Liber AL III:2. There is division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. Beware! Hold! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit!
“A commonly-held trope about occultism is that it is ‘scientific’ in the same way that physics or biology or engineering is ‘scientific’, and a consequence of that is the tendency to assume that when one writes about a specific occult term – be it egregore, aeon or chakra, that anyone who encounters the term is going to understand it in the same way that the writer does. In my experience at least, that’s usually not the case. Scientists go to great lengths to define precisely their terms of reference. Occultists tend not to. Yet there is the common assumption that a term, when it appears, has the same meaning for everyone. Worse yet, to my mind, there’s a tendency to reduce words to a single meaning. This becomes particularly apparent when words are lifted from other languages, and placed in a different context.” Phil Hine, 2005.
Language is limited by the rules which construct it, the forms which comprise it, the connotations that accrete it, its presentation or tone, and by the spirit of any individual’s intention to relay the message in question.
The beauty of ambiguity therefore lies in its ability to mirror that which perceives the message and attempts to interpret it. It forces the observer to reproduce the deduction by themselves. If the recipient is unable to interpret it (due to an inhibition from the ego), it is dismissed as nonsense. This inhibition is not a “bad thing.” This function prevents us from slipping into the chaos (LAW/LOGOS) of the unconscious mind. However, it is not always a good thing either, because it portrays a fear from the individual to avoid knowing that chaotic part of himself.
I:54. Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shall not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.
There are three types of definitions when it comes to language (taken from philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm) –
- Lexical: A Lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with which it captures that usage.
- Stipulative: Freely assigns meaning to a completely new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. The goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, and by virtue of there being no existing standards against which to compare it, the definition is always correct.
- Theoretical: Special cases of stipulative definition, distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context of a broader intellectual framework. The adoption of any theoretical definition commits us to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part.
In logic, mathematics and science, the use of ambiguity is disadvantageous due to the objective of avoiding contradiction, changes of assigned meaning, and overall aspects of unpredictability which all threaten their foundation – but art, philosophy, and occultism all have the potential to function in the realms beyond contradiction; where any given contradiction is a set in itself, encompassed by a larger set where both sets provide answers to one another. Evolution in language by the use of theoretical definitions make for extensive understandings but challenges in communication. Similarly, the use of stipulative definitions requires elaboration in meaning, either in context or directly. Even lexicon definitions face the threat of being misunderstood if two people of different fields of study have a conversation using the same terms. Occultists often argue due to a difference in the usage of terms and not necessarily of meaning.
It is the analysis and assimilation of meanings (and of nonsense), underneath the fabric of language which interest me and influence my perception, practice, and life. I recognize that communication is a challenge all on its own to overcome. I sympathize with my acquaintances who have spent years of dedication into specific intellectual fields, but also with the friends I have made over the years that are still searching for the words to express the wisdom of their life experience. The inability or even the intentional use of ambiguity in one’s writing does not mean that person is lacking in knowledge. Similarly, the use of jargon does not mean that person is highly intelligent. We have a duty to seek understanding from others and train ourselves to share our own understandings too.
One of the greatest things I’ve ever felt grateful for, were the times I felt myself struggling to communicate a thought, and the person who listens, not only hears my incoherent phrases and mismatched words, but the frustration that stems from the depths of the mind attempting to fit itself into a small mold in order to be beheld by another – and then gives me more time to explain, with whatever ridiculous examples I find, all without judgement.
“Mitochondria of electric creation of cosmogenesis as it was in megalomaniac gethsemanias of crucifixions of which crucificional definitives is a composition of elements of a rainbow connection of what Creationism was definitely defined with definition … is to a design of architectural tabernacularism made creation in all its concept of creation … e.g. regeneration omni-presences of an ingredient electric re-creating spirit … and thereby, all this creation is to Tabernacle of what a womb of metempsychoses is to an element in all its purest morphology and that of which is of thou silent transparency of vibrancy is of a name of a nameless purity … God is to Tetragrammaton …”
Hector Paul Navasero