Rev Raz

I say "this is the best ___ all day" pretty often. So let's say I'm in morning traffic, instead of letting it get me down, I could say "this is the best traffic I've been in all day!" and laugh about it. Of course, if I only use it for blah experiences it loses it's magic, so I also use it for wonderful things. I can really "recharge" the phrase if I use it on an experience that is not only the best of that day but the best ever =)

Hi Cynastry. I've never tried skype. Feel free to share your experiences here or via private message. I enjoy reading stuff like that.

Halloween was fun. This was me...

Jeristew, It is always easier for me when there is a real live drum vibrating not just my ears but my whole body. Perhaps there is a shamanic circle that meets in your town or a nearby city. It's unfortunate that salvia divinorum is no longer legal in your state. I've heard of an even more powerful plant helper (ayahuasca) but it contains DMT and is therefore illegal everywhere in the USA. But last I checked people could visit Canada for the experience. A couple of months ago I was exploring a wild place near my home and came across an interesting legume, so I checked into it and discovered it was Desmanthus Illinoensis, containing quite a bit of DMT in the roots. I also learned some people brewed what they call "prairiehuasca" from a mixture containing the roots of this plant. Maybe someday the federal government will stop controlling our spiritual options. But even if they did, I would continue to work with drum-induced trance. Good luck.

As an empiricist, I believe what I experience myself. If the experience matched Christian testimony of Jesus and Heaven etc, then I would possibly regain a creed that I had rejected long ago. But such an experience would have to share my heart with other experiences that speak different truths, so I think I would still believe in alternate paths and keep my respect for those who follow them.

May you get well soon Peter and in the meantime may you remember you are appreciated

Very interesting. It made me curious to read further, so I searched for an online version and read some more. Thanks

Unfortunately he's not around to answer the specifics of your question, but "let them know, let them love, let them remember" seems specific to benevolent practices.

Here is a translation of Cassius Maximus Tyrius, known as Maximus of Tyre, a pagan teacher from the 2nd century AD: For the God who is the Father and Creator of all that is,...is not to be named by any lawgiver, is not to be uttered by any voice, is not to be seen by any eye...Let all men know what is divine, let them know, that is all. If Greeks are stirred to the remembrance of God by the art of Phidias, or the Egyptians by the worship of animals, or others by a river, or others by fire, I will not quarrel with their differences. Only let them know, let them love, let them remember. I find myself very much in agreement with this. What do you think?

When I am at my best, creatively, I've noticed that my spirit isn't really the one doing the creating, but there is another one feeding it to me. I think of my spirit at such times to be more conduit than source.

I just now read the story and wanted to comment that it resonates with me. Experiential reality is what ultimately matters. Physical reality is just a means to that end, and sometimes not necessary for it.

I remember an interview with Clive Barker who said "The word 'why' is the enemy of art". I agree, but what I am pondering in this thread isn't really explaining art but rather the source of it. You make good points, and yet I think the source is sometimes beyond the person. For example, when I feel the urge to wrote a poem or compose a song, the process feels like I am more instrument than artist. It is as if I am allowing a spirit to possess me and move me. The driving purpose is expression although the product could be made to decorate, after the fact. But if someone asked me to write some background movie for a video, the experience is very different. Instead of openning up and letting some force move through me, it is more about taking things I am already familiar with, mix and match, and see what I can fit to the target. It's as if all of the elements come from myself, not some unseen spirit. So in this case, the purpose is decoration, even though the product could very well express something too. Of course, it isn't as black and white as I'm making it. When the driving force is expression, I can filter the channel. When the driving force is decoration, I can allow the channel to work with me. This then seems like a collaboration between muse and artist. Right, I can't speak for someone else, but I can say that in my own experience the conscious mind plays an administrative role, or in other words I can allow or refuse it from happening. But whether it is available to happen is beyond my control. For example, I want to work on my novel but find myself at a blank page just waiting and can't think of anything. Other times something might spring into my mind and it would be easy to grab something and write it out but I'm not really in the mood. It's like I'm the manager of the company who can post a job opening but has to wait for someone to fill it. I can decide when the store is open but can only hope someone won't call in sick that day. Yeah, I think it's often a kind of resonance between the art and something within the audience. For example, the following two works of art resonate very differently with me, one to my spirituality and the other to my ego: Yeah me too. I can't think of a doctrine that is 100% art. Psalms are only a part of the body of scripture. Maybe religion needs a practical side in order to be successful in gaining followers. Yeah, I agree. I've known some people who speak of art as uselessly frivolous, but when you get to know them more intimately there is still some appreciation. I don't know. Sometimes I feel a kind of "scene empathy" and it feels like the surroundings are trying to say something. Is this the result of a spirit acting on the scene or an illusion of it? I don't know. I know what you mean. But still, an interesting thing about programming languages is that they call the commands "statements" and functions "expressions". But even then, the computer doesn't write it's own program, but instead computes what the programmer states and expresses to it. So when a computer produces something that evokes and artlike response in viewers, the role is medium, not artist. Seems that way to me. But what if there was nothing about art in a robot's computer program, but after running about in the world for some years it started to express something that seemed like art? No such robot exists, AFAIK, but if someday it did, it would make me wonder. Yeah, I don't think computers are advanced enough for that. I don't know what the future will bring. If a computer somehow/someday appreciated something, would I recognize that it did? Probably not

Do you think there is a difference between the source of art which expresses and the source of art which decorates? Is one more inspired than the other? Is the source of inspiration the subconscious or a spiritual source or something else? If different sources are possible, would you consider some to produce invention and others art? What about the source of art appreciation? Is there a spiritual influence? If the source of a religion is inspired writings, would you consider that religion to be a work of or collection of art? Is art a universal capability of humans, or are some people unable to produce or appreciate it? Can only artists be human? Or do you recognize non-human art, such as something expressed within a wilderness scene, or by an animal or flock, or even an entire ecosystem? Would such art be accidental or channeled somehow from a spiritual source? Does the sky make art, either by cloud or stars? Can a computer be programmed to express original art? Can a computer be programmed to appreciate art?