Saturday 6 August 2022

Post No. 2,259 - Imagery is a tool, not reality (~800 words, 3 - 5 min. read)

I’ve just read an excellent post on the Quareia website, at https://www.quareia.com/news/2021/11/18/apprentices-advice-for-working-with-long-visions-in-quareia-training, which goes in to the whys and wherefores use of long, complicated visions.

This use of visualisation / imagery / symbology is something that is common to many pathways of working, but, as someone who has worked on several of these, it is noteworthy that all seemingly have different imagery that suggest a different Nature of Reality. 

For instance, Wiccans do not refer to an Abyss, Qabbalists do not seem to talk of an Astral, much of the Western Mystery Tradition doesn’t seem to acknowledge Deities, and I know of only one that refers to an assemblage point.

That apparent difference, however, is not quite correct. 

To a large degree, these differences arise out of viewing aspects of Reality from different points of view. 

At this stage, it would be normal enough to assume that an analogy for this would be that viewing a mountain from different directions would result in a different apparent appearance. 

While that is true enough, the difference have more to do with personal and cultural viewpoints. 

To set the scene for that, I’ll stick to physical descriptions initially. 

If a shower of rain was being described by someone coming out of desert, it would be described rapturously, by someone fleeing floods, with dread, and a pilot or sailor would look for what it signified of other aspects of weather that related to their journeying. 

And on journeying, someone who was relatively rich or well resourced would describe preparing for a journey in terms of what was needed for comfort, efficiency or enjoyment, whereas someone who was poor in resources would describe it in terms of where/who one could beg aid from, and how to survive with minimal damage. (And the latter might be inclined to shake their head at the former who suddenly found themselves in a situation where they didn’t have adequate resources, because that is something that can happen to all of us. Similarly the former might be inclined to scorn the latter who suddenly found themselves in a situation of plenty, which is a case of the former lacking good character and decency.)

Someone who was fleeing an abusive situation, or was injured, would describe a journey differently to others - the one fleeing, for instance, would be inclined to cautious travel, using hidey holes along the way, and so forth. (And a lot of mediaeval magic workers sought to bind spirits, and their aggression necessitated a strong emphasis on protection and led to a failure to develop their own powers [“rishis”].) 

And someone who had never seen  a car, would struggle to comprehend why they would  follow a hard surface in exposed conditions rather than walk near rivers for drinking and trees for shade (did you notice the assumption there that the climate is not cold and wet?). 

Someone who was used to always being with people would be surprised by someone who, used to always travelling alone, might describe what seems a laborious way to cross a river on their own. 

To shift away from the physical: 

  • Those who have a mindset inclined towards the western idea of rational / “evidentiary/scientific” / mainstream resources is probably going to be more inclined to accept “centres of power” rather than Deity, and thus need an explanation of telepathy etc based on things like quantum entanglement, rather than a simple frequency of radio waves analogy; 
  • Those who are comfortable with emotions might be more likely to be OK with anthropomorphisation; 
  • Most people will tend to view situations from the bias of the worldview they were raised in - which includes religious iconography, whether they follow that religion or not, and sometimes others will stick to that for convenience (e.g., see here).
    Thus they may be inclined towards referring to angels or     “the devil”, rather than Guides or centres of power or animistic spirits - and vice versa on all other counts.

I am comfortable with terminology based on levels of reality (which in itself, is a worldview that has a history and didn’t always exist), but am also comfortable with the shamanistic underworld and references to “the Summerlands” - and see here for one navigation technique I use. 

I personally find descriptions of the Abyss difficult to work with, unless I view the concept through a psychological framework. 

And, here in Australia, I find Nature Spirits difficult to work with in terms of the Celtic mythology of the European lands touched by Celts (similarly the Wheel f the Year - especially when I lived in the tropics, and had the sun sometimes north of me, and sometimes south).

None of which makes these more or less right or wrong (so don’t metaphorically [and DEFINITELY NOT PHYSICALLY!] bash someone about their head because they read different books), it just means that finding the way to approach matters that resonates with you important - together with an understanding that that may change with time, changes in circumstance, and development/regression. 


For a few other thoughts on this, consider: 

 

Assumptions / basis 

In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following: 

  • relevant links have been included as in-line links in the text above.

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider: 


  • there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;  
  • I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.

 

I am on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/Gnwmythr.

 

 

Posted by at