The free association thread

[dada]

Free association from "virus crisis main thread."

Basic idea, that in the living world as thought, strength and mercy are magnetic forces that push and pull. In the dead world, strength and mercy are combined into "mercy in strength," and "strength in mercy," the perverted-sounding "tough love," and "kill them with kindness."

If we take the well-known refrain, "misery loves company," to mean "miserable hearts love the thought of company, however the thought company does not love it, but loves joyous hearts," we begin to see the beginnings of the basis of the popular "love triangle" story form. The miserable heart, the joyous heart, and the thought company, called "the muse," in the story form.

But in the living world, the relationship between the miserable heart and the joyous heart is not derived through triangulation. "The miserable heart loves the thought of company, but company does not love it, loving the joyous heart" still holds, but the joyous heart loves the merciful thought, while the merciful thought loves the miserable heart.

The miserable heart and the joyous heart do not ever even come into contact, in the living world. The miserable heart can only know of the joyous heart through the merciful thought, and the joyous heart only knows of the miserable heart through the thought company, or "the muse that it does not love," which swallows up merciful thoughts.

So not, "hell is other people," but "hell is known through miserable company."

[dada]

The same push/pull dynamic can also be seen between letters and numbers, through the interaction between what we'll call poetic styles and apocalyptic styles. Apocalyptic words need apocalyptic numbers to fall on, otherwise they are like nuclear bombs falling forever through space. But apocalyptic numbers need poetic words, to draw the reader in. The mini-black holes of poetic words need the X-zone of poetry, otherwise they fly upwards through space forever, and the X-zone of poetry begins and ends in disarming apocalyptic words.

As well we could say numbers "do it by the book," and letters "do it by rote," or by heart. The idea being that you can sing a song in another language by mimicking the sounds of the words, but if you don't know the meaning of the words, you can't say that you "know it by heart." And you can solve a math problem by arriving at the correct answer, but if you don't show your work, you can't say you "did it by the book."

[dada]

Also the actor-artist and the artist-actor must memorize their roles, but if that is all they do, we say the perfomance they give is flat, leading to more work in the cutting room, more work for the pr team, more work for the ass-kissing critics. More work all around. But if they learn their roles by heart, we say they gave a good performance or a great one, and so on, and everybody is out of work but very impressed.

While the scientific-philosopher and the philosophical-scientist begin by knowing their subjects by heart. They rote 'em. And when they "do it by the book," and show their work, you can clearly see the difference that knowing it first makes. We say that their "performances are masterful," and the critics have a field day.

Actor-artists and artist-actors can be said to give masterful performances as well, but we say they are masterful performances "occasionally," or "on occasion."

[dada]

So maybe it is possible now to better see the distinction between utopia, on the one hand, and the living world as it is thought to be, on the other. The utopian is an apocalyptic narrative, meaning it and its dystopian offshoots are specific cultural narrative forms, and as isolationist escapism are in the end self-defeating.

But the living world doesn't stop at poetic cultural narrative forms, continuing on into forms that don't look anything like poetry. Cultural narrative forms like the transgressive, the woven, and the rare composed thought-driven cultural narrative.

Maybe we can bring the idea into sharper focus by seeing it in contrast to the decomposing, decomposed thought-driven cultural narrative of consumer mass production, as found on social media.

[dada]

The difference between the spoken word and the written may be taken to be that the spoken word has the benefits of timing and gesture, while the written word does not, but the written word has other benefits that the spoken word lacks.

For living thought, though, ideas are like pots of alphabet soup, and when the soup is cooked, the words form on the surface. When checking on soup, if the words do not form, the idea must not be ready and is set to simmer longer on a back burner.

When the words are ready, it does not matter if they are spoken or written, because the obvious words spoken do not convey the idea, but the actual words are conveyed through the timing and gestures. Not that the obvious spoken words are any different in form from the actual, but the twilight language of subtle emphasis brings out the actual meaning of the words. For the written word it is no different, except that the reader must envision timing and gesture. If and when the reader stumbles upon the actual meaning of the words, they know it by the sound of the pieces of a puzzle satisfyingly clicking into place.

The difference then is between the political speech-like timing and gestures of the rhythms of mass production culture, and the odd transformations of twilight language. For the actual words to retain their meaning, the chain of thought production must remain unbroken, and not interrupted when face-to-face with the captivating presence of mass culture reproduction in every sphere of life, only pausing in a natural rise and fall like deep breathing. Then the two messages may run concurrently, and the actual message in the mass medium is seen in all its bewildered urgency, as the insatiable need of the culture that wishes it could, but cannot stop the mass production.

[dada]

And so the difference between cult behavior and living thought can be easily seen, as the difference between endlessly searching for hidden meanings in words that are not there, and simply following a train of thought to its destination. The hidden meanings never end, but the train always pulls into the station, where you can hop off and go anywhere you please.

[dada]

Before getting into "being content with your lot in life" stuff, there's one more thing which I guess is worth saying along the lines above, about the relationship between the obvious and the actual. The obvious always leaps out at you, the actual is what it leaps off of.

That there must be something actual that is not obvious is made clear by picturing the obvious leaping out at you from nothing. If there is nothing actually there for "what is obvious" to leap out at you from, then clearly nothing is there, and there is nothing obvious about it.

However establishing the two, obvious and actual, is not the same as establishing the relationship between them. The obvious relationship is of a balanced opposition between two forces, like "can't have one without the other." Some obvious metaphors for it are passive and active, negative positive, light dark, yin yang. The actual relationship is in the harmony between "yin and yang" as two, and the "yin yang" as one whole. The actual relationship then is not balanced, but what we call a bi-unity.

So the balanced opposing forces are established in bi-unity, but the realtionship is not between them, but between the two of them and the whole thing "taken together." We then see that what is actual - the bi-unity - is always much more actual than obvious, in that what is actual is obviously actual but not actually obvious, and what is obvious is only half obvious and half actual.

Through obvious symbols of two opposing forces, is one way to introduce the actual relationship in bi-unity. But as static symbols can be tricky, we usually move into other, less obvious ways to describe it. Of course to consider other obvious pairs of opposites as actual bi-unities gives us something to consider. To arrive at "the obvious bi-unity of active and passive is actually more active than passive," or "the obvious bi-unity of positive and negative is actually more positive than negative," or "the obvious bi-unity of light and dark is actually more light than dark," might lead to some enlightening discoveries.

The mathematician must be careful here, in the sense of carefully defining terms. Otherwise the formulas become balanced, if a equals b, then b must equal a. Armed with carefully defined terms, however, the mathematician may apply itself to the odd mathematical world of uneven equations.

Because to say that the bi-unity of passive and active is actually more passive than active, is only to say it is more "actively passive." As well to say the bi-unity of positive and negative is actually more positive than negative, is only to say it is more "negatively positive. And to say that the obvious bi-unity of light and dark is actually more dark than light, puts the mathematician in a ridiculous position, arguing that "the bi-unity of light and dark is more dark" is somehow possible without the whole thing being "brought to light." And finally even sillier statements like "light and dark are the same, therefore light is dark and dark is light."

For the benefit of the mathematician, then, we instead treat the bi-unity of the obvious and the actual as a transparent curtain, or a series of gauzy veils between you and a light. The light is funny, though, and can only be seen through the curtain or veils. Parting the curtain, or removing the veils makes the light disappear like a mirage.

Now the actual is seen through the obvious, and without the obvious the actual is not there. And for the actual to be there, we must have something obvious to see through to what is actual.

The actual, then, becomes obvious, but the obvious does not become the actual. What is obvious is now the bi-unity of the obvious and the actual, which as a bi-unity, appears more actual than obvious. And what is actual is now both "projected on" and seen through what is obvious.

Here we have arrived in the place where what is actual "comes both before and after" what is obvious. This leads to a chase of what is actual into the moments before, and the moments to come. The leap of intelligence is made when both projection of the actual and seeing it through the obvious are known to happen in the next successive moment. The chase then is suddenly over in a moment of successions that are actually symbolic, yet still obviously real.

Another metaphor we still use after abandoning the symbols of opposing forces is the mountain and the valley. From the valley, the top of the mountain is seen, but the view from the top is out of sight. Standing on top, the valley and the view are seen. From out inside the mountain's view, looking back, the mountain can be seen, and maybe some valleys depending on the angles. Also another view. And walking down and away from the mountain, as soon as we start, the view from the top is gone, and by the time the mountain is out of sight, all the valleys will have already disappeared from view.

[dada]

The cumbersome difficulty of carefully defining terms comes from the real problem of objective and subjective qualities. For a quality to be objective, means it can exist without an object. Subjective qualities cannot exist without an object. The example used is a black object. Take the object away, the subjective black quality goes with it. But the objective quality of black only exists in thought, where it can be found both within objects and without.

So thorny subjects like the bi-unity of male and female, and the bi-unity of black and white, are only thorny as subjective qualities. As objective qualities, the determination has not been made as to which is yang and which is yin. The determination was only made subjectively, a long time ago.

But that's enough about that for now, I guess. Maybe it's enough to say that falling into the subjective is like falling into a trap or down a well, but if you keep to the objective, the fall is always in season. Season of witches and wednesdays and things that go bump in the night.

[dada]

And that concludes the production of the "turning of small gears."

Writing and publishing can sometimes feel like sending out messages in bottles. The messages are composed by the action of the turning gears. But while the message gears are turning, the writer/publisher may also be building ships in bottles. These take longer to build, bigger gears, and greater care. They are still set to sail on the currents, but if anyone receives them, they are prized even more than the bottled messages. The production of the biggest gears are crafting life-sized ships in bottles. When they are set to sail, they look pretty magnificent on the ocean, with the light reflecting off the giant bottles that make Gulliver himself appear to be about the size of the Lilliputians in comparison. And you can take a ride yourself, if you are set to sail, too.

Going back to the idea of the chef cooking up pots of thought until the words form on the surface, the industrial-sized stove top is filled with dishes at various stages of cooking. Not arranged to timed courses, this assumes that the chef is cooking for somebody else. Here, the chef is experimenting in dish creation, and you are a lucky duck who happens to know the chef, and gets to hang around the kitchen as "designated taste-tester," trying out all the recipes for free. A dessert may be ready before a main course dish, and some appetizers may take so long to prepare, they come after everything. Like a pickled egg. Also after tasting, it may be decided that a main dish works better as an appetizer, and the menu must be re-thought out.

But to return to messages and ships in bottles, we also might say that messages are like teachers, and ships are like guides. Ships always come with a set of instructions, for building your own. The instructions are the teacher, the ship is the guide. You read the instructions, and as you build your own ship, you use the ship as the guide. But maybe you don't build ships, but just collect them. You may have dusty shelves filled with ships in bottles, a collection to admire.

Sitting on the shelf, up there with your old glass bead game. If you have a passion for ship in a bottle-building, and not just a passion for collecting and trading them, maybe even putting together "the complete set," then you understand that you have been "building ships in bottles" since the time you learned to write.

Which is to say that when building your own ships in bottles, it is helpful to get yourself to a clear understanding and firm grasp of "the general arcs" of your own writing process. For me, for example, the writing process began just before school-age, developing through the practice of message writing. Over time, with practice, my message-writing ability improved, or "showed some elegance," and I continue to sail messages in bottles out to this day.

Ship-building in earnest began around ten years later, through the twin practices of music, and scribbling words in witchy notebooks. This arc developed through the effort of lyric creation, and the study of all ship-building techniques used by the craftspeople I've had the pleasure to know through their most fascinating ships. This arc continues to this day in the passion for the art or field of ship-building, although what was once lyrical and in notebooks developed into twin practices of technique and critique, or written studies in composition and experiment. The notebooks went into the fire first, the lyrical stylings did later.

The third arc began around ten years after that, through dialogue with the Internet. The passion for ship-collection is palpable here, and learning to navigate the dialogue with members of the official ship-collectors fan club took some time. Discovering Rigorous Intuition was one of the more significant moments of this arc, and the stuff I write here to this day can be said to be my way of trying to give back something in return for the part that the message board played in the process. But there is the sense that having found something significant here, I traveled many light years to find something worth giving back, but by the time I got back, many generations here had already passed by.

The fourth arc began for me around five years ago, but as it is the master arc that turns all the others, it can be said to be "the biggest arc of them all." Like a set of gears so essential, or "present and accounted for," that while they turn, the workings of the other gears are all afterthoughts. And these gears are always turning, right in the present.

The fifth arc began a few months ago, or maybe a few years, depending on how we measure the thoughts. These are ideas that have been simmering on the back burner, the recipes calling for specific ingredients grown in various subjects. They are afterthoughts, naturally, but they are also always working under the most specific afterthoughts of the sixth arc.

The sixth arc began it feels like only yesterday, but we can't really say for sure because the afterthoughts can barely be heard above the sounds of all the bigger gears. I'd say this arc was completed in the post before this one, and now we are back into the fifth arc, to close it up as well. Which is all to say that "being content with your lot in life," is one of the subjects on the fifth arc, or "the dishes on the back burners are done." So I guess this post is like a pot-holder.

Or an oven mitt. If there is a seventh arc, I do not know of it. I've been too busy, completely occupied with building the ship in the bottle of my fourth arc.

[dada]

The furthest afterthoughts can be considered as the arc of the wit, as in "wit and wisdom." So closing up the arc deliberately turns wit off, ending the trail of production into the oscar wildean ecstasies of half-disinterested, gossipy dandyism.

The fifth arc, then, can be considered the soul of wit. But if I say, "in the spirit of brevity, I will close up the fifth arc with a lightning-fast performance of deftly defining, skillfully crafted words," here it may conjure images of the wit of the staircase, which always appears too late, like the soulless brevity of commercial advertising.

But for the sake of brevity, I take brevity to be always "to the point and as quickly as possible," which is maybe the quality I most cherish in others, so much that I'd say brevity is "mercy, itself."

So to get right down to "being content with your lot in life," it is first necessary to recall what your lot in life is. In the sense of drawing lots, we're not comparing straws but examining our own under a microscope. In the sense of doled out parcels of land, we're thinking about our deck chairs and tiki torches.

Let's say the lots in life are recalled through two lineages, the "written" or lived, and the "social," or historical. Written lineage is not found in your influences, but in the writers that you find an affinity with. It's the difference between comparing your work to others, and comparing other work to your own.

For example, my influences at the moment seem to be writers from the early to mid twentieth century. Benjamin is there, and Gurdjieff, at least in sentence structure. Maybe a bit of that Society of the Spectacle still, too, in the basic form of the presentation. Also Groucho.

But my written lineage starts with Henry Corbin, and traces back through the centuries. Not through renaissance scientists and hermeticists, back through the scholastic philosophers to the early gnostics, as is popular nowadays. Instead my lineage can be traced through the philosophical writers of the Safavid renaissance, back through gnostic christian, mystical judaism, and islamic gnosis, settling finally around the ishraqi school of Suhrawardi. Further back from there, are clear affinities with second temple judaism, greek philosophers and old hermes trismagistus, but the lineage proper is seen heading off on the mazdaen line, until it disappears into the distance.

So that's my written lineage. I could probably come up with a timeline of names and dates, connecting the lineage by words and ideas stretching back pretty far. Most of them are guide-like, but the ones I haven't fully figured out yet are still teachers. One stands out as top teacher, maybe what would be called spiritual teacher, the closest thing to your inner guide that can be found outside. Like an extra special affinity. Seems most people with lineages have at least one. Mine is Najmuddin Kubra, affectionately called the great calamity. The nickname refers to how it felt for other philosophers matching their theories with his in philosophical debate.

My historical lineage, on the other hand, begins with video game players and avatars of intellect, intertwining on and off Internet, back through musicians and respected elders, to family members and parents, and can be followed from Brooklyn for around four or five generations before disappearing into the geographic areas of scotland and ireland, germany, poland, and italy, with gypsies and sailors from god only knows where.

So you might say that the written lineage is chosen, but the historical lineage is not. I'd say neither one is chosen. But you choose how to present them and represent them, so in the end it comes to the same thing.

The only real difference between the written and the historical lineages is that taking "pride of place" in your historical lineage can bring honor to it, or shame, so you always have to be on your guard. Taking pride of place in your written lineage just makes everyone in it move up one.

Anyway, the idea here is to build a good foundation for considering what "being content with your lot in life" really means. We use the idea of your two lineages to recall that for lot in life to be judged accurately, requires a more comprehensive assessment of your entire lot, and not just financial holdings, material circumstances, and social status.

We recommend presenting historical lineage, and representing written lineage, for clearest results. Also, clean up your historical lineage. If someone is in it that you don't like, show them the door. With a "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here." That way when you present your historical lineage, it won't bring any bad elements along with it.

Easier said than done, I know. But to arrive at "being content with your lot in life," it's a necessary step.

So now, maybe we can finally get down to it.

[dada]

In mass culture, being content with your lot in life brings with it the unspoken threat behind the promise of happiness, like, "be happy, or else." And reigning in uppity ambitions, accepting your position with grace in the mass culture class heirarchy, is happiness. Also, while not accepting your position is frowned upon greatly as "bad form," not accepting the mass culture class hierarchy, at all, with grace or without, is not only unacceptable but unthinkable, and will make you unhappy, so accept the hierarchy already, for your own good.

This way of looking at it can be found on the cover of today's NYTimes, in an article about "division among the democratic party over the topically current Israel-Palestine debate." Two sides of the debate are presented to the reader. If you agree with one side, you are on the side of the debate team called "leadership of the party." If you agree with the other side, you are part of the "activist," or ascendant wing. The implication in mass cultural terminology is that the one side is made up of malcontents, who like to make themsleves unahappy for some reason by stirring up trouble. On the other hand, the other side is content in the boilerplate language of diplomacy, have reigned in their wishful ambitions, and so have rightfully earned the title of "leadership of the party." Your application to the debate team has been accepted, and you are to be commended for thinking like a leader, and have the makings of a true representative of the Times. Don't get excited now, but you may even be leadership material.

The mass view of being content with your lot in life by reiging in ambitions ends in either the total abnegation of personal ambition, giving yourself over entirely to the pyramid of true believers and its conflicting ambitions, or giving yourself entirely over to the act of abnegation, like when the Buddha almost starved himself to death before realizing that he was doing it wrong.


The next way of looking at being content with your lot in life is rooted in folk wisdom, as "appreciate the simple things." Which works well, since if you appreciate them enough, they become more rare and valuable than the finest pallette of tastes. Also the humble "be happy with what you've got," and "count your blessings." There is also "make the best with what you have," or have been given, if making it is what makes you happy. Like it's "your cup of tea."

The third way of looking at being content with your lot in life is scientifically, and becomes "content with your lot in life as a very small and fragile organism in a very big impersonal universe." The humbling vision of modern science. The view of "nothing more than" can go much further, devolving into all kinds of insulting language. Nothing but ashes and dust, nothing but wormfood, or even a worm.

Set against the "nothing more" view is the "nothing less," like you are nothing less than a knower of the universe. The nothing mores and nothing lesses come down to a basic dualistic understanding of reality.

The fourth way of viewing "being content with your lot in life" sees the duality of "more or less than" through its relationship of bi-unity. Being just a worm or nothing less than a knower, is always in the view of the "subjective I." The view of the objective I is of the whole. Being content with your lot in life is in knowing you are a bi-unity, and knowing duality through its relationship in bi-unity.

So we could say that the subjective I sees the whole through bi-unity, and the objective I sees duality through bi-unity. The symbolic I looks one way and sees itself reflected in duality, looks the other way and sees itself reflected in the whole. And when it looks through itself, it sees everything reflected, without seeing itself reflected in it.

So the bi-unity is not found opposite duality, duality is already opposite to the whole. We use the "view from down a well" here. The subjective I looks up from duality and sees the whole, but has no way of getting up there. It thinks it maybe sees the symbol of bi-unity, which it could climb, but it appears to be outside of the whole, where it can't be reached.

The objective I looks down from the whole and sees the subjective I in duality, looking for a way out. It thinks it maybe sees the symbol of bi-unity under the bottom of the well. So the objective I calls down to the subjective I, telling it to dig down.

The story can get more involved, the objective I can appear to the subjective I as its "own perfect nature," or even hermes leading a soul out of the land of the dead, as opposed to his usual routine of taking them down. The symbol of bi-unity is always best left to the imagination of the reader.

The problem arises in the fourth way of looking at it, in that "true believers in the duality pyramid" may see the value in being content with your lot in life, but cannot see the true wisdom in it unless they happen to catch a glimpse of the symbol of bi-unity in themselves.

The fifth view then is seen through the bi-unity of subjective and objective, not "below the subject," or "above the object," but in the symbol of the relationship set in between them. The symbol is obvious and subjective, the actual objective is seen through it, and being content with your lot in life becomes not "be content with the obvious view of yourself through your subjective I," but "be content with your lot in life as an actual human being, in the objective sense," or better "objective meaning."

So the humble "count your blessings" turns out to be the right idea, all along. The fifth way of looking at it instantly raises the most basic problem of living in a universe, without all the baggage of existential angst dragging behind it. In other words, a problem that is fitting for an actual human being, in the objective meaning. The basic problem is defining what exactly an actual human being, in the objective meaning, is.

Here we might start in the difference between subjective and objective qualities. Subjective blessings are in things, take away the thing, the blessing goes away. Objective blessings are qualities that may exist without any things.

The question then opens up on the unsettling idea that an actual human being, in the objective meaning, is not a thing. Now a race of dolphins on a far away planet that walk on land and develop human features, may still think like dolphins, and so they are actually dolphins. And on this faraway planet the race of humans may live in the sea and look for all intents and purposes like dolphins, but if they still think like human beings, then they're actually human beings.

The idea comes back to the actual human being, in the objective meaning, being found within a certain scale, or bandwidth of thought. In theory, then, it is not only that the universe is teeming with alien life, but the possibility arises that some beings on alien planets are objectively human, and of each objectively human species, there is possibly one that is just like you. Not like an alien doppelganger, making it appear like "eternal recurrences in time," but one that thinks or has thought on the same frequency as you do or have done.

Which is to say "they have virtually the same written lineage as you do." And the elite human beings on all worlds are then clearly not found within mass culture, but in the rarest thoughts, which are the ones closest to being actually human, in the objective meaning.

The fifth way of looking at "being content with your lot in life," is then called things like "walking the fine line between things with subjective qualities, and things of objective quality." A fine line because as soon as it is crossed, into the subjective, the idea of galactic society instantly collapses into the sur-society, surpassing the others, conjuring up visions a galactic society of melting clock-watching vanguards in vaguely psycho-sexual dreamscapes, and uberhumans with bodies made out of cryogenic throne, the latest in crypto-tech. They may go to do their thinking in a cosmic fortress of solitude, in landscapes which are the psycho-sexual dreamscapes of Geiger, and not at all vague in the least bit.

Which is all to hammer home the point that "being content with your lot in life," in the objective sense, has nothing to do with accepting it or rejecting it, and everything to do with knowing it. And objectively knowing what your lot in life is, is the same as being content with knowing it, and comes by being content with objectively knowing it.

So with that in mind, here is the idea found within a story within a page within a site on an Internet, where the idea can be found now by "digging it out of the context."

The story presents being content with your lot in life as something akin to a key which opens up the "books of wisdom." Of course unlocking a book, only means that now you can start to read it. It will not read itself, naturally.

From the sub-entry for the "elahi-nama," in the encyclopedia entry for Attar, Farid al-din, poet, on encyclopaedia iranica, at iranicaonline dot org:

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/attar-farid-al-din-poet

"Elāhī-nāma. This work owes its name to the poet’s intention that it should open the “door to the divine treasure” (dar-e ganj-e elāhī; ed. Ritter, p. 366.5). The frame-story tells of a caliph who has six sons and asks each about his heart’s desire. The first son longs for the daughter of the king of the fairies, the second for mastery of the art of magic, the third for the Jām-e jam, the world-reflecting cup of Jamšīd, the fourth for the water of life, the fifth for the demon-controlling ring of Solomon, and sixth for knowledge of alchemy. The ruler discusses each son’s desire with him, trying to explain to him not only that it is absurd if viewed sub specie aeternitatis, but that it may also, if interpreted esoterically, have a deeper meaning and be capable of fulfillment within himself. The fairy princess may be one’s own purified soul (p. 76.7ff.), magic may consist of turning the devil which one carries in one’s self (p. 128.3ff.) into a Muslim (p. 139.1ff.). Jamšīd’s cup may be the mystic who in the state of union becomes the mirror of reality (p. 185.5ff.), the water of life may be esoteric knowledge (p. 218.15ff.), Solomon’s ring may be contentment with one’s lot (p. 286.10ff.), and the true elixir may, in ʿAṭṭār’s words, be the “light of God” which transforms everything (p. 361.16ff.). In another passage, typical of ʿAṭṭār’s reinterpretations, he makes alchemy mean transformation of body into heart and of heart into pain (p. 355.12)—words which echo the theme of the Moṣībat-nāma. In substance the Elāhī-nāma conveys the same message as the Manṭeq al-ṭayr, namely that the goal which man seeks is latent within himself. The outline of this basic idea is enriched with numerous apposite stories of varying length (from 3 to over 400 verses). In other words, a wealth of edifying anecdotal material is fitted into a frame-story, as in the Manṭeq al-ṭayr."

[dada]

So when Jimi Hendrix asks, "are you experienced," he isn't just cleverly promoting his brand by tying a song to the name of his band and the different media products that wear the jimi hendrix experience label, from concerts to gatefold sleeves. He's also asking if the listener is an actual human being, in the objective sense.

A rhetorical question, really, since if you weren't an actual human being listening to the words, you would not have been able to receive the words through the media and interpret them as a coherent human thought, referring to something more intangible than as if he was only asking, "are you on the scene?" And instead asking something more like, "do you understand?"

So by posing the question again, as "have you ever been experienced," he is asking if your subjective I has ever seen your objective I through your symbolic eye. Jimi then answers his own questions, singing, "well, I have."

The interpretation of the chorus as a possible inner dialogue between Jimi and himself opens up the further possibility that the two questions are also part of an inner dialogue. The objective I asks the subjective I, "are you an actual human being?" The subjective I responds in kind, asking the objective I, "have you ever been an actual human being?" And Jimi pipes up in the voice of symbolic I, "well, I have." Like, ahem, excuse me, actual human being over here. Look, let me prove it to you by playing a guitar upside down and recording it backwards, but phrased in such a way that when you play the tape forward, the phrasing sounds right, but the tones are all backwards."

And all proofs are pretty much that way. The general idea of the elahi-nama, that these magical, mystical macguffins are all foolish if considered at all literally, but still may prove valuable to actual human beings if interpreted correctly, raises the question of whether the objects of subjective desires may also work the same way. Taking the things that people look to horoscope and card readings, fortune tellers and self-help gurus, and all the books about "the power of positive thinking."

Saying for example that the desired health, wealth, love, material abundance, luck, and foresight that are common, maybe have a different interpretation in the objective meaning of an actual human being, rather than the wish fullfilment fantasies of mass consumers in every new age.

With the context provided above, then, here is a funny advertisement:

THE MIGHTY POWERS OF METATRONIC MAGICK

Dedicated Occult Instructor, Carl Nagel returns, with a SUPREMELY POWERFUL system of Angelic Magick, placing the Angel Metatron squarely at the heart of this remarkable new way of working with these Mighty Forces.

Within the pages of this astounding book, you will be taught, step-by-step, the precise techniques to both Communicate and Directly Summon this towering force of Biblical Might.

Everything you need is also included for you, so that you can begin to work with the powerful Orisons and Rites contained within, including an Altar Picture, dedicated to Metatron and a Solid Brass, Hand-Crafted Seal of Metatron, which has been fully Ritually Consecrated, ready for action.

Alongside these powerful, essential tools, you’ll discover just how easy it is to petition the Powers of Metatron, and to bring their Mighty Potency to bear upon numerous aspects of you life...

Love... Money... Success... Popularity... Improved Health... The Angel Metatron, claims Nagel, can vastly improve these and MANY MORE Key Areas in your life, so that you can take back control and begin to SUCCEED!

Inside this remarkable book, you’ll find full instructions to safely perform a number of very powerful Metatronic Rites, alongside a very specific technique, provided by Clinical Hypnotherapist, Rob Stanley (R.M.N, Dip. Hyp. I.S.C.H).

This fusion of Hypno-Evocation with the Charged Tools provided with this title ensure this will provide you with a series of Ritual Experiences like no other....

Contents Include:

Attuning your Mind to Metatron
Creating a Mystic Circle
Working With Mental, Elemental, and Tarot Doorways
Metatronic Orisons for Transformation, Inspiration and Fulfilment
Metatronic Orisons for Money, Luck and Success
Metatronic Orisons for Health and Longevity
Metatronic Orisons to Receive Recognition and Discover your True Destiny...
And much more...

We are SO CONFIDENT that you will be astonished by the contents of this book, that we offer a
ROCK-SOLID 14 DAY MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE:
If you are not ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED with The Mighty Powers of Metatronic Magick, simply
Return it for a full product-price REFUND - NO QUESTIONS ASKED!

+++

Gotta love those words in all caps. So the idea is now that the words promising your inevitable and impending joy in breathless excitement, all have different interpretations when looked into by actual human beings, in the objective meaning.

And it raises the question as to whether other divine beings in other cultures who are given to be representative of similar attributes have an objective connection which is lost when viewed through obvious surface appearances. So Ganesh looks like an elephant, and goddess lakshmi looks like the goddess that she is, and metatron looks like an angel, but they are objectively connected through the boons associated with them, in the words signifying material abundance, removal of obstacles, and luck.

So, you know, "thank your lucky stars." Then, when you look at things like the above advertisement for metatron or your money back, the complete folly of the words bring with them something that completely tickles you with laughter, mirth in abundance, as if the abundant mirth is actually the immediate fulfillment of the "magic words."

[dada]

The encyclopaedia iranica, linked to above, contains a wealth of information worthy of the "what are you reading now" thread. The style is much more "Encyclopaedia Britannica with hotlinks," than the Funk n Wagnall's pop mechanics style of wikipedia.

So you might actually find things there that can not only "inform you," but remind you of ideas you already knew, giving them a fresh look through the light of "in other words."

There's much more to be said here, not about that, but along the lines of free association, on the relationship between desires and boons, interstition and superstitions, and the value of Jimi's rhetorical questions, like when the god says to his angels, "am I not your lord?"

And even more about the objective qualities which the boons represent, the shoes and ships and ceiling wax, cabbages and kings and why the sea is boiling hot.

But this train of thought does not stop at every station. So it's like you caught the four train instead of the six, took the express. Except the value of science may be seen now not as "raising more questions than answers," but in raising answers that are so comprehensive they can only be unfolded through a series of express stops, and then taking the local back along the line.

Other stations like the ones around the grand central station of information, and the difference between intelligence as information, and intelligence as the first production of thought. And other stations that you may have just caught in blurry vision for a moment as the stop zipped by in wordless silence, like in a nickel picture show arcade machine.

But the express train clicks ahead to another broadway junction, the major question of omniscience. Would a truly omniscient being be omnipotent? I would say clearly not.

The implications reach down to the core of understanding what role the actual human being, in the objective sense, plays in the universe in which it finds itself, or "in which it exists." Because if there is an omnipotent force that creates evil, it is clearly not omniscient. And an omniscient force that creates good, is clearly not omnipotent.

To give example, we compare two religious metaphors. An omniscient, omnipotent god creates a universe where free will dictates that evil may flourish alongside good. Since god created everything, either he is inhumane and therefore inhuman, or evil has some function in a scheme of redemption that looks like an absolute horror show from the perspective of an actual human being, in the objective sense.

An omniscient god that is not omnipotent, on the other hand, did not create evil. The metaphor is best expressed in story form. The omniscient lord and lady create a hundred universes, worlds of light where no evil exists or can exist. One day the lord becomes fascinated with the goings on in one universe. Maybe with the one with the rock he created that he cannot lift in it. He momentarily forgets his lady, who also happens to be the first universe, the world of his soul. The first universe immediately vanishes.

From the vacuum where his soul was, an active darkness comes, not the darkness of night, or space, that light cuts through like it's nothing, or the shadow cast behind a mass in the light. This darkness actually casts its shadow forwards, against the light.

As soon as the omniscient god feels the pain of pushback against his light, he remembers his lady, who instantly reappears. The light of the world of his soul is restored, and the first universe exists as it did before, and the light pushes the active darkness back, as it retreats through the hundred worlds.

The first forty-nine worlds or universes after the world of the soul are overtaken by the light immediately after, in no time at all. The fifty-first world takes a second, though, and the fifty-second takes a few more, and the further the worlds are along the chain, the longer it takes for the light to cast the active darkness out of them entirely.

So by the time the light of the omniscient god is taking back the eighty-fifth world that it created in perfect light, the time it takes starts to really add up. The active darkness has collected in the hundredth world, and pushes up against the worlds retaken by the light with all its might.

In the eighty-sixth universe and beyond, it takes the omniscient god time on the order of billions of years to cast out the active darkness.

So the universe we are in right now is on the front line, where the omniscient lord is still overtaking the active darkness. And the actual human being may now choose to toy with the idea of a god that creates evil, or know itself as part of the omniscient god's creation, the shock troops on the latest mission in the restoration of the hundred worlds of light.

The idea that "my god did not create evil" is something worth contemplating, I guess is my point here. Seeing the cruelty of the active evil that casts its shadows fowards against the light, then, when the human being asks "why?" The answer can only begin in the rhetorical, as "Am I not your lady? It is the reminder, my lord, that you will not forget me ever again, your very soul."

The next stop on the express line is somehow rockefeller center. Television studios, St.Pat's cathedral, nintendo world store. The question is of a bringer of false light, and a bringer of true light. Truth becomes the matter at hand, which now can maybe be derived better through its relationship with accuracy and the surprisingly fertile qualitative framework of "adequacy."

But the doors close and the express train lurches into the tunnel again. The stops that fly by are not the matter at hand.

The doors open on Times Square. Three things stand out worth mentioning. The preacher, speechifying on "the xvarnah," and the necessity of the production of a third type of matter, hylian matter, between the matter of thought and the matter of mass.

Rambling on and on. Blind, with a cat on his shoulder that seems to be doing his seeing for him. The second thing that stands out is the fellow standing under a staircase, throwing three matters at hand around, juggling his balls.

The third thing that stands out is the matter at hand, which is always hylian, the next matter, which is thought or is dead, and the matter that was at hand, which is also thought, or dead. Which is thought and which is dead have yet to be determined.

This next link is not from encyclopaedia iranica, but it goes further into the idea of the cup of jamshid, magnifying the idea of it from the story above:

Kay Khosrow was seated like Jamshid himself, the cup of Jamshid placed in the sun beforehim. In it he observed the secrets of the seven climes and then perambulated the seven plantes

He sought to see the cup itself in order for a moment to see the whole world at once But though he saw the whole world he could not see in the cup of Jamshid the cup itself. He puzzled much over that mystery, but no veil was raised from before it.

Finally he descried a piece of writing: How canst thou see me in myself? Since I have quite vanished from myself who shall see any mark of me in this world of dust? Since both body and sould have vanished from me, there remains netiehr name nor trace of me. Since my image has been changed into lack of image, why dost thou seek my image which has departed to eternity? If thou wouldst be like me, become like me, bid farewell to thyself, vanish into annihilation.Thou must build a castle of annihilation, otherwise blows will rain down on thee from every side."

When Kay Khosrow learnt of this mystery, he found his hands empty of his own kingdom. He knew for certain that he had no kingdom but annihilation, for in this world existence itself does not survive. Manfully he bade farewell to his short-lived kingdom; he made the profession of faith and laid himself to rest in the arms of annihilation.

Luhrasp chanced to be at hand. He called him and set him up in his place in the kingdom. He entered a cave taking the cup with him. He disappeared under the snow; think no more of him.
(Boyle 1976, pp.176"

https://www.academia.edu/36501728/The_true_meaning_of_the_Cup_of_Jamsheed

***

We get off at the next to last stop on the express line, to get a drink at a barcade nearby. Here, nature looks like a dimly-lit cavern, where the forest is alive and attracted to the television light. The patrons all seems to be drunk in ecstatic misery, as much here for the drink as on the chance they might find some good company to love.

The talk is of the boons of good strategy, instinctive reflexes, puzzle-solving abilities, and the three combinations of the two, as six distinct classes of games. Not talk of video game culture, but discussion in the language of sports and games, hobbies and entertainment.

The talks hearken back to discussions from earliest times, before chess, to Plato's Atlantis, to Go. The pinball machine, the sports tables, and the shooting gallery arcades become the bars and birthday party joints where the language translates easily into video games which require different balances of strategy and reflexive skill, with the efficiently tuned puzzle-solving ability.

And a bit of slot-machine chance and poker luck thrown in. The needs of mass production push pure strategy games out of the commercial spaces, into computer and console role playing games. Games of skill become the basic platform style of video games, guiding a character on the screen, avoiding obstacles and saving princesses through well-timed jumps and jukes, like Donkey Kong.

The puzzle game takes its basic form as the maze, like Pac-man. Tetris blocks fall in the shapes of the Pac-man maze's basic form. The Pac-man appears to exit the maze from one side, only to reappear through an entrance on the other. The idea becomes the portal, a popular idea used in many future games. Including the rainbow spinning disc of Q*Bert, that takes him back to the top of the pyramid of cubes, while the springy snake hopping after him drops off the edge, hitting the floor of the cabinet with the satisfying sound of a pinball knocker.

[dada]

Kay Khosrow's disappearance from existence into annihilation sounds like the end for him, but one has to wonder if these words "existence," and "annihilation" may have another meaning for actual human beings, in the objective sense.

"Kay Khosrow then sees Angel Sorush in a dream, who tells him,
If you would leave this world you have found what you are seeking; you will find a home beside the Source of Righteousness, there is no need for you to sojourn in this darkness any longer. Give your treasures to those who are deserving; relinquish this fleeting world to another. Choose a king in whom all creatures, down to the smallest ant, can place their trust. And when you've given away the world, you cannot rest: you must prepare for your departure.
(Davis 2007:352).

Kay Khosrow does all what he was instructed by Sorush and gets prepared for his departure. Accompanied by a group of his close companions then, Kay Khosrow goes up a mountain. He disappears in the next morning, and five of his companions, who did not obey him when he asked them not to linger on the lonely mountain side, fall asleep and get buried in the snow."

Kay Khosrow disappearing into the east brings things back in a very roundabout way for me, to monkey in journey to the west. But there are a few other things to mention first.

The angel sorush, or sraosha, wearing a robe that looks like the night sky, is the one angel who joins the meetings with the seven archangels, or amaraspands. There are seven, though some say only six. The seventh is ormazd, who is the other six added together, plus himself. So he's one of the seven, and also all of them together. And lucky angel sorush gets to attend the meetings with them. But we aren't going into it here, just making mention.

Next, just to come back to the matter at hand for a moment. If you've been paying attention, then you may already have an idea of what to do with the next matter at hand, and the matter that was at hand, both of which may be thought, or dead. The next matter and the matter that was, are both thought in the next matter. If they aren't, then they are both dead. And the matter at hand, as we say, is always hylian matter.

So that is how to determine if the next matter and the matter that was are thought, or dead. Only mentioning that in passing here, too. Also would point out the difference between being content, and being complacent. Like, placed in the computer. When you are content, you are pliant, supple. When you spend too much time being complacent, you may become compliant before realizing it.

One other thing, on the meanings of boons. You might notice that the different styles of storytelling on film media in mass culture follow similar lines to the reasons people look to horoscopes and fortune tellers. Saying that the doctor themes, detective mysteries, romantic comedies, and such, appeal to the desire for boons, and so may have objective interpretations that look nothing like the types of analysis presented in current ways of thinking about, and studying film.

But to get back to monkey. As a mythological character, monkey invites, or invited me, at least, to try to figure out what is behind his character. At first glance, a westerner looks at monkey's appearance and thinks of hanuman, the hindu monkey god. But objectively, they are not related. Monkey's devotion to san tzang is not like hanuman's devotion to rama. Monkey chooses to devote himself to san tzang, because kwan yin has told him to, to make up for the trouble he made in heaven. At first, even, monkey wears the gold band around his head, so if he misbehaves, san tzang can give him a splitting headache by praying.

Not much hanuman there. If we're going by mythological monkeys, our monkey bears more likeness to monkey-toth the symbol spinner, and so, like hermes. But there is more to monkey than that, so we can't say "we have a match."

So I went searching for who is hiding behind monkey. The first thing I noticed was the difference between western taoism, as I was taught, and the taoism in the west of China. Western taoism has some good translations of some classics, and Alan Watts explains things well, but the result is a western interpretation of the taoism of the east. But as I was moving into studys of western China, the taoism takes on a much more mystical, visionary aspect, as it mixes and blends with other cultures. Buddhism, yes, but also zoroastrian, abrahamic, manichean.

In the far west, the cultures have been living together for a few thousand years, now. In the early centuries AD, the kingdom of Khotan and surrounding kingdoms in space and time had cultural forms with indian elements as well as western, with an influential Greek diaspora there from the time of Alexander the Great. One of the written languages used there that we have evidence of is Persian, written in Aramaic script.

Or maybe Aramaic written in Persian. I'm no serious historian, but you get the idea. Lot going on back there. A thousand years or so later, the area comes to show influence of early islam, both through relations with central asian turkic kingdoms, and the steady migration of philosophical-religious ideas and motifs as translated through islamic branches of sufis and mystical shi'ites. At the time, some of the people in the area were the Orguz, or Oguz. Where we get the modern Uyghur, and also I would wager the word "ogre." The journey to the west was compiled into the form we know today, after all this.

And in the middle of all this Khotanese history, we have the record of the historical san tzang the monk passing through the area, on his journey to India.

So now we have a wider field in which to look for who is hiding behind monkey. The trouble comes with the idea that journey to the west is a heroic fantasy narrative, which is a popular view taken in academia and pop psychology circles. We start looking for monkey in all the heroes, wondering if it might be Rostam himself hiding under there. But finally, we must admit that the heroic take doesn't fit objectively. The closest hero might be the mythological Alexander, on his visionary quest.

Looking at journey to the west as a visionary tale, closer to a recital, than as a heroic fantasy narrative, opens up new avenues to investigate. Now because monkey is san tzang's protector and guide, we may see monkey as san tzang's fravarshi, or "guardian angel," to put it in flat words that put you to sleep. But to leave it there feels unsatisfying. We have a general spirit type for monkey, but we still have not found who is hiding under there.

So we look further in the visionary direction. The break in the case comes with the understanding that san tzang is the hero of the journey, the one that "the hero with a thousand faces," is hiding under. Monkey can have a thousand faces too, ten thousand, even, with ten thousand bodies attached to them, just by pulling a hair off of his arm, chewing it up and spitting it out. But he is not the hero, he is the mystical visionary.

So he's more Merlin to san tzang's Arthur. And now we finally see, or think we see who is hiding under monkey. His past is Jamshid's, as one who has seen and fucked up, but his future is Kay Khosrow's, after disappearing into the snowstormy noreaster.

The likeness matches in the idea of an east that is not on any geographical map. Kay Khosrow the mystic visionary doesn't literally "go to the east," but to the inner east. As well, the land of Aoli, and the mountain of flowers and fruit in the east, where monkey comes from, is not "in the east" like Japan and Korea, but the same inner, visionary east where Kay Khosrow vanished off to.

Meeting monkey objectively like this, puts reading jouney to the west completely into the "mystical" visionary framework. We compare jouney to the west to "heroic" visionary frameworks, to check our work.

Taking a popular heroic visionary journey that everybody knows to provide the contrast, we use the wizard of oz. Dorothy is the hero, like san tzang. Both are unlikely heroes, the little farm girl and the old, old man. But Dorothy is the star of her journey, and san tzang is not the star of journey to the west.

Where the scarecrow needs a brain, monkey is the mystic mind. Instead of being "first companion," he totally takes over without meaning to, and is the center of action at virtually every step of the way.

Now the second companion, the tin woodsman, needs a heart, and pig in the jouney to the west, is all heart. He is the sancho panza to san tzang's don quixote. Not so interested in getting rich, but loves to eat and drink, loves to sleep, falls in love at the bat of an eyelash. We say pig has the "heart of an artist."

The third companion, cowardly lion, needs courage. Friar Sand in journey to the west has so much courage that he wears it on his face, and everyone is scared of him. He is a beggar monk, but his scary face means no one wants to come near him, and so he isn't even very good at that. We say Friar Sand has the "face of a stranger."

For the mystic, all four taken together represent the personality. For the heroic visionary, the personality is the hero, and one of the four psychological types, making the other psychological types the"friends and companions." of the hero. So when it is said academically that friar sand was a later edition to the tale, and not really necessary, we see that without him, something essential would be missing, and the story would not completely portray the mystic's personality.

Also when the dragon becomes a horse, to be san tzang's mount, we might say he must have began as a story that was added just to give san tzang a horse to ride. But the horse dragon proves his worth in later chapters, and by the time he turns back into a dragon and curls around the top spire of buddha land while san tzang is receiving the scrolls, we have to say that it really could not be any other way.

But while the buddha and the scrolls are the destination of the journey, and monkey is the center of all the action, it is monkey's encounters with kwan yin that are the key drivers of the tale. So we can say that while the story is about monkey, it turns on his relationship with the goddess.

[dada]

Kay Khosrow's five companions that perish in the snowstorm may now represent the five subjective senses. Understanding that the sixth sense, or instinct and intuition, is all five senses taken together, plus all five taken seperately.

As the subjective senses are physiological, all living creatures have them, in one combination or another. So the objective human senses are not just the "third eye," but a second set of five and one.

So the evolutionary timeline, considered as funny Internet meme, runs from the odd lemur-like mammal to the ape, to the caveman with a spear, to upright man with briefcase, to man-and-video cell screen machine, ending with Mel Brooks carrying three tombstones down a mountain, dropping one.

Our evolutionary timeline on the other hand, after the ape, becomes the man sitting at table, putting his head on the level where his heart is when standing up. Then upright man with briefcase, wearing sunglasses, and then man and woman, he carrying her change purse and parasol, she carrying a tablet and stylus.

And when the Sphinx asks her riddle, and the answer is "man," we think of baby in the morning, adult at noon, and old man with cane in the evening. But objectively the four legs are the chair for sitting, the two are for standing, and "walking on three legs" is like monkey riding his somersault cloud. And at night, when laying down, and head and heart are level under the currents of heart and head flowing above, whether the two lay down together or apart, they always dream together.

Then when we see the man with briefcase without sunglasses stopped at by airport security and searched, they find the stolen corporate secrets they've been looking for. But the one with the sunglasses, whose briefcase is very heavy, shows nothing under xray, and when they open it, there's nothing there.

But when they let him go you see him stop at a starbucks table, open the briefcase and pull out six seemingly random objects, close the briefcase and walk off to his moongate. And all we can say is thank goodness he didn't pull an x-zone grenade launcher out of there and start in again, like Kim Carsons pulling down the sky.

But here it is appropriate to demonstrate the mechanics of hylian material production. We'll use an engine I've been working on as a model.

The hylian world has hit on the "perfect" balance of production and fuel, and so may run on its own hylian power, indefinitely. If hylian production ever stopped, even for a moment, the universe we know would stop, frozen in spacetime.

But at hylian balanced production, mass production moves at the speed of light. Deceleration and acceleration are accomplished by engaging orientation, or "polarity reversal" between the world of mass, and the world of hylian mass.

Remebering that this polarity moves between the bi-unity of positive and negative polarity, and the mass polarity or "bi-polarity" of duality.

So by engaging orientation into the world of mass, and opening the thought-valve, allowing thought to mix with the pure hylian fuel, hylian production increases, and mass decelerates, moving closer. At full mass deceleration, the movement becomes imperceptible, moving ever closer in xeno paradox. After that, however much thought is fed into hylian production, mass does not appear to move any closer. Contact is made by "spinning the hylian sign."

Spinning the sign again, mass movement starts again, and thought-to-hylian production continues where it was set by spinning the sign the first time. Now closing the thought-valve, taking us out of the xeno paradox of imperceptible movement, continues mass acceleration until the thought-valve is closed again and mass is back at the speed of light.

Now, we re-engage orientation, reversing polarity into the hylian world. By opening the thought-valve up again, when hylian mass production increases, mass production moves away at speeds faster than light, appearing out the porthole windows to be moving backward in time.

But only appearing. Because the matter that was at hand, and the next matter at hand, are alive in the next matter, or dead. Which brings us back to the matter at hand.

To describe hylian material, if we start with earth water fire air, we may think hylian materials are combinations, like "watery-fire," and "firey-water." But this does not get at the objective qualities of hylian material, as unique and separate types with unique qualities. Which is why we use the qualitative pku scale when describing hylian material.

So a bristly parakeet and a ruffly parakeet do not make a bristly-ruffly parakeet, but a kinky parakeet. And a ruffly and a bristly don't make a ruffly-bristly one, but a smooth parakeet.

And so on, the same around the cycle. So we might say "water-fire" is hylian air, and firey-water is hylian earth, and so on, but hylian material becomes too easily confused with cross-quarters. So we stick with parakeets. But the same hylian production of quality can use interchangeable gears, like five elements, six, or more. The engine is very versatile.

I'm sure there's much more I meant to say, maybe it will come back to me. One other thing I guess is probably important, is when you engage and reingage orientation, always close the thought-valve first, bringing mass back to movement away at speed of light, whether from below, or faster than light. Otherwise you could mess up the engine, even slam the ship right into space like a fly splat on a glass windshield.

And you might notice that space travel through portal doesn't look like "bunching up the fabric." And the portal continues to prove its use by careful application, like the emergency hyperspace button on the classic arcade game, "Defender." Learning about portal mechanics first always helps. As well to remember that where the portal takes you depends on who opened it, so it is good to be friends, or at least on good terms with the other portal-openers.