New Idea for Alien Contact: Tune to 432.

New Idea for Alien Contact: Tune to 432.

I have developed a new theory for contacting alien life.

Mankind harnessed the Electricities in the Twentieth-Century A.D.

It was in the first half of this same century that music was re-tuned to a standard tuning of A = 440 Hertz.

As we all know (if we are audiophiles): the proper tuning, in accord with the Universal Frequency, is A = 432. [a la Verdi, Mozart, and monks in general.]

We have all ready sent tones based upon the Fibonacci Sequence headlong into outer space. The intellect loves complication, as do musicians of an intellectual variety, so the tones we sent out are extremely subtle.

How did we get so desperate? Well: as any young man with a neurotic I.Q. can tell you: desperation is over-compensation. A simple tone played at a steady pace, following the pattern 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc. would suffice.

But it has to be tuned properly. Otherwise (as any struggling musician will repeat this sagely idiom): Who is going to listen to it?

All life is communication. We have had the technology to contact alien life for several generations. Yet just as this technology is useless for interpersonal communication in a society devoid of Myth, (notice the capitalization, to stress its importance rather than its popular negligibility, the latter of which proves my case) so it is that interplanetary communication is futile if we have forgotten our sonic roots.

If the people sending signals into Deep Space stepped out of the ideological padded cell* of science into the realm of spirituality, meditation, yoga and esoteric musicology, we just might be able to put a good message out. Who knows? If some one is listening on the receiving end, They (notice again the capitalization; I am not being grammatically incorrect but rather referring to the Proverbial They.) just MIGHT pick up what we are putting out.

Dm.A.A.

*The padded cell metaphor is of course of twofold significance: not only is a padded cell evocative of an insane asylum. It would all so have AWFUL acoustics.

Reflections on a Professor:

Reflections on a Professor.

Ali had a troubling inability to simply RELATE. He exemplified the quote by Camus that said that “he professes a love of humanity to hide his contempt of People.” Ali frequently recalled altercations with people he would dismiss with self-righteous indignation. Even his family was not immune. The reports were not specific; he could only describe them as “emotional”, with exasperation. The reports themselves suffice in that way; Ali was incredibly challenged in the assessment of ordinary human emotions, beyond an academic crutch that helped him to comprehend them.

It was with a heavy hand that he sabotaged what had been a meek but effective social tact on my part. A typical neurotic extravert, he insisted that I be more outgoing. I would sit in polite contemplation of his words, evading his eyes when they grew too hypnotic, allowing my own eyes to dart about in pursuit of the very truths that he was spinning all around us, or seeking to remain vigilant, though surely appearing, to him, to be seeking an escape from the lecture. That too was very telling.

For all his talk of women’s rights, for instance, he could only estrange me from women as PEOPLE, as the overwhelming burden of engaging them more forwardly seduced me into the trap of Participation Mystique. My mind began to project upon them all manner of abstraction, a visionary state that was both Kafkaesque and deluding, since I lost my memories of a time when I could gain access to the world of the Feminine Consciousness via the window of the Person.

The blockage was not confined to the female. Men too became alienated by my overzealousness. Extraversion was not becoming of me, as Jung had warned in such instances. Now that I have found solace again, I can again regard every man as an island, whatever the academic claims of some mystic who insists that we are all a continent. The paradox of being both part and whole at once, an individual who is part of the greater Whole and whole in his own right as a part, had not bothered me before I met Ali. I could exchange a wordless sympathy with the cashier at McDonald’s and think the world of it. I could share a fleeting flirtation with a passing female in the city. Every thing was a Direct and Mystikal Encounter. But Mysticism meant nothing to Ali but the butt of an old philosophical joke.

He was probably so obsessed with his own idiosyncrasy that all normality, even a simple adherence to Nature (yet an other of a number of beneficent entities that he had dismissed as a “projection of culture”), was suspect of conformity, to a dogmatic degree. Nature is of course generous; it allows us our individuality, and hence our idiosyncrasy. But Ali did not believe in individuality; Foucault had taught him not to. Ali did not believe in Nature. It was not to be respected for its Otherness; it was to be assimilated or otherwise marginalized.*

Perhaps he demanded expressiveness of me because he was accustomed to a demanding culture. His Irani heritage left little room for subtlety. A man who struggles to comprehend People on an emotional, sympathetic level needs them to be blunt in their emotions, because otherwise paranoia creeps in as the imagination fills in the gaps. The cost is obvious: the emotions are made blunt and therefore dull. The subtleties are lost, the individuality raped, and there is no longer a dialogue, but only a lecture. He was, for all his radicalism, a typical academic: he never left the Lecture Hall, wherever he might go. Fanciful as his lectures might be, he was all ways standing on the same podium.

Dm.A.A.

*If only he could have tapped into its unitive quality, he would dismiss all relative claims towards it, as well as all claims to its relativity, as inferior to the Universality of the Mother Herself.

Suburban Shamans: Episode One.

Dm.A.A.

A Noble Question.

I find healing to be one of my chief motives in life. (Having received "Healer" as both my Myers-Briggs personality type and an alias for my Zodiac Sign.) The album that I sent to you of my music was one that I would send to several fellow musicians, attached to the words “Heal to This”. Yet some times being-empathic makes it insufficient to be-healed; one must heal [others]. You possess that sacred gift of producing MUSIC. That is perhaps the Universal Medicine. Everything is Sound. There is a theory of Healing Frequencies available to you via the Internet. You might find YouTube videos of pieces tuned to 432 Hertz(, the Vibration of the Cosmos), as well as songs tuned for Chakra Cleansing. (If memory serves: 396 Hertz, 417 Hz, 528, 639, 741, 852, and 936 Hertz.) I find that Tool’s “Aenima” and “The Holy Gift”, tuned to 432, has helped me incomparably in really gritty but reliable soul-searching.

Beyond that I can vouch for some forms of meditation and yoga, but only with a healthy background in Dream Interpretation and Mysticism (so as not to worsen the neurosis, supposing that there is one.). The Religious Instinct is all so of incredible potency for people. I my self use the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching, Tarot Readings few and far between, (it’s hard to get them done in person, but best to do so that way) and my studies into the Western Zodiac. (Though not horoscopes any more.)

Drugs are a toss-up, as is most media. They can help one to confront problems, thereby aiding their solution, but used as an escape they can become-problems in their own right. (Or should I say their own WRONG?)

Humour helps, especially humour without or with little malice. Hatred, disappointment, and above all the tendency to beat one’s own self up are not very helpful. Negative trigger words can hurt a lot, as can an excess of positive trigger words. (The mind tends to synthesize an opposite to every feeling, just in case, and some times in an excess of joy despair bubbles over and spills out of its storage unit in the Unconscious.)

Love, especially of an undiscriminating and generous kind, seems to be the main “trick”. (Though there is little to nothing tricky about it.) It may be hard for people who attract attention to attract love. Some people thrive in public. Others thrive in private. And where one heals is not all ways where on thrives.

I wish you luck. I hope that that alone, or that at least, is healing enough.

Dm.A.A.

Why Women Should Not March. (Obviously.)

The term “Women’s March” is of a boundless irony.

The root word for “March” has its origins in Mars, the name of the Latin God of War.

His counterpart in Greek society was Ares, whose namesake Aries means The Ram.

Aries is the first constellation of the Western Zodiac.

He is believed to be ruled by Mars, according to the metaphysics of Astrology.

Aries governs all of the masculine values that are associated with manhood, including War.

Because Aries is the first sign of the Zodiac, men are considered “first”.

It follows (literally) that women occur secondly and in opposition to Aries.

Hence the two signs ruled by Venus are Taurus and Libra.

Taurus follows Aries directly. Thus women become “The Second Sex”.

Libra is the polar opposite of Aries. Hence women become “The Opposite Sex”.

This basis for gender was lost with the hyperskepticism of the Christian Church.

This hyperskepticism endured Secularism and became a cornerstone of the Rationalist Movement.

Amidst the Rationalist Movement was the similarly dull movement of early Feminism.

The first ever Feminist argument, made by Wollstonecraft, was that women are capable of Reason.

Later philosophers have rejected Reason as holding any thing more than dogmatic significance.

At best, it is one of several passions. And it is intrinsically masculine, so to valuate it exclusively is to be patriarchal.

“Mars” occurs ubiquitously in language.

Martial Arts and Martial Law are two examples.

A “march” is traditionally a MILITARY March.

The month of March contains the first day of Spring.

This is all so the principal day of the Aries Season.

Thus it represents the start of a new Zodiac cycle.

There can be no doubt, given all of these parallels, that March refers specifically to a military March.

Why shouldn’t a month be named after Mars?

After all: Mars all ready has a day of the week named after him.

In Latin languages, Tuesday is named after March. {Mardi, Martes, etc.}

When you partake in a “Women’s March”, you are literally rallying women to MARCH into WAR.

Traditionally, this has been stringently forbidden. For millennia only men waged war. Yet this was no conspiracy, except in the purest sense of “conspiracy” as a Union in Spirit.

The causes appear politely at first to be various. One theory is that our ancestors, the primates, invented war whilst passing time out in the Hunting Fields. This was the earliest form of game, and it was very brutal.

But that theory is at best an analogy, because ostensibly protein does not mutate, so human beings cannot have evolved from apes. They can only possess similarities to apes according to a common set of conditions, which are metaphysical and constant (feminine) rather than physical and changing (masculine). Evolution was developed as a theory under the masculinist tradition of Rationalism. But it was probably a fallacy of false causality. Apes are not the cause of which humans are the effect, but both are effects of the same cause: Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus.

It was believed in pre-Christian (ergo pre-Scientific, and I shall take the liberty of using “Christian” and “Scientific” interchangeably) times that the two closest planets to the Earth, Mars on the one hand and Venus on the other, were responsible for Gender. Each planet vibrates at a frequency measured by its spin, so the musicality of multiplicity would have been the product of this duplicity.

So it followed that Mars created all “masculine” beings and Venus created all “feminine” ones.

Musical cultures, such as Latin culture, pay their respects not only by naming Tuesday and Friday, respectively, after Mars and Venus, but ALL so by assigning gender to most nouns.

The astrological explanation for the twenty-first century is that inexplicably the Universe began to send women all of the masculine energies and bestowed unto men all of the feminine ones. Hitherto men had for thousands upon thousands of years been trained in war not by culture but by nature, which is why it has remained, despite its primitivity of principle, even in the most sophisticated of civilisations.

Unto women the Universe had bestowed maternal qualities as well as aesthetic qualities. The former was the product of the Moon {hence the first day of the week, Moon Day, or Lunes, or Lundi, etc.}, and the latter was the product of Venus.

Taurus embodied the carnal beauty, whereas Libra embodied the intellectual beauty. Libra is all so to this day represented in Law by the symbol of the Scales. This universal symbol of Law is associated with Fairness and Balance. Hence women are regarded as the FAIR sex. (“Fairness” is not confined to outward, physically manifest appearance, but then I state the obvious for fear that some one else would think to point it out as though that sort of absurd reduction might rob my alternative argument of its valour.)

To complete the irony is that the Women’s March occurs on the EIGHTH of March, which is still PRIOR to the end of the Zodiac cycle. It occurs within the Season of PISCES, which is considered a Sign of Compassion and Healing, an opportunity for Unity, NOT a window for violence and aggression.

Pisces is all so ruled by Neptune, who is regarded as the Exaltation of VENUS, the final fulfillment, in other words, of the FEMININE values which Feminism wants no part in whatsoever.

The word “men” is in fact Primary, whereas “women” is secondary.

Yet to presume upon Primacy as Superiority is to make a typically macho presumption.

This is incidentally all so why there is absolutely no difference between “People of Colour” and “Coloured People”. BOTH terms are cardinally offensive, and to pretend otherwise is to add insult to injury.

“Women” is a LONGER term than “men”, derived FROM “men”, and such is all so the case with “Female” and “Male”. This is because femininity is considered MORE MATURE than Masculinity. As the Zodiac progresses the Soul becomes closer and closer to Enlightenment. So being the “Second Sex” is not only to be the “Fairer Sex” (again: a spiritual virtue as much as carnal one, though that is NOT to concede to the dangerous prejudice that “spiritual” is “better” than “carnal”), but in fact to be the “WISER SEX”.

To “March” is less WISE than to be still. So women who do so are simply fooling around with an energy that is not only INTRINSICALLY NAÏVE [because it is Masculine and Arian], but all so they are NOVICES in its application (as men would be novices in the feminine virtues, though one should not be too quick to level between the two groups, on general principle).

The proper celebration of Femininity is not by pedestalization. To delineate a day for Womanhood is to imply without warrant that either women are UNIMPORTANT all of the remaining days of the year or that they OUGHT to be unimportant during those days. Either that or the day is a naïve return to matriarchy that triggers man’s archetypal origins.

Every day should be both Woman’s Day and Man’s Day. Yet once this fact becomes muddled by ideological movements such as the Women’s March then it becomes tarnished with aggressive, combative [Martian] energy. So the mentality becomes that to resist the movement is to oppose it, and individuality is obscured. So too becomes obscured the fact that EVERY day is properly Women’s Day, but that this is only a fact to those individuals who have woken up to it, and this awakening of course cannot be imposed from without. Thus to oppose the ideology is to oppose Women’s Day, and because they are made interchangeable by obscuring the initial purpose it becomes that to oppose Women’s Day is to become-mysogynistic in the Public Eye. This is, self-evidently, barbaric one-sidedness.

All holidays that elevate one group exclusively polarise between that group and its out-group(s). All relationships are intrinsically mutual and uncomplicated but the CONTEMPLATION of them becomes complicated because it is abstracted. Ideology is rightfully called the anti-Christ because it exploits this brief period of Kafkaesque alienation and hardens these secondary thoughts into a dogma that holds such sway  that it precludes return to the naked innocence of Relationship. This Unity is what the Piscean Season is truly about, and it is the Ultimate Fulfillment of the Western Zodiac upon which all of our religion (and thereby all of our science, dogma, etc.) are founded.

When I was in high school, a mere eight years prior, no one knew that it was International Women's Day.
The broes in my Calculus class made a joke of it. I miss it. All holidays are just excuses to not only celebrate one day of remembering, but even more so they excuse forgetfulness for the rest of the year. I am happy to see you happy, but happiness becomes a cheap virtue when it is so fleeting.

Religion offers what secular liberalism cannot.

Dm.A.A.

A Tale of Tapeworms:

I will not be penalised for your lack of discernment. All ways I tried to warn you about your deviant, reckless lifestyle, motivated to hang near you out of pity so much as trust, not really NEEDING you but feeling sympathy for you. I expected you to honour that trust. I supposed that our conflict was simply ideological, and at the earliest opportunity to reconcile our conflicting worldviews you would not resist. I supposed that sex would be the answer: that when finally I found the Love of My Life I would know at once the pleasures of the flesh and the reliability of the spirit. So we would both win.

This you saboutaged. I never thought it possible. I was totally devoid of expectations. I was innocent; I could not be expected to know or to conceive of such a treachery as you instated. And for what? For exercising my birth-right? Now you try to elevate your lack of discernment to an ethic, an emasculate move. You once said to me that doing Ecstasy with Laura is comparable to talking to Shiva. You muddled the temptress with the Goddess; the former had lost you the Love of YOUR Life, and the latter would have helped you to preserve that. But you were much too narcissistic to tell them apart; so long as either brought you pleasure, satisfaction, and bragging rights within your group of stoners, no one could tell you otherwise.

I had all ways been afraid that you needed our help because these habits would destroy you. It never once crossed my mind that this would hurt me or the people close to me. Why not? Because I was narcissistic? Obviously not. Optimistic? Surely, but why so? Because I was ALTRUISTIC. I all ways thought of my self last. I put up with abuse from you for years. But Alanna: she was the first person I LOST to you. And so I woke up. I could not afford to have any one else sink to your level. I was not to be blamed. Trust is not a mistake. VIOLATING Trust is.

Goodness never uses Force. I would never try to threaten you with this. But you should know that I am no longer fooled by you. And some of our associates are starting to see it too.

You were never a Free Spirit. You tried to blame me for going into the Ocean, just because your proto-Fascist “friends” did not “approve” of it, and because they lacked my stamina and courage. I can barely believe that I allowed you to tell me that any thing that I did was remotely irresponsible or wrong. I held no one to any standard that that person could not follow. I made no demands of any one. I had no expectations. There was no conflict of interests, no zero-sum game. All of that was entirely internal to you, because you were insane. The Ocean does not belong to you. It belongs to all of us, and I set an example that any one could follow just as easily as he or she could choose not to. And in such a case both paths are easy, because in a difficult situation the difficulty would lie in having to choose one over the other. And here the choice its self was easy. All one had to take was to take responsibility for it.

You did NOT take responsibility for it. You held my rights and their exercise against me for years. Like a lunatic. So what was I being punished for exactly? Alanna was not your birth-right any more so than she was mine, yet you behaved as though that were not the case, and then in your psychosis you displaced that possessiveness onto ME. The blood was on YOUR hands; it was simply on MY face. Of course: LITERALLY I bled into my own hands. But figuratively it was totally on you. It was you who chose to rob me of her. When before she belonged to us both, you took her for your own. Without consulting me or warning me. Entirely benefiting at my own expense. So many years I felt like a parasite because you held me in illusory debt to you. For what? For food and drugs, in exchange for my TIME? I offered you a CAREER. I offered HER a CAREER. And you had the nerve to ask me why YOU owed ME music?? As though it were yours to GIVE?!?

There was never a conflict of interest wherever I was concerned. Individual rights are non-negotiable; boundaries are mutual. You violated one of the most sacred boundaries, and you know this because your reasons for doing so were to save yourself from the same fate towards which you subjected ME. So you violated a principle that is not relative to us, but that is Universal. The Categorical Imperative: to treat others as you would be treated in turn. It is Universal because, like my birth-right to swim in the Mother Ocean, it does not CHANGE just because some random group of idiots DECIDES that it should be that way. It does not FALTER because a group of WEAK PEOPLE decide to CLUMP TOGETHER and to shelter themselves from the waves. It is not NEGOTIABLE just because in place of rising to the same moral heights one chooses to SULK in resentment and envy and miss nearly every opportunity to get out of it.

I made it clear to you that I did not approve of your habits. Unlike the matter of your “friends”, whom I had not even ever CALLED my own friends, you DID require this approval of me. I had given you no reason to doubt me. I disapproved because I knew it would come to nothing. You have found yourself blaming ME for what YOU had done, accusing ME of what I “WOULD HAVE DONE” in your place, all because you did not SEE what could entitle ME beyond your own self-interested madness. So now how do you answer for that? How do you comprehend the GUILT of being held ACCOUNTABLE for not ONLY the injustice, but for the attempt to displace BLAME upon the victim? Will you honestly repeat the same injustice yet again? Will you tell me to take responsibility for my condition? When have YOU taken responsibility for my condition?? When have YOU even taken responsibility for your OWN condition? The moment that your actions impact me unjustly you do not hesitate to use MINE as an EXCUSE. You do not establish a value and then seek to uphold it, even if others fall around it. You simply use every imagined offense to YOU as though it were an EXCUSE to degenerate even further. You take NO responsibility for yourself, and you do not even have the modicum of self-responsibility to admit it.

I am not responsible for what you do to me. Those are YOUR actions. But you are just a spoiled child laughing nervously at the world as it lectures you, blissfully unaware of what you are doing.

I will not be robbed of my own bliss on your behalf. I was never blissfully unaware. I was blissfully AWARE. That same Ocean I went into WITH you when you were drunk one night at the Bonfire. But you do not remember. You were wasted, and when you sobered up again you were again the same arrogant, condescending and controlling twit.

Stop texting Alanna. Stop using her. You all ready robbed her of her virtue. You all ready made it clear that you wanted nothing to do with her self-improvement.

If in all of this I find my self identifying with you, it is only because I am reminded, by necessity of having to describe it, of how long this all went on. And when it did, I identified with you as I do now. I acted as scapegoat for your debauchery, despite my own ideals. I internalized your ideals, but you never regarded mine as worthy. You were right: there was an unfair relationship at work. But YOU were the parasite, unless you mean to tell me that adopting your own ideals as my own is tantamount to some sort of blood transfusion. If so: you clearly do not want any one to follow your example, because you have no interest in the Categorical Imperative. You are not a role model. You are not a mutualistic benefactor. You preclude the possibility of a mutualistic or even a commensalistic relationship between people. Your entire worldview is that of the parasite. You never understand your host. That is why you blame him.

I identified with you and imagined you to be as good as you demanded that I be.

But all the while I was simply being drained and corrupted.

Stop talking to Alanna. I cannot threaten you with being cut off again. But I can do you the last COURTESY of pity.

Your words are really useless in this regard. I was never in your position. You continue to rely upon your Mother, etc., though you were so afraid of becoming a parent that you went so FAR as to tell me that *I* owed something to my own. It is a sacrilege. Children do not owe any thing to their parents. Their parents owe them the World. But you are still a child. You cannot understand that. And all the money that you drain, parasitically, from the system, a system I have reason to suspect of being one big bullying enterprise (for I too had case workers and mental diagnoses, teetering on the edge of being marginalized as “grievously disabled”, as Alanna herself had been), will not change your status. And since status is all you care about, you will of course cope with this fact in the only way you know how to: with denial. But I shall not delude my self. I shall simply go on. I know what works, and I need not worry all the time, looking over my shoulder to see who is hurt. My rights are non-negotiable; my values are strong. I embody the Sagittarian virtues that Alanna idealized, that she saw in you, but that you fell short of. I do not need to worry about the complaints of a few losers who are inwardly disloyal, outwardly noble, and who need to find a scapegoat for their inner deficiencies.

DM.A.A.