The trouble with text

TL;DR Version? Be mindful of your words, be they written, spoken, or thought. Do not abandon your words, but do not inscribe your understanding too tightly within the domain they circumscribe. Realize the generative capacity of words but root that capacity within the rich soil of creation. Or, you know, don’t and enjoy the flurry of clever little parasites that will buzz through your life and flash through the lives of all those near you. Life is life, after all.

An observation Alexandra made in a recent post struck a chord with me, in no small part because I have been thinking about a similar issue from a different direction. I’ve been thinking, again, about Simone Weil’s observation in the 1940s that we seem to be missing a lot of the context for the Bible. She suggests (and I generally agree) that something happened between the initial revelations that motivated it and its codification that left Christians with a much poorer sense of the Bible’s mystical dimensions.

Continue reading “The trouble with text”

[NB] Viridis Genii (Pt. II)

I don’t find myself wanting to write too much about the conference. Or, rather, I want to write about it, but there is a disconnect between what happens when I start writing and what I want to talk about. I’m having a hard time even reading the proceedings. I have definitely talked a lot about it, but writing seems to run a little counter to what I took from it.

That probably tells you more about where I am at right now than anything else. It is definitely not because there aren’t things to say or because the conference proceedings aren’t interesting. When it comes to the proceedings, at least, I have a good idea of why I am not reading them too vigorously. The proceedings are a good reflection of the workshops and lectures, but I don’t want to quite revisit them like that. Not yet, at least.

Continue reading “[NB] Viridis Genii (Pt. II)”

[NB] Geomantic Contemplation: Writing, Speaking, Hunting

As I have continued to work with and study geomancy, I have noticed networks of meaning open up between signs. I’m never entirely sure where to position some of these networks. Some seem fairly personal, but others open up to much broader themes. Heck, I guess that’s the nature of things in general. The personal becomes impersonal becomes personal and so on.

The networks are rooted in all kinds of associations, but I want to write about one set that emerged for me between the two Draconises, Puella, and Puer. All of these signs share a common structural feature—they have one passive line and three active lines. As a set, they include all the geomantic signs with this feature.

Continue reading “[NB] Geomantic Contemplation: Writing, Speaking, Hunting”