One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish

[visceral/spagyrica]

I bartend for a living. One of my regulars is a guy named Tom. Tom, we think, has narcolepsy. We call him Sleepy Tom, except when he's awake. When he's awake, we simply call him Tom.

One night, a while back, I asked one of my coworkers, "Why is Sleepy Tom so sleepy all the time?" to which my coworker responded, "Why is the sky blue?"

My uncle has a very lush lawn; however, scattered about his lawn are what you might call "dead spots." Upon close inspection, you can't help but notice that his entire lawn, regardless of how lush it might appear at first glance, is barely surviving due to an inch of thrush (dead grass that blankets the threshold between what pokes through and the soil underneath). In other words, the so-called "dead spots" are the patches of lawn that died in the process of wading through the thrush. Granted, you can buy thrush-specific combs for lawns about the size of my uncle's, and they work quite well, but that's if you're landscape-savvy enough to know such "combs" exist. Apparently, he's not.

Sleepy Tom is like a fresh blade of grass struggling through an inch of thrush: he's about as sharp as sharp can be when he's sharp enough to be as sharp as he needs to be (if you're sharp enough to catch my drift). Other times, I wonder if life's thrush has gotten the best of him, and maybe that's why he's so sleepy all the time.

Yeah, most grass is greener if you cut it on a regular basis and, yeah, doing so contributes to an accumilation of thrush, but, despite nature's insistence on being itself, I can't help but wonder...

What allows the better part of us to endure, to dismiss the "dead spots," to keep on growing despite the thickness of life's challenges?

What is alchemy beyond the pretensious blanket of thrush we too often aggrandize in terms of incalculable equations if it isn't the simple art of adapting (even though many of us can't)?

Just a thought before I call it a night.

-Logos

[Wolfman]

AND, I like the Dr. Seuss reference too!



Wolfman

[m1thr0s]

What is alchemy beyond the pretensious blanket of thrush we too often aggrandize in terms of incalculable equations if it isn't the simple art of adapting (even though many of us can't)?the *simple art of adapting* has rarely, if ever, been especially *simple*...

there are also more than one level on which is has to be managed...adapting to one's (often dysfunctional) family, adapting to one's (fundamentally psychotic) society, adapting to an uncertain future where material success is ultimately forfeit and only death is very certain... adapting to the wheel of life and death itself has given rise to most schools of transcendental philosophy...

incalculable equations become calculable with time and dedicated persistence and is one of the few tools we have that has a better-than-fair odds of affecting change in ways we might deem advantageous. Virtually every professional undertaking demands that we adapt to these pressures as well...xst, you can't even build websites for a living without being thrown up against an ever-increasing flood of incalculable equations. Dealing with these is also another facet of *adapting*...

So I agree that adapting is at the heart of most things...I don't see where it somehow came to be called *simple*...forgive the comparison, but this sounds like a half-hearted attempt at retreating into some stylized *zen* asana. But the zen approach is also not so *simple* as it pretends to be and is fraught with internal contradictions... The *simple* most often takes a great deal of effort to actually achieve.

Struggle is the nature of things. Asserting that *Life is Struggle* finds compelling validation from all points compass...

m1

[izi]

well we all need a private island and endless free time.

we would all do a fuck of a lot better in living up to our potential.

But not initially...hardships have a way of driving away ignorance and opening our eyes to truth/reality in such a way as we can then discover what we have to lend the world for our very short time here.

[Carbon Class Six]

Fear is a pretty elusive critter and can contribute in ways that many people don't foresee. This, I think, applies very well here - after all, how hard would it be to give up? Death is easy I'm sure...and it certainly can be made easy if one goes about it by him/herself. After death the whole kit-n-kabootle of life is out the window - what can be better to a idealist suffocating in the thrush? Many people, it seems are beguiled by life and sensationalism, which masks the real motivation of fear. Fear of death, uncertainty, failure, "perpetual" emotional torture, etc.

Some people, the aforementioned idealists possibly, seem to find "incalculable equations" are just cracked mirrors for the real equations. Bounce off the walls enough times and you at least realize that bouncing off the walls does nothing; Step 1. At this point you might have a better vantage point of those walls and "incalculable equations" where you can formulate a different route to your goal. A-ha! "There's light at the end of the tunnel!" But is there? or is it just a game and you're STILL fear driven? Nonetheless it seems many systems of thought throughout the world have used this initial gem of understanding to, if nothing else, mask their fear and willingness to give up until they have better proof they are getting somewhere a few more A-ha!s down the road. If we CAN advance at all, then why can't we advance all the way? whatever that entails.

It seems the simple is often most the "unconscious" anyway...which when applied to evolution packs together like sardines. The whole thrust of simplicity movements like zen point to the more subtle but expansive advances made by "going with the flow" for lack of a better explanation. If you consider your whole mind sphere to be your uncle's lawn...well some if it is unnecessary, sorry to say, but that's the way it is. Some of your grass will have to die on the way to a perfect lawn. Ultimately, the lawn will survive, though. "Giving up" or "giving in" sometimes required....but clearly if you stop tending the yard forever it will turn into a patch of weeds and well...maybe some ditch weed will show up at least :laugh:

[Moonburn]

Alchemy is too broad to be placed into either the "thrush" category or the "new growth" category. Some parts of the practice are just procedural "artifacts" generated by centuries of written and oral tradition.

Othertimes it is the comb that removes the thrush. Refining the matter in ones retort is the whole point of alchemy. Sometimes that comb can become so clogged with thrush as to effectively obscure the comb from sight (and render it useless).

Still other times it is the new growth when you discover an obscure or new insight (Abrahadabra?).

In conclusion, sometimes the best thing you can do is just get Tom a pillow.

[visceral/spagyrica]

That is, of course, if handing Tom a pillow and thereby promoting an accumulation of thrush is a means to an end.

I'm not trying to place alchemy into any particular category, but rather to say that a popular redefinition of alchemy in terms of a particular approach (Abrahadabra?) may very well contribute to the development of a thrush:

How many members of this forum claim knowledge of an alchemy-in-general by virtue of a newfound abrahadabric approach that most of those many members will never even touch insofar as practical applications are concerned?

That said, Abrahadabra is an approach. As far as I can tell, it's a great one. I don't resonate with it, personally (or practically), but I sense the appeal. What I don't get is the number of members of this forum who say "I get it" simply to say "I get it" in order to mistakenly gain the kind of trust (by who knows who) that can't be gained in such a way, anyway.

The logos "Abrahadabra" is not a rhetorical device to be manipulated lightheartedly, especially not by those who are solely capable of incorporating it parenthetically as a rhetorical device (as I did earlier in this post).

That's the thrush: enigmatic language that breeds enigmatic language spoken by would-be alchemists who don't know dick for the purposes of confounding the kind of enigmatic language that might have served a purpose once but fails to do so now as a result of those who don't know dick propagating enigmatic language in hopes of impressing their predecessors. (Was that convoluted enough to get the point across?)

Alchemy is about as simple as a child asking, "Why is the sky blue?"

No one said anything about answering such a question.

-Logos

p.s. The thrush also implies cultural divides because I'm moving to China in January, but that's okay: discourse is discourse, right?

[visceral/spagyrica]

...like a half-hearted attempt at retreating into some stylized *zen* asana.

Was never a fan of the Zen approach. My Ma's approach, though... now there's something to learn from.

I mean, there's something to the way mothers do things that defies simplicity simply because simplicity seems too complex a word to describe what it is mothers do when they do what they do.

In that sense, Moms are like the comb one might use to rake out the thrush in one's dying lawn. And if that's not Zen, then I don't know what is. Then again, shame on me for never trying.

To be perfectly honest, I only know Zen insofar as bumper-stickers are concerned: "That was Zen, this is Tao."

If memory serves me correctly, that particular bumper-sticker is especially stylized.

-Logos

[m1thr0s]

That said, Abrahadabra is an approach. As far as I can tell, it's a great one. I don't resonate with it, personally (or practically), but I sense the appeal. What I don't get is the number of members of this forum who say "I get it" simply to say "I get it" in order to mistakenly gain the kind of trust (by who knows who) that can't be gained in such a way, anyway.I don't actually think of Abrahadabra as *an approach* per se...I think of it as a physics...a condensed heuristic (mathematical model) of *stars* that addresses the literal anatomics of the matter, more or less the same as chakras do for the physical body, with an emphasis on the more macrocosmic Body of Light.

Within that body of physics are any number of possible approaches and I have tried to lay out the mechanics of trigrammal fields as a kind of implied tantric approach that can be used pretty much by anyone...or not...I don't really care so much about that because the physics will eventually lead into an effective methodology (or methodologies) simply by virtue of being an enduring physical model. Whether it is an *enduring physical model* or not is anyone's best guess at this pass, but it has already survived many hundreds of years in obscurity and I am guessing this is because of a certain enigmatic recognition factor going on with it.

I think it is presumptuous and wrong-headed to stereotype people as somehow pretending to an understanding they have not got just to gain favor with...whomever. I can probably count on one hand the people who have actually made the claims you speak of and in every case I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. I don't know of anyone who has claimed to understand it all completely, myself included. Moreover, I think that Abrahadabra carries a certain magnetism that attracts people with or without any clear understanding, while understanding itself works itself out in graduated phases. With a little effort, we can begin to sort out why this *glyph* might seem to have this charismatic appeal, based upon the whole notion of *relevance*. Relevance can be demonstrated in the case of Abrahadabra, so this is naturally encouraging to most of us already drawn to it for purely intuitive reasons.

You seem to be intent on using Abrahadabra as a springboard to attacking hypocrisy in people at random. I think your starting assumptions are faulty and unsubstantiated on this score.

note: as you may have already guessed, I regard all such statements as *I don't resonate with it, personally (or practically)* to be fundamentally ignorant assertions, more or less right up there with saying *I don't resonate with geometry, personally (or practically)*...you have every right to make such an assertion of course...but it is still fundamentally rooted in misinterpretation, and is ultimately, an irrational bias, an attitude and nothing more. If Abrahadabra is even half of what it appears to be, you will never succeed at dispelling it with such cheap theatrics as this, though it is certainly your right to try...but I do know these attitudes for what they are and they really do become a little tiresome I suppose...other than this, they affect nothing, make no positive/negative difference of any kind.

What can anyone really say to such a comment anyway? That's nice dear...go back to sleep...:cool:

I only tell you this much because I do regard you as a friend, but I have also noted how people will commonly use their sense of knowing me on a personal level as a convenient dodge against the ideas I have put forward...as though this was all some silly little magic trick you've seen a thousand times before and now find yourself having outgrown it , gone beyond it, or a thousand and one other little disgruntled snippets.

m1

[visceral/spagyrica]

First, I should make an addendum to the post m1thr0s just responded to: Moonburn simply reminded me of elsewhere on this site and other sites where other terms are often used in the kind of fashion I was referring to. I'm unfamiliar with Moonburn and therefore have no grounds for attacking Moonburn at all. And I do apologize if Moonburn or anyone else thought I was attacking Moonburn.

-Logos

[visceral/spagyrica]

I definitely see how Abrahadabra (and here I'm referring to the word itself, I suppose) may very well be the key to linking quantum physics and relativistic physics: the equation that describes not only weak and strong nuclear forces, but gravitational and electromagnetic forces, as well--one that does so at the same time.

But String Theory may very well turn out to do the same. That's why I would call Abrahadabra (here I'm referring to the physics) an approach just like I would call String Theory an approach. Many physicists don't resonate with String Theory (which is funny because according to the theory you resonate on an atomic level whether you like it or not). Some physicists have even gone so far as to label String Theory a religion as opposed to a science.

The "thrush" that's been collecting since the Middle Ages is my main concern. For the better part of the past millenium, countless texts have been written on alchemy (and occult practices in general) that not only contribute to alchemy, but contain the potential to contribute to the evolution of our species. Far more texts than that have contributed to an accumulation of what I'm calling "thrush" (even though bullshit would be a better term). About 90% of any New Age section (or any non-fiction section in any bookstore) is nothing more than "thrush": texts that are simply there to fill the empty spaces because if you only had the texts that have something to contribute your bookstore wouldn't be much of a bookstore at all, but rather a small collection. Fiction sections are a different story. Fiction is a matter of taste for particular genres, so more often than not one reader's trash is another reader's treasure. I don't like romance novels, but a lot of people do, so there's no way I can just call the romance section a load of "thrush."

The internet has a lot of "thrush"--unless of course you like porn and random subject bloggers with a combined IQ of about 65. The occult is the same way. Abrahadabra (and this time I'm referring to www.abrahadabra.com in its entirety) is one of the exceptions. I feel as if everyone here has something to contribute. That's a rare thing.

The Middle Ages and the Renaissance are chock full of "thrush": poems describing grand alchemical experiments that don't work at all because the schmucks who wrote them weren't quick enough to decipher the enigmatic language of their predecessors long enough to figure out what exactly they were trying to do when they set out to share their secrets within secrets.

I'm not trying to use Abrahadabra as a springboard for attacking hypocrisy. I'm using a word (most likely the wrong word) as a cannon for launching a full frontal assault on 700+ years of "thrush" that all began when some poor soul got too caught up in the idea of being famously mysterious and let what little knowledge he had slip through his fingers in the process.

That same poor soul from 700 years ago may very well return 25 years from now to write a book on Abrahadabra in which he gets it all wrong. And much to this community's dismay, the accumulation of "thrush" will continue.

-Logos

[m1thr0s]

I have often wondered just how much of what we have as published occult wisdom has been dictated by the publishing industry itself, which is not especially concerned with truth so much as sales of books.

We see the evidence of this all the time. I cannot recommend any texts on the ternary hexagrams at present because none exist in print! And we cannot make copies of those that used to be in print because they are still under copyright protections...a clever little catch-22 that leaves people without an important resource for understanding that portion of Abrahadabra theory...

All determined by the publishing industry itself...so how long has this been going on and how many authors have only ever had it in their minds to write books that would sell copies and thus earn them the privilege of writing more books for a living? And if you garner a cult following, so much the better for business! None of which has diddly to do with truth...

I suspect that a good chunk of that *thrush* exists expressly because it has been encouraged to exist, probably for no other reason than money itself...

m1

[visceral/spagyrica]

Money is certainly a huge factor. There's also the gross misrepresentation factor: Brian Vickers' essay on the correspondence system of the Renaissance is a great example. It's the premier essay on the correspondence system. It was written in the 70s and the guy completely fails to grasp the role occult qualities played in the correspondence system during that time period. As a result, he concludes the system doesn't work. Just another case in point of someone trampling over classic texts wearing modern shoes and walking away completely confused pretending to know what he's talking about. And so, scholars to this day grossly misrepresent Renaissance alchemy to the rest of the academic community by virtue of citing Vickers' essay. It can't be stopped.

I really ought to buckle down and write that damn essay. :cool:

-Logos

[m1thr0s]

yeah, you should...your own area of expertise is probably a little more exclusive than you consciously acknowledge...or value properly...whatever...

I understand how difficult this can be...it's not like you'll make the NYT Best Seller's list with this stuff...probably have to self-publish anyway and might find a dozen people in the whole world who took the time to read it...

But there is such a thing as correcting the record for the record's sake I think...even if nobody seems to be paying any particular attention...

how motivating is that? maybe I should NOT become a motivational speaker afterall...:(

m1

[visceral/spagyrica]

Putting one asshole down in favor of another, I find, can be more motivating (and by all means more nourishing) than witnessing oneself a NYT's Bestseller.

-Logos

[Moonburn]

I didn't think you were attacking me. And even if you were, I'm an adult (I think).

In any case, you briefly pointed out that some cases of thrush tend to be subjective. The truth is (in my eyes, of course), describing incidences of "thrush" is like trying to point out which biological adaptations will be passed on to future generations. A great deal of the occult literature of the medieval ages (as you have also previously said) was just bullshit that was printed for a buck. In fact, the most influential grimoires of our time were probably completely fabricated. And look at what they went on to encourage? A rich, occult, syncretic melting pot that contributed greatly to the diasporic and indigenous religions of the Americas.
Much the same thing happened in late era Egypt, especially in Alexandria. A whole cluster fuck of ideas came together to form... well... a good chunk of the occult ideas that we rest upon today.*

I think that is an important point to keep in mind. We can suspect that something is thrush. But we cannot predict what it will turn into, given the right circumstances.



*It might be noted that a lot of those ideas could be considered... "thrush-worthy".

[dev]

I really ought to buckle down and write that damn essay.

Do it... you can't write when your dead and gone. All art is immortal!


"When money speaks, the truth is silent!" - Russian Proverb

:cool:

[visceral/spagyrica]

That's a fantastic point, Moonburn!

When I was growing up and had to mow our lawn as a weekly chore, that chore included bagging the grass clippings and dumping them into a compost in the corner of our yard. Once a year, my dad would dig out the decomposed clippings from about two years prior and use them to fertilize our vegetable garden.

The idea that thrush can most certainly decompose into something that has the potential to fertilize the kind of change that gives rise to a really fucking tasty tomato... I didn't think of that, at all.

Shakespeare wasn't particularly popular in his day, except maybe in the form of Titus Andronicus (because it's especially violent and, you guessed it, our tastes were no different back then). Macbeth, for example, was not at all the play to reference if you wanted to talk about Shakespeare. Hundreds of years later, however, Macbeth and King Lear have inspired countless artists from various painters to Akira Kurosawa and his phenomenally good samurai films. Which is not to say that Shakespeare was largely discarded as thrush in his day, but rather to say that the fact one of his least known plays yesterday (Hamlet) is his most popular play today encompasses what I think you're trying to get. (Maybe that has something to do with our modern attraction to cheating on our spouses as opposed to literally stabbing our spouses in the back, lol).

I'm going to continue what have to say next in a separate post.

-Logos

[visceral/spagyrica]

My initial question about the nature of alchemy was not my initial question. At the outset of this thread, I asked:

What allows the better part of us to endure, to dismiss the "dead spots," to keep on growing despite the thickness of life's challenges?

I love chatting about alchemy, and I feel as if all that's said on the subject of living-despite-life's-thrush can easily be applied to the often difficult endeavor of undergoing an alchemical change, but I'd like to get back to the blue fish, if we may.

In the confines of a beaker, you might witness a profound alchemical change from an objective point-of-view and simply say, "Hmm, interesting. I should take note of that." But when you witness a profound alchemical change from a subjective point-of-view, you don't simply say, "I'll take note of that." You take note whether you like it or not and that note-to-self tends to fuck with you, especially if you weren't prepared, even though you made a conscious decision to catalyze said change.

Maintaining a lawn is easy. Maintaining oneself as a bright green blade of grass constantly struggling though an inch of thrush is really fucking hard. We have our bad decisions. We have our regrets. We have our bouts with depression. Some of us manage to resurface a little bit greener than before, while some of us fall victim to the blues (and we all know what happens to green when you add a bunch of blue and no yellow).

Sometimes I feel as if those who endure no matter how thick life's thrush have uncovered a formula for the philosophers' stone that no responsible alchemist would dare mention lest he or she deface the beauty of survival for generations to come.

Let me put it simply; let me put it this way:

How, alchemically speaking, does one survive the death of a loved one after thirty long years of falling head over heels for one another?

-Logos

[Octarine Prince]

thrush = thatch here (Ohio and beyond)

Interesting thread.

[visceral/spagyrica]

How sobering. Octarine Prince, I am humbled by the size of your vocabulary.

This entire time I should have been using the word "thatch." :laugh:

Ah, sweet English: at least I used the wrong word in a way that everyone who responded so far was able to get what I was getting at. :p

I'm gonna go cry in a dark corner now.

-Logos

[izi]

thrush is those gross white spots from yeast on your tongue or itchy nipples from breastfeeding infants with thrush

so yeah its all good man thats some hella nasty shit right there aint nobody want it

dont cry