Positive Dissociation?

Adaryn · Oct 9, 2009

Laura said:
Tigersoap said:

Check out this artist Hilma_af_Klint and her gallery over Here .
she was channeling messages with her group "the five", despite having a very Christian bent, the messages and the paintings are very interesting imho.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not impressed. If these were done by children trying to represent their dreams as a form of therapy, they might be psychologically interesting, but as something that inspires one... naaah. Not even close.

One thing I ask myself when I look at a painting or a picture is: "would I want this on my wall?".
I had a look at that gallery and perceive this kind of art as dissonant, monotonous, dull, garish, falsely naive (if that makes any sense). This is not something I consider as inspiring; but again, I like what "modern experts" call cheesy art. (In case noone noticed :D), I have a big love for preraphaelism, and have Waterhouse's Lady of Shalott on my living room's wall.

Burne-Jones said:
I mean by a picture a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was, never will be — in a better light than any light that ever shone — in a land no one can define or remember, only desire — and from forms divinely beautiful.”

Personally, that is for me what defines art, and what I'd call inspiring.

Add: on the other hand, now we have Culture ministers who defend pedophiles (Polanski) and write about their experiences with young males (most probably minors) in Thai's brothels… and are praised for this, to boot. Talk about degeneration and ponerology.

truth seeker · Oct 9, 2009

Perhaps the Shaman's main role was to communicate not only with the Divine Cosmic Mind, but also to keep in contact with other Shamans of similar ability. With use of positive dissociation, I believe this is possible. I think this is already happening in subtle ways with our group as we practice the meditation.

If things keep going the way they are with communication being controlled/stifled, perhaps a form of commmunication could be similar to whatever method is currently used by STS to program people...

Maybe a type of sound/thought wave geared to positive purposes? I think it would fit with "being as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves". I don't think it could be necessarily something physical as that would make it even more difficult to reach people in chaotic times. Am I completely off here?

Also, I'm wondering how the dances will fit in here.

edit: added sentence.

truth seeker · Oct 9, 2009

Sorry for the double post - this really has me thinking. I came across this definition of Shamanism that I thought was interesting:

http://www.shamanicartsstudio.com/Shamanism.htm

What Is Shamanism?

Shamanism is an ancient method of spiritual communication—perhaps tens of thousands of years old—that is used for spiritual and physical healing as well as for personal growth. Shamanic practices exist in many tribal cultures world-wide and are experiencing a renaissance in urban cultures.

In shamanism, one enters an altered mental state—typically by using drums or rattles to create a sound field that changes consciousness. The altered state, called a shamanic journey, is used to gain help and wisdom. It is called a journey because the experience is one of going someplace. In the journey the shaman encounters helping spirits. These spirits are experienced as a kind of consciousness that does not exist in a body. The spirits provide help and guidance when properly approached.

This quote as well as some og the artwork that came up in a google search reminds me of the artwork currently up at the Denver Airport and what is ultimately trying to be accomplished there. Perhaps the artwork could take a positive slant? I don't particularly care for the style, but maybe something with some crop circle images in it?

Thomas Alan · Oct 9, 2009

Laura said:
Hildegarda said:

Also, a lot of the contemporary "elite art" seems incredibly nonsensical, bizarre, and frankly doesn't even require any bona fide art skills in creation of its "objects". This is why, from what I have read - and I can see why this is -- a lot of really good artists appear to go into cartoons, and some of them produce superb and meaningful characters and drawings.

Click to expand...

Which leads to the article pasted in below which, I think, relates strongly to this issue: how art, music, film, literature, and so on, are used to ponerize society - to inculcate normal humans into the pathological reality:

Here is an essay in two parts by Lasha Darkmoon which is partly based on
Shamir's Study in Art:

The Plot Against Art, Part 1

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtI.html

Dr Lasha Darkmoon

September 19, 2009

"Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs or
criminals of so many."

Click to expand...

I haven't thought about this for a long time. But oh, how I miss beautiful,
meaningful art: paintings, music, literature.

It is so sad to see the junk that fills art museums, the moronic drivel that
passes for music and the stupidity of most TV programing. How empty and hopeless
it makes the world seem.

The world is deeply hungry for images and music that are beautiful, meaningful,
thoughtful, inspired.

Mac

Laura · Oct 9, 2009

Tigersoap said:
Do you have, if you have the time, any exemple that could inspire one ?
I am really struggling to find what could be represented in such art ?

The only thing I can think of is perhaps the alchemical drawings but as their meaning are often hidden from plain sight for the neophyte it may not qualify as inspiring. I really don't know.

Why do you think it has to have some sort of hidden meaning? What is wrong with just being beautiful and inspiring?

This is what is hanging over my bed:

300px-La_nascita_di_Venere_%28Botticelli%29.jpg

This is on the wall to the right:

There is a lovely Italian reproduction on the wall to the left of the bed but I don't know the artist. It's a Tuscan river scene.

Another in the bedroom is this:

And finally, there is a lovely village/boat scene on the Mediterranean - like a fishing village from the water with beautiful flowers falling over the stone walls. I don't know the artist, I picked it up in Florence.

Now, all of this artwork is what is in my private space. I am soothed and inspired by these particular pieces.

In our office, we have two Van Gogh reproductions, Magritte's "Chateau des Pyrenees" which is about as surrealist as I want to get,

and on another wall is Sir Frank Dicksee's "La Belle Dame Sans Merci".

We also have a lovely watercolor of il Duomo in Florence that is a view from this perspective:

There's more art in the house, but I think you get the idea. I'm sure that the experts would say I have very pedestrian or provincial tastes, but I pick art to put on the wall because I LIKE to look at it... What you look at goes INSIDE you and, if you look at it often enough, it can become part of you so I would be very careful about what I hung in my personal space and what I spent my time looking at.

RedFox · Oct 9, 2009

Lúthien said:
I have a big love for preraphaelism, and have Waterhouse's Lady of Shalott on my living room's wall.

Thanks for that Lúthien, its nice to be reminded what art should (by comparison to what we are sold/told is 'art' now) be :)
I could easily loose myself in that painting for a while.

Laura that article on modern art really did open my eyes....my father is a big fan of art (both old and new) and I inherited my love for art from him (or it was facilitated by him?)....either way I it does give me new eyes in regard to art.
I was always a big fan of surrealist art (Escher mostly)....the painting Lúthien posted above though does remind me how much I like Constable....ironically living in Suffolk I've actually visited a few spots that he painted. He captures the atmosphere/spirit well :)

A thought that just occurred...the connection between artists (painter, musicians, sculptures etc) and shamens....if the shaman an active link between 3D and the creative side of the universe, transmitting understanding....could it not be said that the artist transmits an element of the same?
Perhaps this is a core part of positive dissociation? This requires the ability to receive an understanding and a facilitator to transmit/transmute the cosmic knowledge into an understanding.

Which reminds me of a quote from G..which I cannot find...but my understanding was the conscious art would produce an effect in the viewer that was clearly understood...or at least not subjective. I found a different quote that may apply

The Fourth Way - Ouspensky

Q. To understand examples of conscious art one must have knowledge that an average person has not got?

A. Not only knowledge, but knowledge and being. There are two sides of us which must be developed.
In speaking about knowledge and being it is necessary to start from the beginning. Try to think how you look at it yourself, what your attitude to those two ideas was before you met this system. We are all in the same position. We want knowledge, but we do not realize that there are obstacles in ourselves that prevent us from acquiring this knowledge.
I will start with myself. Before I met the system I read a great deal and made many experiments. From these experiments I got interesting states, understood several laws, and I naturally wanted a continuation of these states. But I saw that for this more knowledge was necessary. Then I met this system. In the system particular stress was laid on being. According to this system no more knowledge is possible until one's being is changed.
Soon after we heard about knowledge and being our groups divided into two camps. The first camp thought that the whole thing was change of being, that with change of being we would get more from the knowledge we already have. The second camp (to which I believe I alone belonged) said that even in our present state of being we can get much more knowledge than we have, that we are not so saturated with knowledge that we cannot absorb more.
Later I understood that both are necessary. Take an example of two men: one knows the four rules of arithmetic, the other does not. Naturally the first will be in a better position, although their level of being is the same. The more a man knows about mathematics, the better is his position in a certain profession. So knowledge can increase even with the same being. And he may know more not only in mathematics; he may know many other things, have more psychological knowledge.
On the other hand, you notice that you give two people knowledge (I am speaking of psychological knowledge), and one gets it, while the other cannot. Evidently his being is not prepared. So people are not in the same position in this respect.
The relationship of knowledge and being is a very big question. I want you to think about it and follow what I have just said. Try to find your own examples. Knowledge can lead very far. The question is, can one take it? Can one absorb it? One kind of knowledge we can get, another kind we cannot, so we cannot speak in general about it. For instance, take psychological knowledge: such as we are we can learn very much, and certain things can become much dearer. But every moment a man's knowledge depends on his being. This is what we do not understand. A man can get only as much knowledge as his being allows, otherwise his knowledge will be just words. If knowledge is given to several people, one of them gets it, others do not. Why? Evidently because their being is different.

Q. I do not understand clearly what 'being' is.

A. It is you, what you are. The more you know yourself, the more you know your being. If you have never learnt that you have being, the being of all people will be the same to you. Someone who has never heard of self-remembering, if you ask him, will say that he can remember himself. This is one being. Another knows he does not remember himself—this is a different being. A third is beginning to remember himself—this is a third being. This is how it must be taken.
We understand the difference of objects, but in ordinary thinking we do not understand the difference of being. What do we learn in this system? First that we are not one, that we have many 'I's, that there is no central 'I' in control. This is the state of our being. The result is mechanical ness—we are machines. If we manage to be less mechanical, less divided in ourselves, if we manage to have more control of ourselves, it will mean that our being has changed.
When I met this system, it showed me that change of being was necessary, because we are not what we think ourselves to be. If we were what we think we are—if we had consciousness, will, if we could 'do', then only knowledge would be necessary. But we all think of ourselves differently from what we are in reality. And it is exactly this difference between what we are and what we think we are that shows what is lacking in our being. So two things are necessary: change of knowledge and change of being.

The quote (I may be mistakenly remembering) from G also reminded me of a another quote from G and a quote about recognising 6th density from the C's....

Conscious love evokes the same in response. Emotional love evokes the opposite. Physical love depends on type and polarity.
Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.
Hope, when bold, is strength. Hope, with doubt, is cowardice. Hope, with fear, is weakness.

Q: (L) So, if it is really a 6th density being, it will blow you away to such an extent that there is NO question?
A: Yes.

Perhaps I've gone off on a tangent/am simplifying things too much....but perhaps STO dissociation transmits something that is (in some way) instantly recognised, and the person is tuned into STO more by the recognition/resonance with what is understood......this being what STS fake. They provide the diet coke of understanding, all the sugar rush no substance....more importantly the 'sugar' hides the poison inside....the thing that makes you resonate with STS more.

*edit* wow I'd forgotten how beautiful the Venus De Milo was.....

RedFox · Oct 9, 2009

Laura said:
There's more art in the house, but I think you get the idea. I'm sure that the experts would say I have very pedestrian or provincial tastes, but I pick art to put on the wall because I LIKE to look at it... What you look at goes INSIDE you and, if you look at it often enough, it can become part of you so I would be very careful about what I hung in my personal space and what I spent my time looking at.

So it is like food for the soul.....perhaps disassociated states are the feeding then?? Didn't G talk about certain foods one of which was that of 'impressions'.....that thought has been on my mind for at least 4 months now...and it finally seems to be connecting here.

Gertrudes · Oct 9, 2009

Laura said:
Here is an essay in two parts by Lasha Darkmoon which is partly based on
Shamir's Study in Art:

This article hit something deep in me. It was really disturbing to read it, but extremely enlightening, thank you for sharing this Laura.

In Secondary school, in my home country, we have to choose our field of study. Since I had been very fond of drawing all my life (something that could be taken as positive dissociation?) I chose visual arts. It didn't go very well...actually it didn't go well at all since it turned out to be the last 3 years where I would ever grab a pencil to draw. My experience was similar to what was described in Luthien's post (reply 39) To top all that up, one of my teachers once asked me to describe a painting that I enjoyed, and I described precisely Venus from Botticelli,

his comment was destructive, something in the lines of that I should be persuing more intelligent art... Adolescence is a very vulnerable age, I thought that as a teacher he should know better then I did and repressed my own feelings. The consequences of this were nasty.
I haven't thought about this for years and when I started reading this thread, the memories came back and are now extremely hard to swallow back.....

The most vivid memories I have from those classes, and that is part of the reason why I found the article so disturbing, is the never ending discusions about how any and everything is art, including Marcel Duchamp's urinols! My values were turned upside down, I felt confused, stupid and eventually lost interest in art. Loosing interest was not real, but more a way of not having to face the fact that I didn't understand it and because of that I was probably stupid.

These memories have been buried for years, and I am now integrating the new understanding from the ponerized world we live in with art and the way it is taught. All of this is overwhelming, really.

Galahad said:
But maybe there is a fundamental problem with the whole notion of art separated from life.

If I think back to our ancestors, I doubt there was 'visual art' separated from the actual building of dwellings or decorations of religious spaces. Maybe the whole notion of a visual art separated from the rest of the world is wrong. The art comes out in the way windows, roofs, walls, furniture, clothing and other objects of every day life are decorated.

This quote from Galahad seriously got me thinking. My mind is very muddled on the subject because I am now opening the dusty boxes from the attic of my memory. I think it is worth posting what I am thinking in case someone can shed some light.
I am seeing subjective art as art made from subjective emotions and consequently for oneself. On the other hand objective art is art within a context and for a purpose that serves a common goal.
But then again, art from subjective emotions might be a good tool for cleansing and to give a better understanding of one's subconscious. Added with creative positive input, it might turn out to be something quite beautiful to see, and perhaps a way of positive dissociation (?)

On the subject of positive dissociation, Hildegarda (reply 20) divides dissociation into active and passive, which resonates with what I am thinking. So far, I have experienced positive dissociation also in more active states: activities where my body is engaged such as walking and usually practicing a slow form of exercise.

Some movies have also been highly inspiring. I think movies can be a source of positive dissociation which can lead to negative. This would depend not only of the content of the film but also the frequency in which we engage in the activity.
Context is also important or so I think. Frequently engaging in watching movies for example, can turn out to be positive dissociation for someone living within a highly disturbed family context, and not so positive for someone who, due to the context, does not have the same need of doing so for the sake of keeping his/her own sanity

Mountain Crown · Oct 9, 2009

[quote author=Laura]which is about as surrealist as I want to get[/quote]

What is it about surrealist art? Always I've been attracted to it and uncomfortable about it at the same time.

Any observations would be welcome.

Tigersoap · Oct 9, 2009

Laura said:
Why do you think it has to have some sort of hidden meaning? What is wrong with just being beautiful and inspiring?

Thank you Laura.
There is nothing wrong with just something beautiful and inspiring.
I understand now what you meant.
And I do like Waterhouse, Muscha and so on, so you know.

Mrs.Tigersoap · Oct 9, 2009

I realized something this afternoon, by reading Laura's answer to Tigersoap.

I usually really like books, movies, art, etc. about people in difficult situations, about people with a narcissistic wound trying to achieve something, or even about losers and anti-heroes. I feel for this type of characters/authors/painters, etc. Probably because I identify with them :-[

In art I tend to look for concepts, for what the artist was going through when he painted/wrote and I'm always more interested about the "vécu" and the experience behind the canvas/book. Laura's post forced me to wonder why. So I thought about all afternoon.
Why can't I just love art that is beautiful, indeed? It seems I had forgotten about sheer beauty. I used to be a big fan of Klimt, Waterhouse, Mucha and somehow slowly but surely I began veering toward a more 'meaningful' art. Beauty was not something I was seeing a lot in my life (admittedly also because I sometimes have my eyes wide shut), so I reverted to what I knew and felt comfy with: pain, sadness, suffering. Better the devil you know, I thought.

But I realized this afternoon that, at least in my case, loving that kind of art/books/movies has a lot to do with self-pity. It just keeps me dwelling in places, feelings and programmes I no longer need nor feel.
I thought that this kind of art was OK to love, because after all, they portray the many faces of god. But it's true that it may be portraying a particular face of god I'm precisely trying not to align with anymore.

To me, loving art from and about suffering people, from and about 'losers and anti-heroes' is a bit like giving up hope. It is a reflection of what I used to think: that there is no hope for the world and that art should reflect that. But coming on this forum I learned that this way of thinking is actually a sin against your soul. I had never thought of that that way before.

Laura, thank you. (By the way, without the visuals of paintings you gave, I wouldn't have understood what you meant. They explained better than a thousand words).

FWIW

Adaryn · Oct 9, 2009

Gertrudes said:
In Secondary school, in my home country, we have to choose our field of study. Since I had been very fond of drawing all my life (something that could be taken as positive dissociation?) I chose visual arts. It didn't go very well...actually it didn't go well at all since it turned out to be the last 3 years where I would ever grab a pencil to draw. My experience was similar to what was described in Luthien's post (reply 39) To top all that up, one of my teachers once asked me to describe a painting that I enjoyed, and I described precisely Venus from Botticelli
[snip]

his comment was destructive, something in the lines of that I should be persuing more intelligent art... Adolescence is a very vulnerable age, I thought that as a teacher he should know better then I did and repressed my own feelings. The consequences of this were nasty.
I haven't thought about this for years and when I started reading this thread, the memories came back and are now extremely hard to swallow back.....

I relate to your experience. During my teen years, after realizing what art was -- something that, apparently, I was totally unable to grasp and to adhere to -- I gave up on the idea of studying it, of possibly making a living out of it, or even thinking that I could have done something with the small talent I had for drawing. How dare I think I was able to do that, with my sh*tty drawings? Now, it's been years since I haven't drawn something. I felt there was no place for me in that special world, that I didn't belong and would never fit, among all those smart and "conceptual" people.

Mrs T. said:
Laura, thank you. (By the way, without the visuals of paintings you gave, I wouldn't have understood what you meant. They explained better than a thousand words).

Here are a few others :) A little bit of beauty won't hurt in this world!

Circe - Waterhouse (there's an interesting analysis of this painting somewhere on the Web, but I can't seem to find it)

Mariana - Millais

Ophelia - Waterhouse

Danae - Klimt

Oxajil · Oct 9, 2009

The kind of paintings I really like are those which are precise. Like all the details are present. I really love that. I don't know much about paintings but I'm sure I don't only like realistic paintings, abstract is cool too, but I can't come up with any.

(these are the ones I remember and like from visiting one of the museums)

I have a small card on my wall with this painting:

The waterfalls near Tivoli with the villa of Maecenas by Claude-Joseph Vernet

Also have the girl with the pearl:

_http://sisterskeepers.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/419px-johannes_vermeer_281632-167529_-_the_girl_with_the_pearl_earring_28166529.jpg

Also like this:

_http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Paulus_Potter_-_Young_Bull.JPG (The Bull by Paulus Potter)

I don't really have much in my room to look at and which inspires me. Though there is this wolf dreamcatcher on my wall that makes me think about things.

By the way, carpets are really interesting as well and inspire me.

Always when I look at my carpet for some time I start to see a wave on the ground. Almost as if you can put your hand through the floor. That's so special it makes you think that the pattern is made like that so that it'll flow, really interesting.

(sorry if this is off-topic)

John G · Oct 9, 2009

My music and art interests kind of blurred, does this mean I'm ready for 4D! :)

http://www.johannas-art.com/index.php
http://www.johannas-art.com/MyArtworkInspiredByStevieNicks.htm

nemo · Oct 9, 2009

Tigersoap said:
I think that it might be some form of channeling indeed, but depending on the potential development or the orientation
of the person, the artworks will take a different form, hence the either very negative or positive vibe you could feel or see ?

A pretty good recent Stephen King novel, Duma Key, has this building constructor who after having had a traumatic accident, temporarily
retires to the Florida Keys where he starts painting the Florida sunrise. He`s actually channeling his paintings and becomes a successful artist.
Of course his source is pure evil.

Laura said:
What is wrong with just being beautiful and inspiring?

In principle nothing. The experts would sneer at me, too, so I`m in no conflict with you. What about......Kitsch?:
see: _http://www.kinkadecentral.com/
I`m sure many people would find it inspiring and beautiful.
Then there were the Nazis, who not only preferred what they thought as "beautiful and inspiring", but actually made illegal so called "Entartete Kunst"
(what they thought to be ugly and degrading). I had a lenghty look at their art + didn`t find anything beautiful + inspiring.
There`s also an Anti-Art World-Art Movement. Here is the biggest online gallery I know:
_http://www.artrenewal.org
For them even Cezanne is too modern (ugly?). While they show lot`s of good stuff, they throw the kid out with the bathwater, osit.

Tigersoap said:
But some artworks that might appear negative might as well be talking about the reality as it is and the positive just keep pushing the same lies.

I believe this to be an important comment. We don`t only want "love-and-light-art", do we?

I admit to being conflicted about this topic. Since lot`s of dark stuff is part of our reality and psyches, it also needs to be expressed, no?

Positive Dissociation?

Adaryn

The Living Force

truth seeker

The Living Force

truth seeker

The Living Force

Thomas Alan

The Living Force

Laura

Administrator

RedFox

The Living Force

RedFox

The Living Force

Gertrudes

Guest

Mountain Crown

The Living Force

Tigersoap

The Living Force

Mrs.Tigersoap

The Living Force

Adaryn

The Living Force

Oxajil

Ambassador

John G

The Living Force

nemo

Jedi

Trending content