Song Of The Day: Omaha / Counting Crows
Word Of The Day: Emesis / Vomiting

So, the first feature of IS is that flexible, quadra-directional signifier. One signifier "pointed" in various directions (inversions) produces the complimentarity of opposites, etc. The "yes, no, maybe, and probably not" example in the previous blog is not wholly descriptive of that operation, because the inversions don't necessarily go along a strict black / white / grey / marble kind of flippy-floppy. You also get them like this:

uun-auth / conscious(ing) (of an individual)
thau-nuu / unconscious(ing) (of an individual)
uun-AUth-nuu / breaking through, rising cognizance, finally puncturing into awareness, emergent recognition of previously suppressed or unconscious content (of an ind.) a shadow element brought into light.
thau-nuu-auth / falling under, interior content sinking or being buried into unconscious (willfully) in avoidance. shifting into shadow.

or this kind of thing:

tijzh / waxing, emerging within the (already present) subtle sphere of recognition
jzhit / waning, fading within the (still stable, enduring) subtle sphere of recognition
tijzhit / transcending, moving out of the subtle sphere of recognition into the causal
jzhitihzj / regressing, drifting out of the subtle sphere of recognition back into the psychic

With this system of inversions, you end up with LOTS of palindromes.

Which is beautiful. And you end up with lots of new colors and shapes to play with in poetry, lyrics, etc. Having four directions to a signifier expands the "play on words" quality.

But that's really the tip of the iceberg.

I was talking with Ken Wilber about this stuff, and my interest and desire to bring depth, real depth and dimension to this language. I was experimenting with prefixes, infixes, suffixes that would denote basic gradations (gross, subtle, causal, etc) but was not having that much luck with the results. Ken suggested simply configuring levels -ten basic altitudes- which are designated by color. Like inches, the increments themselves are "content free", but they designate a measurement, a depth, an ALTITUDE. So, you have ten colors (which correspond to basic universal visual spectrum) which refer to altitudes, or depths, of reference. This becomes really, really cool, and is actually a revolutionary innovation in linguistics. The colors are (pulled from Ken's work):

1, Infrared: Archaic, sensorimotor
2, Magenta: Magical, animistic
3, Red: Egocentric, power, magic-mythic
4, Amber: Mythic, ethnocentric, traditional
5, Orange: Rational, worldcentric, pragmatic, modern
6, Green: Pluralistic, multicultural, postmodern
7, Teal: Global mind, early vision-logic, higher mind
8, Turqoise: Planetary mind, late vision-logic, systemic
9, Indigo: Lucent, transplanetary, illumined mind
10, Violet: Meta-mind, overmind

Now, shit gets (literally and figuritively) DEEP. For any ONE signifier, let's say a word like

Naiy-eyehd: Feminine angelic (benificent) deity
Dheye-yain: Feminine demonic (malevolent) deity
Naiy-Eyehd-yain: Femine deity, trasfiguring from benificence to malevolence
yain=dheye-yain: Feminine deity, transfiguring from malevolence to benificence

Now, as we've seen, it's actually ONE signifier-unit, which we can point in any of those four directions, depending on our perspective. It's a matter of perspective, that's the underlying assumption. But, when we add Wilber's altitudes to this four-inversion of a signifier, we get a really rich super nova of meaning. His ten altitudes, which like inches, are a content-free system of measurement (while inches measure inter-objective features, Wilber's altitudes here measure human interiors, they measure depth of consciousness, dimension of perspective, degree of inclusion) are now applied to the four directions, and thanks to Ken, we get authentic, beautiful VERTICAL DEPTH in language. By simply COLORING a signifier, we are able to precisely denote the depth being referred to. This is a HUGE leap. Because there isn't some objective, concrete entity out there that is a

"Dheye-yain" (Feminine demonic entity)

there are many of them, and which one you perceive in your experience, which one you apprehend in your world depends on the WORLD VIEW of the experiencer, depends upon the altitude of the awareness in the perceiver, depends upon the depth and degree of awareness in the filter of that which registers the phenomena, in this case a feminine demonic presence or energy. REALITY IS ALWAYS A DYNAMIC MATRIX OF DEPTH AND DIMENSION and the fact that our languages do not accomodate that (intrinsic) facet of our being is a sad unnecessary deficiency. So, by example, there are (at least) ten levels of

Dheye-yain

because we have scientifically established at least ten levels of World Views, ten altitudes of cosnciousness in the developmental unfolding of any human being. These are fulcrums, developmental levels all human beings pass through. They are stages of successively increasing depth in being, and while we do not all expand to include them all, they are indeed available to us all, and have been explored and described in great depth through decades of emperical research in consciousness. And so, if we say Dheye-yain, which one do we mean? There are AT LEAST

1, Infrared DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through an archaic, sensorimotor subject
2, Magenta DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a magical, animistic subject
3, Red DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through an egocentric-power, magic-mythic subject
4, Amber DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a mythic, ethnocentric, traditional subject
5, Orange DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a rational, worldcentric, pragmatic, modern subject
6, Green DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a pluralistic, multicultural, postmodern subject
7, Teal DHEYE-YAIN Feminie demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a global mind, early vision-logic, higher mind subject
8, Turqoise DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a planetary mind, late vision-logic, systemic subject
9, Indigo DHEYE-YAIN Feminine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a lucent, transplanetary, illumined mind subject
10, Violet DHEYE-YAIN Femine demonic energy as perceived and interpreted through a meta-mind, overmind subject.

Ten different subjects, ten different experiences. Ten different altitudes of consciousness, ten different levels of awareness, and ten VERY DISTINCT types of experiences and concomintant interpretations.

If we have ANY doubt about the reality of these functioning altitudes of awareness, all we have to do is take ten different people, let's say a

1, a newborn infant
2, a two year old child
3, Gene Simmons
4, George W. Bush
5, Dr. Dean Edel
6, the average citizen of The Netherlands
7, the members of Blackalicious
8, St. Teresa of Avila
9, Charlotte Joko Beck
10, Your Own Highest Self, The Ground Of All Being

and then "subject them" (pun intended) to the SAME EXACT horrifying experience and then ask THEM to report what they experienced and most importantly how they INTERPRET what it means. So, let's say we give them all a bad acid trip. But they don't know they've taken acid, they're just put to the experience, with no preparation, and without knowledge it is an experiment. They see feminine demons, they're attacked by all sorts of that energy / phenomena. Then, we ask them to interpret it. What you will notice is a distinct stratification of description, and it will correspond to altitudes of consciousness. First of all, a newborn infant? Raw, instinctual fear. A two year old? Immersion in a magical realm of evil spirits and such. Gene Simmons? Since it's a feminine demon, he probably tried to fuck it. Bush? He's locked in a archetypal battle of Good and Evil, and he probably thinks the feminine demons are Islamic terrorists, and God is on his side. And SO ON.

These altitudes are very real features in the topography of human development. And our language DOES NOT DEAL WITH THEM. When George W. Bush says "God", he's talking about an AMBER GOD, and that is simply the fucking WAY IT IS. That is something we verify easily by administering the simplest developmental test. When Gene Simmons says "God" he's talking about a RED GOD, he's talking about HIMSELF (hee hee). When Dr. Joko Beck describes GOD it's at LEAST an INDIGO GOD, and so on. And OH MY FUCKING (VIOLET) GOD how much confusion, antipathy, and vertigo is produced from this insane, ubiquitous mis-communication among DIFFERENT ALTITUDES OF AWARENESS.

People. Listen. George Bush's God is not Joko Beck's God. Ani Difranco's experience, her World, her felt sense and interpretation of reality is LITERALLY an entirely different phenomenological REALITY than that of Tony Blair's, and until WE BEGIN FACTORING THAT IN TO INTER-SUBJECTIVE EXCHANGE WE ARE DOOMED TO INHABIT A FRACTURED, DISCOMBOBULATED MIND FUCK THAT'S CHIEF EXPORT IS SUFFERING AND INTRACTABLE CONFLICT.

So, do we know see the utility in having LANGUAGE that recognized depth, altitude, and the inherent dimensions of our humanity? We are creatures of depth, (Violet) God-dammit. There is not something "out there" that is "God" that possesses fixed, immutable qualities which we merely register. There are human beings with various degrees of depth, myriad altitudes of consciousness, and they register and interpret "God" from whatever center of gravity, whatever LEVEL of awareness they inhabit. Now, that is not to say there is no immutable Reality. There is the Absolute, which is without quality, which is without feature, which transcends all forms, manifestations, or conceivable aspects, and that is Spirit. That is the GROUND OF YOUR OWN BEING. That is 100% present RIGHT NOW, reading this BLOG. That is another matter. But in the mean time,

This matter of levels, of altitudes in the constructed language of IS (thanks to Ken Wilber), is central to the POINT of constructing a language that reveals, engages, and celebrates the native endowment of all human beings: DEPTH. Why the fuck would we settle for anything less at our disposal when it comes to our expressive capacity?