Authorial intent in ancient poets: did they intend to write directly, or indirectly?
Which is the correct mode of reading religious mythology: exoteric or esoteric? literal or figurative?
This is THE key question for interpretation!
If you believe ancient poets were literalists you are just stupid, a mental child, an outsider; failed to get the joke, you fail to read the meaning network in the correct mode, you have been misled by the two-state meaning-toggling trip-up way of writing that the ancients and the rock lyricists use.
I find is impossible to believe but it is true, I could not believe it when I read on the Internet debates: many people do not believe, they disbelieve that the song purple haze by Hendrix is about acid!! Wow ignorance runs far deeper than I could then I can possibly fathom.
There really are, by design!, two ways of reading and the ancient poets consistently write in a twofold scheme to either baffle you or communicate to you
it is a system of riddles
it is essentially a riddle that is designed to mislead those who don't get the riddle into literalism, and to reveal and a firm in a different feedback loop feedback mode those who do recognize the real veiled meaning, the actual referent
Most important thing in the world of interpretation is to understand what mode of writing this is:
ancient poetry is crafted and engineered by design to act as a binary sorting function, to be read in two distinctive contradictory ways:
in one baffling way designed to baffle the outsiders and even hypnotize them with superstition and magical thinking for children and mislead them and given the feedback loop, set up a feedback loop so that they get Miss lead into reading in a certain childish mode of thought, incomprehending literalism
But also designed to be read in an entirely different mode by those who do get the joke, who are in on the riddle and realize that every item means something other than that item, and it is all referring to {cognitive loosener for mental transformation about personal control power and mental world model of time, self, and control}
There are two stable states locked in by feedback; there are two stable states of interpreting these writings, these themes:
either (at first, prior to initiation) the mind locks into this self-sustaining stable mode of exoteric literalist reading including a sustained stance that the academics have in clueless modernity: the stance of incomprehension and misreading the ancients as being superstitious literalists believing in demons and dragons and sacrificing your child
that exoteric reading sets up a feedback loop of where the outsiders get stuck and caught and trapped in an incorrect mode or an incorrect stance of reading
or esoteric, where you do understand {cognitive loosening for mental transformation}, then do you recognize the metaphoricity of analogy and metaphor and recognize and comprehend that the higher true meaning of the poetry-riddle descriptively refers to {cognitive loosener for mental transformation}
religious mythology or analogy is, the operating principle I have identified is that it is designed to function as a bi-state hermeneutic feedback loop: esoteric reading gets confirmation and recognizes the themes and the sets up a feedback loop of switching to this higher, stable, sustained reading – a homeostatic state shift in a 2-state meaning-shifting network
Religious mythology is designed to function as a bi-state hermeneutic feedback loop giving two exclusive stable modes of interpretation: exoteric versus esoteric, literalist versus {figurative referring to cognitive loosening for mental transformation}
So I can stop being surprised by people who are too dense to read mixed wine as mushrooms
rather this is inherent in the two-state meaning shifting network: either you read it all in a confused *exoteric* garbled mostly literal way and you think wow those ancients sure were superstitious and filled with nonsense"
OR
you recognize the other higher meaning the higher *esoteric* referent system systematically and have respect for the ancient poets and realize they knew more about this then supposedly smart moderns until me, or until freaking Gandy
if you believe ancient poets were consistently metaphor-using, you have wisdom and Ole Miss trees are revealed to you
So yes you're right, you're right that mixed wine means grape alcohol, you are doing a correct exoteric reading
I now see that you're correct, not incorrect, you are doing the correct *exoteric* reading that the poets set up for you as they stick out their foot and trip you and make you fall into a pit and laugh at you heartily
The sphinx poses a riddle for youths, and when they think about the riddle and think correctly, the youths die
My motivation here is the idea "well what analogy/metaphor would you expect ancient poets to use if not {limping king}; what would you expect people to use *if they were looking for an analogy to describe the ego death theory without directly*
like say you have lyric writers who want to write freely about the altered state but the sensors are preventing them
they have to invent as we did, they had to invent, they were forced by necessity to invent *encoding* to write popular songs on the radio in the 1960s; forced to use the poetry lyric writing principle of {use metaphor, not direct reference}
now one way of encoding references to the altered state is through negative, by saying "these experiences are bad, these experiences bad, I'm going to write an album full of songs talking about these experiences and how you should avoid them:
"Girl, you thought you found the answer
On that magic carpet ride last night
Well, there's nothin' that you ain't tried
To fill the emptiness inside
Kicks just keep gettin' harder to find
And all your kicks ain't bringin' you peace of mind
Before you find out it's too late, girl
You better get straight"
— Paul Revere and the Raiders, Kicks
so you have the whole forced artificial genre that the prohibitionists created, the genre of the anti-drug song
and oh how the censors lap that up, how they love this thing that they've created: the anti-drug song, which draws attention over here and says "hey look over here at these, look at these experiences here, they're bad, look at them, yes they're bad, look how bad these are, look at them, look at them"
then you have positive indirect songs that are positive in tone and indirectly talk about the mystic state
and then you have negative-toned songs that are indirectly talking about the mystic state like the song Help! by John Lennon
so there are three or four combinations right there I've identified of how sensors have created by necessity encodings, have forced the lyric writers to encode and forced the listeners thus to *decode* the encoded lyrics, to find loopholes around the censorship to achieve communication despite censorship
Or equivalently to achieve communication despite an ancient riddling, veiling cultural convention of {never speaking directly but always speaking through analogy/metaphor}, which is how ancient poetry works: never speak directly; always speak through metaphor.
because metaphor is the holy language, to mimic how the mind initially thinks one way and then when the veils pulled back by loose cognition, the mind changes to think the other way
because the mind Vails and then reveals, so should our language be indirect such as to Vail and then reveal
If you want pop lyricists to write songs about altered states that get past the sensors, that successfully elude the archons, how would you expect, what would you expect John Lennon to say the meaning of Lucy in the sky with diamonds olis?
do you think his song would be played on the radio if he were straightforward?
do you think the censors would allow you to hear him if he said that yes indeed it means what it seems to
what would you expect ancient writers, assuming that they are trying to talk in analogy about the mystic state revelation, how else would you expect them to express themselves other than:
{king at banquet drinks wine, is turned into stone when he sees a snake}
{limping king}
{centaur (chariot steersman all in one) at wedding banquet drinks wine, goes berserk out of control, and a battle results, using a tree as a weapon}
{battling a dragon guarding a treasure}
{the dragon persecuting the pregnant mother}
{burning away mortality in the fire}
{washing away impurity in the stream in the fountain that comes forth mysteriously in the cave}
how would you expect him to write, what would you expect them to write as analogies if not those, given the assumption that {they are trying to to do poetry and ancient writing in an analogy way}, what analogy would you have them use for mushrooms, if not {mixed wine}?
So when we assume the correct motivation, or when we assume that for whatever motivation {what they were doing was talking in an indirect way}, when we assume that the motivation is to {write in an indirect analogy-based way}, then we may rightly judge with well-placed confidence "how close of a mapping is this analogy, this metaphor, to the cybernetic referent of what is revealed in the loose cognitive state and the mental transformation process?"
Here I have isolated the key fundamental question:
what mode were the ancient poets writing in
and similarly nobody believed my heresy except a beat hippie raver assured me that at the time during the 1970s it was understood that Rush was an acid band, but as far as contemporary dimwits on the Internet, nobody believed me when I revealed that Rush is an acid mystic band but I was operating on the principle of awareness of censorship, how else would you expect them to write about the subject if not through analogy indirectly
now the ancient poets may have had some different motive then modern censorship during the war on enlightenment, but the result is the same: for whatever reason the mode was indirect description
so that is the fundamental question is:
were the ancients trying to write directly or were the ancient poets trying to write indirectly?
which side are you on?
if you agree that {the ancient poets were consistently trying to write indirectly}, then we have a bright green light affirming that mixed wine means mushrooms.
If you are in denial that mixed wine means mushrooms, you are implicitly adhering to an interpretive hypothesis that {the ancients chose to write in a direct way and not through analogy and metaphor}
so just like I have asked about in Jesus mysteries group nobody was asking this question that I was asking which is:
stop *assuming* the nature of the ancient writings.
I ask you explicitly "what kind of writings are these New Testament writings? how did the authors actually understand, what kind of writing did the authors intend these to be?"
nobody was asking that question of authorial intent and so we have our unthinking assumptions about authorial intent and we can see peoples implicit theories, only-implicit theories about the authorial intent of ancient poets
Their dimwitted wrong unthinking hypothesis is that, which they take it as granted, is that {ancient poets intended to write directly}
but when you explicitly look at that premise it's a joke
why would a poet want to write directly? it's a self-contradiction
it's a premise that self-contradictory.
So there are two kinds of people in the University:
those who don't think and they take it as granted that {ancient poets intended to write in a direct way}
then you have people like me who do think and do recognize that {ancient poets intended to write in an indirect way} so why would ancient poets write directly about mushrooms, given that it is clear that they intended to write about everything everything, everything, in an indirect way
we here finally reach sanity and consistency:
what is the intent of the mode of writing of ancient poetic bards?
ancient poets sought to write in metaphor while meaning something other than what they write on the surface
are we too stupid and dense to be able to grasp that mode of writing?
Either they intended to write directly or they intended to write indirectly, which is it?
which side are you on?
if you say "indirectly" then we may rightly conclude that mixed wine means mushrooms
if you are a person who doesn't think and you take it as granted in a self-contradictory way, that ancient poets intended to write directly, then you're right I give in and mixed wine must mean grape alcohol;
they were so stupid and unevolved back then that they thought about rebirth they thought it meant climbing back into the mother's womb — yes that must be it you are so smart I bow to you give you my laurel wreath i'm a fool and you are the wise one
Given that the mythmakers were doing a project of {indirect analogy describing loose cognitive mental model transformation}, now, only now, may we judge whether a suitable well-fitting analogy is {grape wine refers to mushroom wine}.
If we agree on the premise that {ancient poets, same as modern Rock lyricists, were trying to use indirect analogies to describe loose cognitive mental transformation}, now we are in a correct position to have good judgment on whether {wine} is a good analogy that successfully maps to the referent of {loose cognition inducer; cognitive loosener for mental transformation}.
suppose that ancient poets were prohibited by the censors and they were self-censoring to hide or veil the fact that this is all triggered by mushrooms
I asked about the Bible in the Yahoo group of dolts: what kind of writings are these? what mode of writings are these intended to be?
these are intended to be figurative indirect metaphorical writings including riddling and deliberate misleading that can be taken in a dense outsider way which all of them in the discussion group fall into, or can be taken in an insiders way which I adhere to.
It is writing that is designed to sort people into outsiders versus insiders, to speak one way literally to outsiders, and a different way at the same time to insiders
it is a meaning-switching meaning network switching way of writing, two-state meaning-toggling network: either all this writing is to be taken one way literally (exoterically) for the outsiders, or all this system of writing is taken to be read a different way (the esoteric neaning) it is designed to miss lead as a riddle and then reveal the other, actual meaning
Around 2000 it was a tremendous help for me the book by freaking Gandy the Jesus mysteries which that Yahoo group full of dolts is named after
That book puts a great emphasis on esoteric reading vs exoteric reading
And that is indeed efficient to summarize my whole point in this posting:
if you assume and take it as granted that ancient poets intended to write directly and were stupid literalists and superstitious people who believed in demons and dragons and sacrificing their child on the altar, then we don't know anything about the ancients, but we certainly know something about you: you are using the *exoteric* childish way of reading used by outsiders, the clueless, those who have not been initiated, those who have not loosecog
If you consciously and astutely realize that the ancient poets intended to write indirectly and were savvy metaphorists, you are using the *esoteric* adult way of reading used by insiders, the wise, those who have been initiated in loosecog
(continuing from further above)
how then would you expect them to evade the censors, or to fulfill the requirement of not speaking directly?
what would be the most efficient analogy that is most isomorphic with mushrooms from this point of you, given that the modern sensors are standing over the ancient poets and refused to broadcast songs that directly speak about mushrooms
the ancient poets exactly the same as modern poets were forced to communicate through analogy rather than directly and their solution to Eve aid our modern censors such as the BBC was the theme of {mixed wine banquet}.
As far as analogies go, the question is posed to us: is or is not grape wine isomorphic and a good analogy, a good metaphor, to refer to {cognitive loosener for mental transformation}?
Copyright (C) 2015 Egodeath. All Rights Reserved.
Egodeath Yahoo Group 