around ourselves in the world, even when we know that we’re only doing it because not to do it means facing the reality of what, before the advent of our being able to wipe out the majority of life on the planet, had been our temporality, insignificance, ignorance (we are so ignorant!), and fear, in the eyes of a hypothetical Nature. (Though, to look at it from a naturalistic perspective, we and this planet may still be insignificant; a sad loss, should we wipe ourselves [and our potential] out, but not one that has, to our knowledge, so far impacted other planetary life. Even if we had, our reach would be, of necessity, limited.)

The problem with assuming the source, here, to be logical: to assume that also means to recognize that sometimes it intentionally displays deception, with a potential for hostility that a machine (at this time) doesn’t have. When that part of the story is uncovered, it may feel safer to believe that the source is simply out-of-control and insane: an insane person (someone who is legally incapable of telling right from wrong) wouldn’t recognize what they were doing. They wouldn’t intentionally be evil.

But I don’t really know what to think about this, anymore. I used to not think that evil was a thing. Then, you know, I lived a little — or came out of my denial a little — and some of the things I’ve witnessed kind of fit under that heading.

Before anyone guesses, yes, I have attempted to psychologically analyze my own writing, before. It’s a major part of why I initially stopped writing. :) (I am assuming that “psychological analysis” means something different and more generic than “psychoanalysis,” which was largely the realm of Freud and Jung, in the late 19th, into the 20th century.) It’s possible to be way too close to your own work to be able to work out why you said what, when; and then it is also possible to be so judgmental towards yourself that you think you know why, and that you need to stop that mess from coming out of you before you make the world an even worse place to live.

But, I think, everyone’s a mess, initially; and I don’t think anyone is really wholly exempt from being (or becoming) a mess. I guess that’s why lovingkindness exists, though I’ve never been too good at that. (I mean, seriously. Just…)

In any case, I started this off thinking that I really need to get back to painting. I am not sure of my motivations, except for the fact that so much of my life has had to do with language, recently, that I really just want to deal again with shape and color. (I’m not sure if “form” fits in there, seriously.) I just need to get back to my colors, and my brushes, and properly not worry about people claiming that I “saved” my painting with the addition of gouache. Just…no.