Meta-Modernism and "Magical Realism"
-
I might be misinterpreting... but how I took "magical realism" in context of the document (loving btw the phrase "informed naiveté") wasn't in a literary sense, but rather in terms of something I've asserted for, oh, about as long as it takes Saturn to loop the solar system:
Most people have their use of the words "real" and "unreal" completely backwards, as if the physical universe is real and 'purely psychological' things are unreal. But it's exactly the opposite. The only thing that's really real is what actually registers and centers deep within a person, e.g., an actuality of being, or the way we connect to and are present to experience, etc. The farther outward through intellect and into the senses we go, the less real something becomes until, at the extreme, something is most unreal if it simply exists in the sensory universe without my having any particular connection to it.
Reality measured not in physical measurability, but in terms of the depth and breadth of its relatedness to a particular individual.
In the context of the document, I think this sort of thing is what they mean by "the informed naiveté of magical realism."
-
93,
"Most people have their use of the words "real" and "unreal" completely backwards, as if the physical universe is real and 'purely psychological' things are unreal. But it's exactly the opposite. The only thing that's really real is what actually registers and centers deep within a person, e.g., an actuality of being, or the way we connect to and are present to experience, etc. The farther outward through intellect and into the senses we go, the less real something becomes until, at the extreme, something is most unreal if it simply exists in the sensory universe without my having any particular connection to it."
I used to think that explanations like these were not worth a grain of salt. Of course, I understand and have alwas understood that psychological states are very real to the person experiencing them.
When I looked into perception, I began to see that the outside world, or the sensory world, is purely a construct of the mind. We receive information to the eyes in 2-d form and yet through various processes our brains create a three dimensional universe. We receive signals in the form of waves to the ears and again our brain creates the construct of sound.
Someone with synesthesia has a whole other sensory sensation, sound can suddenly have colour- all because their brains interpret the signals a different way. The Anorexic more often than not cannot accurately perceive their bod due to faulty cognitive processes- I have actually talked to someone researching this. Anorexics are worse, but it turns out that most of us are quite bad at body perception!
Everything occurs in the mind. I don't think it is a matter of the physical being more or less important than the mental realm. I think it is important to realise, there is little difference between the two!
We can see the physical world in different ways depending on our current states, things can seem bright and filled with light one day, and then dark and gloomy the next. The actual environment has not changed, just our psychological state and therefore our perception. Since our minds literally effect everything, including our interactions with the outside world, I cannot see how anyone could not call psychological states and mental processes real.
People who live solely in what most people term 'reality' i.e. embrace only that which is physical to them are often unhappy. They haven't got an inner connection. If humans did not require spiritual practices and a spiritual connection, we would have abandoned the practice years ago. There has to be something more than just interacting with the physical world at a basic level.
I find it interesting that one of the first steps in alcoholics anonymous is surrendering to a higher power, also that many prisoners often become spiritual in their time in jail. That people who have ruined their lives often get things on track when finding a spiritual connection.
I personally believe, and can quite obviously not prove, that people need spirituality. That every substance abuse, every gambling problem is just a method of filling up a hole which is reserved for something else. Whether that something else is a mere psychological construct, or an external being, is irrelevant. Something else is usually needed.
I know I have gone off topic a bit, forgive me. But I find what you said thought provoking and quite frankly important.
-
Uni_Verse,
To me, the manifesto continually points to transcending the absolute positions of opposite poles - seeking the point above the line, so to speak.
Do they intend to embrace a magical perspective? I think they're at least hinting at the possibility, but they may also be using the term "magical realism" in the same juxtaposed sense as they do modernism versus postmodernism and scientific/poetic, without really suggesting the full adoption of a magical point of view. Sounds like they're open to it, but see it by itself as another polar perspective.
-
Oh, I still didn't say what I think about it. Well, if it says what I think it says then, yeah, I guess I kind of already think that way, or at least hold it as an ideal - you know, find the point above the line. Sounds very Hermetic to me.
-
When we studied Postmodernism and it's influence on contemporary theology in seminary (yeah, yeah), the approach taken was to counter the declaration of there being"no Metanarrative" with the idea that one may choose the narrative of one's liking, and well, "success is your proof," so to speak.
I think I see some of that approach here, in the "second naïveté."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I might be misinterpreting... "
In my experience, your every post has, at the very least provided thoughts of interest.
No trouble on my end
@Jim Eshelman said
". but how I took "magical realism" in context of the document (loving btw the phrase "informed naiveté") wasn't in a literary sense"
The interpretation of "magical realism" that I spoke of early was something I pulled up when I searched for some information.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Most people have their use of the words "real" and "unreal" completely backwards, as if the physical universe is real and 'purely psychological' things are unreal. But it's exactly the opposite. The only thing that's really real is what actually registers and centers deep within a person, e.g., an actuality of being, or the way we connect to and are present to experience, etc. The farther outward through intellect and into the senses we go, the less real something becomes until, at the extreme, something is most unreal if it simply exists in the sensory universe without my having any particular connection to it."
Haha, perhaps the fantastical element is the aspirant. A flight of fancy in an amourphouse blob of a universe. Despite its non existance, it brings a certain order.
@mark0987 said
"I know I have gone off topic a bit, forgive me. But I find what you said thought provoking and quite frankly important."
You have been forgiven, though there was no need.
Many thanks for your contribution.
-
In a funny kind of way, I reckon this wouldn't make a bad unofficial manifesto for the Era of the Hierophant.
-
It's just a new term, nothing serious - definitely. But it caught you attention, so that is somehow connected to you will
However i do not believe we need such terms anymore. Society or culture wont live with them, but only certain groups of people may benefit....There are three things people seek for. First is ''fire'' mostly for ones who has less grounded experience in them. This helps pursue reality. When ones who go opposite direction against ''satanic fire'', they fight against devil, evil, satan inside, but mostly for ones who has absolutely no connection with HGA. And a third type of people who has more or less grounded experience in them, but do not want to exchange that pack for further experience, means cant go next step, neglect it, or are in same stage grounded for many years.
So we have one type dominant in us, we are against one type, and we pursue one type
