<![CDATA[Bela Abel - Blog]]>Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:19:46 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[THE PROJECTIONIST WHO PROJECTED IT ALL, PART II]]>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 21:22:16 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/11/the-projectionist-who-projected-it-all-part-ii.html
In PART ONE had been listed the elements of the Universal Projection: an object of projection, light source, its beam, and screen -stock, lock and barrel, and everything run by the Projectionist Almighty. What are the earthy counterparts to these elements? We already know who the Projectionist is. We know that screen is our reality. But what is the beam? And what is the rest?

Let's start with the beam. In a way, I've already answered this question in PART I–it is what people call Holy Spirit–a field which carries a projection of God into our realm. It directed - from the source to the object of manifestation, and hence it is a beam. 
It also imparts the force which brings everything into being. Hence it is also a field, a vector field to boot. It is a vector field because it is directional and serves as a conduit of a force of creation. It is an analogy to electromagnetic field generated by projector, except for instead of lighting up the screen with the image, it creates the image and its object; it makes everything real. See the example of Holy Conception which I considered in Part I. The beam brings life, and so goes the Nicene Creed:

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life.”

The imagery of Holy Spirit alighting like a beam of light is not coincidental. The world is full of symbolic objects pointing at this similarity.
For example, take a look at the rose window at the Northern Wing in the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. The light beam comes through the rose window and projects the colorful image of the rose window on the floor at the transept. And as the plan of cathedral is anthropomorphic, the transept corresponds to the Mary's womb, the venter where the divine projection manifested in the form of the Son 1.
Another example: numerous witnesses of light emanated from the Saints, like St. Teresa of Calcutta, who once insisted on being filmed in an infirmary room against the objections of a British cameraman. When the film processed back in London, the footage revealed a perfect image with light filling the whole room, light which the eyes of neither witnesses nor the operator's photometer weren't able to register 2. The golden nimbuses which surround heads of the saints on all icons represent the light of the same nature, light reflected from the source.
A little caveat must be made here. I am not saying that the Beam is the beam of light per se, or of electromagnetic nature, I am just saying that there is a startling similarity between them. As a third example let's look at the documented witness of the Holy Spirit alighting on apostles on the day of Pentecost 3:
And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.

And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

Have you ever seen an action of powerful cw laser? Witness sounds pretty much like that sans the destruction that such laser will bring. The beam alights on heads of the apostles like fire which doesn’t consume.
The Beam is the Holy Spirit, but what is the Source?

To be continued.

1. If you are or were in Paris, you have seen it, however the credit

should go to Very Rev. Fr. Barron, who points out at this beautiful projection, and the similar effect in the Cathedral of Chartres, see Untold Blessings: Three Paths to Holiness by The Word on Fire.

2. Ibid., this anecdote occurred in 1969 during the filming of the first

documentary movie about Mother Teresa.

3. Acts 2: 2-3

You also may like:
TORAH CODE
Here is another proof that we live in a digital simulacrum akin one shown in Matrix movies. Yes, like it or not, but our so-called reality is not as much a reality as the reality of those colored blocks falling down the Tetris well. Or, as Plato had said, it is nothing but shadows on the wall of a cave. The discovery of Torah codes is the greatest discovery
MANDELA EFFECT
When you hear about Mandela effect for the first time it sounds like some Byzantine prank. How is that possible? The good old Biblical wineskins in my Book had changed to stupid bottles? Changed in the very same old copy of my Bible? When? How? Impossible! Bullshit!! So you go for the familiar passage about new wine.
MANDELA EFFECT II
I have already written about Mandela Effect.  I have more to say about this crazy universal phenomenon. I remember how I was introduced to it. A friend of mine asked me: “Do you remember what Bible says about the new wine?”
"Sure,” I said, “nobody pours new wine into old wineskins, because they will burst, but new wineskins must be used for new wine.”
“And you know what this means?”
]]>
<![CDATA[THE PROJECTIONIST WHO PROJECTED IT ALL. Part I .]]>Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:25:13 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/10/the-projectionist-who-projected-it-all-part-i.html
It would be an awful folly to consider God as a dweller of the same time-space domain where we are presently living. Some of us still believe in naive cliché of a gray-bearded old man lolling on a cloud. Not that He can’t do it, but just as much as on a cloud, you should expect to find Him on the bottom of the ocean or on a tip of a solar flare. The point is:
Our so-called reality is mere a projection of REALITY [1]. This idea is not new, nor is it original–Plato in his Republic introduced the idea of perception of our reality as a shadow of a real reality falling on the wall of a dark cave
The people in cave are looking at the shadow and trying to discern the world outside. I was thinking in similar terms of non-space/time conformation of God and hence came up with a somewhat comparable analogy: Imagine a Projectionist who runs that super-projector of our reality. Just like a man, a mortal projectionist, He remains in a high cubbyhole, hidden from the audience. (Is it why we used to imagine him as an old man on a cloud?)  His earthly counterpart, a man-projectionist, cannot jump into the screen and join the action, so he sits in his booth, dejected and alone (or not alone, but with someone and not dejected, but engaged in something beyond his job description

it doesn’t matter). What matters is that whatever he does up there in his booth, he cannot jump into the screen. Our Universal Projectionist can jump into his Projection, but it looks like He doesn’t need to. Still, He can join His movie and He does it sometimes [2], but He doesn’t dwell in the projection. Does it make sense? Let’s see if this analogy works.

How the Projectionist projects Himself into the screen? He did it, for example, by bringing to life and appearing as His Son, when the Holy Spirit alighted on Holy Mary as she said “... let it be according to your word.” [3]. Thus, the analogy explains a difficult to grasp concept of Trinity: where the three manifestations of God

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit appear in unity just as The Light Source, The Image and The Beam in projection phenomenon. Close enough?

I think I found pretty good analogy, so I would like to linger a little longer on it. The credit goes back to Greeks–Socrates and Plato, his loyal pupil, for a shadow is a projection too. Justlike an old theory of “heat fluid” which was wrong but yet predicted the laws of thermodynamics, the Projectionist model may shed some light on our reality and, more important, on The Projectionist Himself.
What does make a projection? Projector with an object of projection, light source, its beam, screen and the Projectionist. We already know who the latter one is. We know that screen is our reality. What is the beam? What is the projector? What are the source and the object? And, for that matter, what are we? What is time?
Let’s start with the simplest notion–what is time?

Time is a pace with which the projector’s reel is rolling.
You can perceive the time and measure its passage, but that’s about all you can do. You can’t stop it, you can’t reverse it – you are in the movie, not in The Projectionist booth.

Alright, fair enough? Then what are we?

To be continued.

1 See everything under the topic “World of Illusion”, like, for example, COGNITIVE ECHO, MANDELA EFFECT, TORAH CODE, THE WORLD, THE FLESH AND PETRUSHKA and much more.

2. See my post TRANSFIGURED, WITH HORNS and references the rein.

3. Luke 1:38.

Christian Faith and Prayers; Miracles; Metaphysics and Mysticism; World of Illusion

MANDELA EFFECT
When you hear about Mandela effect for the first time it sounds like some Byzantine prank. How is that possible? The good old Biblical wineskins in my Book had changed to stupid bottles? Changed in the very same old copy of my Bible? When? How? Impossible! Bullshit!! So you go for the familiar passage about new wine. You go Luke 5:37. It’s bottles. You go  Matthew 9:17. Bottles. Same is with Mark 2:22. Bottles. No wineskins, bottles. What is it? Am I going insane? Is it the end? 
MANDELA EFFECT II
I have already written about Mandela Effect.  I have more to say about this crazy universal phenomenon. I remember how I was introduced to it. A friend of mine asked me: “Do you remember what Bible says about the new wine?”
"Sure,” I said, “nobody pours new wine into old wineskins, because they will burst, but new wineskins must be used for new wine.”
“And you know what this means?”
TRANSFIGURED  WITH HORNS
The day of Transfiguration had just passed. It was a good day to be on some mountain, looking up for a light. I couldn’t do it, though; I've spent my day in a hole, in darkness. Nevertheless, it never hurts to dream about light:
And why do we call it transfiguration?
]]>
<![CDATA[APPEARANCE AND REALITY]]>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:53 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/10/appearance-and-reality.html
I had a little thought which turned into a big #meditation. I would like to share it with you. It is just an idea, an #idea as old as this world, I would be a total fool if I’ll claim of being original here. It is a dreadful idea, but I'll try to get some good vibes out of it, see if it will works for you as it worked for me. Here is:
Appearance and reality are two different twins which anyone can distinguish. Is that so? Let's see:
Sun appears as one going around the earth and not vice versa. That’s appearance vs. reality of motion. You can add more similar examples if you wish.

The light of the stars had left those stars hundreds of millions of years ago. These stars may no longer even exist. And, we didn't exist when this light was emitted. That’s appearance vs. reality of existence.

And how about colors, as we see them: blue or red sky, elaborate patterns on wings of butterflies, thousands of blue to green and back to total black hues of the ocean, dark violets blooming in shadows and even these incredible dark violet eyes of my love - every color in this world is merely a play of reflection, absorption and even more subtle interference of light - nothing in this colored world is permanent or fixed. Take the incident light away and beautiful wings of a butterfly appear as nothing but a layered cake of colorless scales. Change the frequency of incoming light, or just put a color filter on its way and see what will happen. Colors are the illusion.

The appearance comes through our vision, but if such fundamental sense, as vision, is duped, what should we expect from even more subjective senses of taste, touch, smell, and sound? And if our senses are so dependent upon illusions what should we expect from our feelings, which are built upon these senses? Haven’t you felt hot in some place and asked yourself - what is it? Is this place so hot or I just have a fever? (You can add here more examples from your own experience.)

And when our senses and feelings are so much flawed and based on a fickle, vacillating nature of our environment or Worse, on illusions, what should we expect from our basic sense of time: Some time we feel it galloping like a wild horse other time it is crawling like a slimy slug, yet it is the same illusive time, which even now is not understood. And while we learned how to time, we will never tame it. Time passes by, deceiving us with yet another illusion we’ll have enough time. There is never enough time, at least for everything that makes us content with our lives.

And space? What is space without time? We measure space with time, and hence, see above. And finally:
Sometimes, or rather, often, it looks like there is no God. If success comes, we go “I did it!” If tragedy strikes, we go “How he allowed this to happen?” It is always you, them, or even it. Yet, this is just another illusion. And it is bad, for out of all our mistakes and errors, this one will be the most costly. Instead, perhaps it will be prudent to take God on faith and live with that faith until you’ll find it is true through and through. One day we all will face the reality while all illusions will be left behind.

World of Illusion, Christian Faith, and Prayers

You also may like:
COGNITIVE ECHO OR SYNCHRONICITY
This masterpiece of Leonardo da Vinci emerged before my mind’s eye and then just ran me into a corner (figuratively speaking). So I was sitting in the corner of the dorm and cudgeling my head trying to recall the name of the painting. It wasn’t the “young lady” part I was after, but that little beast on her lap. What was the name of it?
COGNITIVE ECHO II OR HUMMINGBIRD 
This event had happened just two days ago: H. came to me and asked if I have any photos of hummingbirds. He needed it for a painting which he was commissioned to do and he wanted to see a photo for the right colors. I’ve looked through the high-resolution cache I have, but the nearest bird I could find was bird of paradise. He took it as a sub, but it was not what he needed and we both knew it.
]]>
<![CDATA[AT THE END OF A LINE.]]>Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:31:00 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/09/at-the-end-of-a-line.html
While I was working on my latest novel, The Leap of Faith”, I came to a notion, that appeared trite and mind-boggling at the same time. Maybe I've just never looked into it that way, I don't know, but the more I am thinking about it, the more amazing it appears. I'd like to share it with you.

Each of us, living man or woman, are the living tips of incredibly long lines of lives, going all the way down to the dawn of humanity. And if we could follow these lines back in time, we would arrive at the source, where all these lines converge. What is that source? Or who was it? Was it a single pair of progenitors, or a cluster of several different but capable of interbreeding species? The answer remains a matter of faith, religious or scientific, whichever you take.

According to the first faith, it all started from Adam and Eve some six thousand years ago. And if that is so, then next came the Fall, which was our beginning, so the lines began emerging and branching out. Yes, despite its negative connotation, if not the Fall, neither I would be typing these lines, nor you will be reading them. We all came out of the Original Sin. And then, after the Fall, came the Redemption. But this is not what I am writing here about.

On the other side, according to anthropology and genetics, there were at least four distinct and yet intermingling types of humans: Cro-Magnons (that's us, mostly), Neanderthals (extant only in TV commercials, otherwise extinct), Homo Floresians (Lilliputians found on Indonesian Island Flores, the only kind named not after a cave. I suspect they’re a hoax). And, finally, Denisovans - called after Denisova Cave in Altay Mountains, Southern Siberia, – only tiny bone fragment of a pinky and two molars were found [1]. All four (or three) types had a common progenitor who lived a half million years ago. And, as far as the science is concerned, we all are their mutts. Eurasians and Native Americans have about 2.5% trace of Neanderthal DNA. Australian aborigines carry about 5% of Denisovan DNA. And so on [1]. Those are incredible, worth noting facts, but this is not what I wanted to say here.

No matter which one of two faiths (religious or scientific) had gotten the right source, these long lines of lives are trailing behind us and this is what I find mind boggling:

1. Continuity of lines. Everyone in the line was kind enough to leave an offspring - otherwise the line would be severed and there will be no YOU.

2. Co-termination of lines. Nobody had evolved or was created later, say, climbed down from a tree in 6th Century BC, the origin comes from one and the same time. In other words, all lines start together.

3. Convergence of lines. No matter how many forks and branches had been formed over the past millennia, the geography of the inhabited lands is not big enough comparing to human ability to travel on land or across the water, and then - intermingle, likely more than once. Therefore, everyone IS everyone’s blood relative, as the lines converge back on that couple or cluster of our common progenitors.

4. Unity. Finally, if all the above is true, then it won't be hard to conclude that we all are one living organism, which lives beyond one physical body. Like a mushroom mycelium which exists and extends far beyond a single mushroom body, we live through time and space connected to each other through our genes (body), thoughts and memories (soul) and karmas (principal linking spirits). Each of us is a part of one and the same living being and while the lifetime of each of us (me or you) is just a wink for that one common being, still each Wink has a meaning.

As we can look at a mushroom and understand that mushroom is more than one little umbrella-like body, but an underground living network which produces hundreds or more of such bodies. So He looks at us and sees one organism comprising the whole mass of humanity. Therefore He gave us the Second Great Commandment:

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [2]

For from His point this neighbor and you is yourself, the same being.

[1] Jamie Shreeve, The Case of the Missing Ancestor, National Geographic, July 2013,90.

[2] Matthew 22:39.

Christian Faith and Prayers

You also may like:
ANOTHER PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Let's take a look at ourselves. We are all different, of course, but there is one particularly interesting division among us. Some of us are atheists, stalwart and aloof to any calls of reason. Some of us are believers by tradition, by upbringing, or by a habit. Some came to God over doubts and searching. 
THE LAW OF ATTAINMENT
I once wrote in my notes that “There is no the cruelest torture ever committed against a human soul than a torture by time.” And I mean it. I used this relatively trite notion in a bunch of my stories, notably in The Forth WaltzThe Burden of GratitudeWhen Everything Comes into Place and The Leap of Faith, especially in the latter one.
]]>
<![CDATA[TRANSFIGURED  WITH HORNS]]>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 21:34:00 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/09/transfigured-with-horns.html
The day of Transfiguration had just passed. It was a good day to be on some mountain, looking up for a light. I couldn’t do it, though; I've spent my day in a hole, in darkness. Nevertheless, it never hurts to dream about light:
And why do we call it transfiguration? That's the question I’ve asked myself.
As the story went, Jesus took three of his best disciples (Peter, John, James), went to Mt. Hermon and there his countenance turned dazzling white; Moses and Elijah appeared before Him and paid Him homage; and Peter said... well, everyone knows the story [1].
You also probably know, that the Transfiguration of Jesus, like almost everything else in the New Testament, was preceded by Old Testament events - the transfiguration of Moses. Moses’ countenance irradiated bright light, when he went down from Mount Sinai. “The skin of his face shone because he had been speaking with the Lord.”[2].

I believe that transfiguration, per se, is a misnomer, for nobody really had been transfigured, but rather the faces were filled with light. And, after all, the main part of the event was not that Jesus’ face became filled with dazzling white light, or that he was worshiped by Moses and Elijah, but that the voice came from a cloud, saying:
“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him!” [1]

So why do we call it Transfiguration and not Glorification or, say, Encomium, or, even, Countenance, for this word has a surprisingly matching second meaning? After all, transfiguration literally means a change of shape. I am afraid that the responsibility solely lies on Saint Gerome.
In his c. 400 AD translation of Exodus, when describing Moses returning from Mt. Sinai with the tablets, St. Gerome translated Hebrew “karan 'ohr panav’ i.e. 'facial skin that glowed with rays” into “cornuta esset facies sua” i.e. “his face was horned”. For the details see Dan Brown [3].

The mistranslation was corrected later [2], but the term survived. From St. Gerome's part, of course, it was an honest mistake, but it stuck to the Scriptures, like horns to Moses forehead, for over a millennium! Yes, over a thousand years later Michelangelo put horns to Moses head. Think about it:
How would you feel if Michelangelo will make your statue, with a pair of horns attached to your head? That would be a transfiguration indeed Moses could have one big laugh with St. Gerome out there about this mistranslation. I am not sure if Michelangelo would join them, though - it must have been a lot of extra work to do those horns.

In both cases Transfiguration (even without horns) was a terrifying event. Jesus asked his disciples not to be afraid, just as Moses asked his brother and a group Israelites, who were scared to approach him when he returned from Mt. Sinai. (Moses will wear a veil after that event, he will wear it permanently, except for the times when he will be going up the mountain to speak with God) [2].

St. Peter, who the witnessed Transfiguration of Jesus, confirms his witness in his Second Letter. Please, note what he confirms there [4]:

“For when he received honor and glory from God the father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.”

Peter talks about the Voice and what it had said, not the dazzling light, etc. In Transfiguration, with horns or without, the key is in the message from the cloud. And hence, we ought to heed His message.

References

1. Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9: 2-13: Luke 9:28-36.

2. Exodus 34:27-35.

3. Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol, Anchor Books, New York, 2010, p. 248.

4. 2 Peter 1: 17, 18                                             Christian Faith and Prayers, Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature
You also may like:
KILLING HITLER AND A FREE WILL.
“If only I had known what he would turn out to be,” said Henry Tandey, a British soldier of WWI, who had a chance to kill Adolph Hitler at the Battle of Marcoing.
According to Henry's account, he took aim but had a heart not to kill a wounded German soldier. “If I only had known what he would turn out to be. When I saw all the people, women and children he had killed and wounded, I was sorry to God to let him go.” [1]
What Henry Tandey saw on that day was a helpless man, and even in the heat of the battle, Mr. Tandey could tell a difference between killing enemy in a combat and a murder. He didn't kill a man, not Hitler. 
AT THE END OF A LINE.
Each of us, living man or woman, are the living tips of incredibly long lines of lives, going all the way down to the dawn of humanity. And if we could follow these lines back in time, we would arrive at the source, where all these lines converge. What is that source? Or who was it?Was it a single pair of progenitors, or a cluster of several different but capable of interbreeding species? The answer remains a matter of faith, religious or scientific, whichever you take.
]]>
<![CDATA[KILLING HITLER AND A FREE WILL.]]>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:32:49 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/08/killing-hitler-and-a-free-will.html
“If only I had known what he would turn out to be,” said Henry Tandey, a British soldier of WWI, who had a chance to kill Adolph Hitler at the Battle of Marcoing.

According to Henry's account, he took aim but had a heart not to kill a wounded German soldier. “If I only had known what he would turn out to be. When I saw all the people, women and children he had killed and wounded, I was sorry to God to let him go.” [1]

What Henry Tandey saw on that day was a helpless man, and even in the heat of the battle, Mr. Tandey could tell a difference between killing enemy in a combat and a murder. He didn't kill a man, not Hitler. All hail to Henry Tandey, a good man - I hope he rejoices in heaven, for he made his choice, the only right choice he had.
God (if I dare to speculate on that subject) must have seen the scene in a different light. He knew who the wounded German soldier would become, for there are no limits to God’s knowledge. But God didn’t send an angel to Henry (pull the trigger, good lad) nor didn't he kill the Führer-to-be in a million of other ways, as he could, but he left the choice to the man, Henry Tandey.
God gave the choice not only to Henry Tandey. He gives a choice to everyone. Including the wounded German soldier, who yet will have to recover and to make his own choices, which a few years later will bring him to Nazism. (Hitler will join Deutche Arbeiterpartei or DAP in Munich, in July 1919 as its 55th member.[2]). And even after that, after joining DAP, Hitler still will have to make numerous choices, which will make him one of the most criminal characters in World history.
Would world history be different if Henry Tandey had killed the wounded man? Likely so. But history would be different as well if Herr Hitler would devote himself to painting and instead of returning to Munich, say, move to live in Southern Italy, or Tahiti for that matter, or if he would fall in love, marry, have children, leave Reichswehr. Who knows? One may say that God moves in mysterious ways. No question about it, but a man makes his moves in the light of God or away from it, in shadow.

References:
[1] National Geographic 100 Shocking Events. Disasters, Scandals, and Adventures That Made History, 86. Hitler's Regrettable Ninth Life, National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, 2017, p. 108.

[2] Bill Yenne, Hitler's Master of the Dark Arts. Himmler's Black Knights and the Occult Origins of the SS, Zenith Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2010, p.45.

Christian Faith and Prayers; Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

P.S.
I am having some second thoughts about this historical anecdote. It is all just mindboggling. The story of Henry Tandey is somewhat anti-symmetrical to the story of Gavrilo Princip (see REFLECTIONS ON JUNE 28", 1914.) A bullet fired by Gavrilo Princip lead to demise of millions of people, while a bullet fired from Henry Tandey rifle could save millions of lives (including 16 million German lives). Tragically, both cases brought the worse outcomes possible. Of course, Henry Tandey didn't have to shoot Hitler, he could simply bayonet him. And that would do.
You may also like:
THE FORGOTTEN NAMEI am banging my head again, now it is over a name of a girl. Or, I should say, a lady, a genius Southern lady writer, who sadly died relatively young. It happens during the liturgy service, so I am definitely committing a sin of distraction. But it is a relevant distraction. 
DEMON IN THE MACHINEI guess many have heard about Cupertino effect, an early freak of auto-correction software, which suggested Cupertino instead of Cooperation. Sounds funny and innocent, like a childish prank, but wait a bit.Recently I’ve got a hardcopy of Malachi Martin 1995 novel Windswept House, which is actually something more than just a novel. 
AIN'T WE RELATED?I  read Kepler's second novel, The Nightmare, and I was going through the description of a library, which belonged to one of the main characters, Penelope Fernandez. Among the books is Marx’s Das Kapital. And I nod to it: as it happens, my main character, Melor Krantz, also had Das Kapital in his library.
]]>
<![CDATA[A WORD ON WORDS]]>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 19:51:20 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/08/a-word-on-words.html
We live in a world of words. Some people even make a living by weaving long and sometime quite elaborate strings of letters. Some of those strings worth more than strings of pearls.

The strings of words pierce the space on radio waves, fold into books, hide in CDS and microfiches and wave to us from banners pulled by crop dusters. They shake our air with acoustic booms of contraction and rarefaction. They carry meanings; at least some of them, while others are just pollution, toxic noise. Some words will stay with you for the rest of your life, like the first word of your baby. Or like the last words of your loved one. Words give life and words take life away.

I collect words like some people collect ancient coins (I did that too, when I didn't know anything better to do). Now, while all my material possessions are gone to the dogs, the words remain, and probably will stick with me to the end. I am not complaining, though. Using the words of immortal Jim Morrison:

'I'll always be a word man, better than a bird man'. (1)

If there would be a contest of numbers between words ever spoken and words ever written, I bet the first will win by a landslide. Yet, if we will take each and every spoken or written word with a denominator of merit, which comes out of a meaning, then, I believe the result will be opposite - the word written will beat the word spoken, for too many are uttered in vain, in a pointless banter, or as effete ejaculations of muddled minds.

A few people had written more words than they had said. But, take each one of them and you’ll rarely find a chatterer - the writers are generally a taciturn lot. Why is it like that? I guess that's their way of being thrifty - for them being a chatterbox is about the same as being a wastrel.

As a writer makes a living out of a word written, on the other end of a field a politician plows the audience with rigmarole. So they say that the tongue has no bone. Lies are much easier to say than to write - who wants to leave evidence?

After all, honest or not, the words bring bread. Yet this bread won't last for long, with one and only exception. There is one speaker that always says the truth, one who can’t be ignored. While men are often uttering words just to fill the petty emptiness or to steal a candy, billions a mouth speak nothing over even one word of God. So as the written word rules the world, the last word, just as it was in the beginning, will be the spoken one. It will come out of his mouth.

(1) The Doors, The American Prayer.

Literature. Art, Music, Culture and Nature

You may also like :
THE JEW’S-HARP
The rhythmic pounding off in the distance sharpened and intensified as well– became a work beat for some army of troll-like underground laborers, performing some endless, brutally monotonous task, wrote Dr. Eben Alexander in  Proof of Heaven, a book about his near death experience. [1] I can't tell that for sure, but I think this was a music from Hell, and I’ve heard it too.
ENCAGEMENT  
This little piece is about invention of new #words and the causes that bring them to the light.  Actually, this is about something entirely different, but, well, you’ll find this out…  
TO CRIMEA BY JINGO  LET’S DANCE!
Mountains and vineyards, burned out steppe where you still can walk onto a stone baba – Neolithic female figure once worshipped by mythic Scythians.  Gentle sandy beaches of Black Sea with its floors still covered with amphorae from Phoenician, Greek and Roman wrecks…
]]>
<![CDATA[TO CRIMEA BY JINGO  LET’S DANCE!]]>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:51:15 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/07/to-crimea-by-jingo-lets-dance.html
These wrecks lie undisturbed by greedy to artifacts divers.  Smell of wormwood at sunset.  Wailing of turtledoves in green quarters of Yalta and Simferopol.  And grave silence of ancient columns protruding from sandy cliffs.  It is a bit like California, if California would have several millennia of history.  It is almost like California, but no overcrowding, often more a desert, than even a steppe.  It is Crimea, and there is much more to it, but...  Much more?  What can be more?  Maybe, mountains?  Or submarines?  Did you know that there is an innate connection between Crimea and jingoism?  These words are connected in many senses, but let's start with semantics.

  Here is a word on the origin of jingoism, or, actually, more than a word, a song.  So let’s sing together:

We don’t want to fight, but!

By Jingo if we do –

We’ve got ships, we’ve got men,

And the money too!

Note that “but!” here serves as a cue to a clap of hands and/or stomp of boots or beer steins, while the rest goes in a light mood of an operetta, which, by and large, it is.  If song accompanied by a dance (or vice versa), it would be fun to dance it in a single rank, hands or even elbows twined together, like The Riverdance does it quite often on stage.

We don’t want to fight, BUT! ...

This beautiful song comes from 1878, and it anonymously addresses Russia as an adversary.  I am not sure what that conflict of 1878 was about.  Lord Tennyson’s Light Brigade ran its memorable charge in 1854, and although Sevastopol was taken yet it all went for nothing.  Half century later, in 1918, the tables had turned.  Russia was waiting with tears and prayers for Crimean deployment of British troops.  It was Britain’s obligation under the articles of The Entente, yet it never came.  Instead came Red Army and it had its own songs to dance with: 

Aeh apple, apple,

Where you roll about?

Satan‘ll take you in

And you will not get out…

So what it was about then, in 1878, what was the adversity?  Was it because of South Africa, for Russia had supported Boers?  I am not sure.  Yet one thing is certain: Crimean Peninsula often was and still can be a casus belli. 

It seems like out of various geographic formations peninsulas specially attract warmongering politicians.  Why this is so?  Is it in the tainting shapes of peninsular cartography, which often looks like genitals?  Do those oblong shapes subconsciously perhaps but still challenge alpha males sweating over maps in war rooms?  Crimea, Korea, Indochina, Crimea, Korea …  but, let’s go back to old Jingo.  Here is a quote from G.K. Chesterton, a writer of unsurpassable wit:

“It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people.  First, it is a small power, and fights small powers.  Then it is a great power, and fights great powers.  Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity.  After that, the next step is to become a small power itself.”  G.K. Chesterton, The Fallacy of a Young Nation.

Chesterton was talking about someone else, but let’s take Crimean Peninsula as an example.  We’ll skip the times of old Greeks, Romans, Scythians, and Sarmatians, and go straight to XVI Century, when Russia began its expansion towards Crimea – a prized land which then was called Crimean Khanate.  The Khanate stood on her way to “Greeks” and posed a permanent threat to a key trade route.  At this time Russian Imperial Eagle was still a fledgling, it just hatched out of Moscow Princedom.  The final takeover will be completed in 1783.  Before that, by Chesterton, it was small power vs. small power (although this takeover was a big slap to Turks, a real power behind the Khanate.)  Since then Russian Empire grew into a power itself.  The wars with equal powers on Crimean Peninsula ensued –Turkey, Britain, Third Reich – all had tried to take, nobody could hold it for long.  Russia kept the prized land, although not for free, but over blood and bones of her children.  Comparing to the bloodbaths of the past, including the terrors of Civil War of 1918-21 and genocide of Crimean Tatars uprooted by Stalin and in 48 hours thrown into wastelands of Kazakhstan in 1945, the latest annexation wasn’t even a skirmish, just a smooth correction of a cartographic lapse left on the map by Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev.  Yet the question remains:

Can the latter takeover be read as a sign of Chesterton’s stage three?  No, I don’t think so. 

Will any territorial claim to Crimea be a casus belli with Russia?  Yes, you bet it will!

Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

You may also like:
AM I NOT AN OPISTHOPROCT?  
I went on a quest for a #monster, and I found one, but it was a monster of a quite different nature than I thought it would be.
I was editing one of my story called “Pink Black Widow”, when I’ve run into a little snag.  I needed to find monsters.  Not monsters with long fangs, sticky tentacles or legs growing out of their heads, but verbal ones.  
THE RELATIVITY OF TRUTH     

I believe like almost everything else it was started by Socrates, but the philosophical dilemma of truth lies somewhere between the Sophism of Friedrich Nietzsche: “The truth is merely an irrefutable error.” 
HARRY POTTER – FOREVER!
I just finished my second time reading Harry Potter, all seven books in a row.  Just like the first time, it was … magic.  The images of the novel were invoked so vividly, so truly, that afterwards it feels as if I’ve been there and witnessed it all, either under a cover of the invisibility cloak or from a dive into Dumbledore’s Pensieve.  
]]>
<![CDATA[ARCHIMEDES AND KIRCHNER or COGNITIVE ECHO IV]]>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 03:13:08 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/07/archimedes-and-kirchner-or-cognitive-echo-iv.html
Cognitive Echo is one of the original and most interesting phenomena which we have discussed from the start of this blog (see COGNITIVE ECHO OR SYNCHRONICITY; COGNITIVE ECHO II OR HUMMINGBIRD; LILACS OUT OF DEAD BRAIN or COGNITIVE ECHO III ).  This is a kind of phenomena which I believe reveals digital or (if you would prefer) intelligently predetermined structure of our world.  I’ve illustrated it and discussed it through various physical manifestations which occur quite regularly in our lives, but cognitive echo can happen sometimes in quite subtle ways.  Here is an example.

National Geographic History is one of my favorite reads.  In the latest 2017 May-June issue you will find The Truth about Archimedes by Mireia Movellán Luis, p. 42, where among many other things, you will read:

“Perhaps the most famous story attributed to Archimedes’ defensive genius – his use of sunlight reflected off parabolic mirrors to burn approaching Roman ships – is most likely apocryphal.”

Actually, the whole history of ancient world is more or less apocryphal, but I believe that the most apocryphal part of this claim is that the mirrors were parabolic.  It is much more likely that Archimedes used plain mirrors arranged into an array.  The early references to that can be found in Tzetzes, 11th Century historian who discussed the technicalities.  But, this is not what I wanted to show you here.  Further we read:

“Proof that Archimedes achieved such a feat is lacking, but the legend lingered long enough for Leonardo [Da Vinci] to try it himself.”

I am not aware of Leonardo Da Vinci trying to reproduce burning mirrors of Archimedes (think about it – the first beamed weapon was used in 214 BC!), but the strangeness is here: the same issue of NGH contains an article with massive reference to Athanasius Kircher and his role in translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs (Javier Martínez Babón, The Hieroglyphics Puzzle, p.18). 

Athanasius Kircher, a German Jesuit of XVIII Century, among other achievements, like being called Father of Egyptology, had actually demonstrated the feasibility of Archimedes’ burning mirrors.  He used an array of plain mirrors to kindle a pile of wet wood.  Neither article mentions that historical fact.

I find it more than just ironic and even less coincidental, that both men were featured in the same magazine.  And so I am asking myself – is it a sort of cognitive echo which occurs on a bit different plane, a plane of thought, perhaps?  What else Father of Egyptology and Father of Beamed Weaponry (and Mechanics, and Space Geometry) have in common? 

World of Illusion
; Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

COGNITIVE ECHO OR SYNCHRONICITYThis masterpiece of Leonardo da Vinci emerged before my mind’s eye and then just ran me into a corner (figuratively speaking). So I was sitting in the corner of the dorm and cudgeling my head trying to recall the name of the painting. It wasn’t the “young lady” part I was after, but that little beast on her lap. What was the name of it?
COGNITIVE ECHO II OR HUMMINGBIRD 
 This event had happened just two days ago: H. came to me and asked if I have any photos of hummingbirds. He needed it for a painting which he was commissioned to do and he wanted to see a photo for the right colors. I’ve looked through the high-resolution cache I have, but the nearest bird I could find was bird of paradise.
LILACS OUT OF DULL BRAIN or COGNITIVE ECHO III 
I’ve lost a word.  And this was so embarrassing – I’ve lost a pretty common word, not an opisthoproct or cosidoron (those are coming wherever I need them).  It was a good word, a name of that pretty common shrub with purple or white clusters of flowers.  You know what I am talking about? 
]]>
<![CDATA[ENCAGEMENT  ]]>Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:30:48 GMThttp://belaabel.com/2/post/2017/06/encagement.html
This little piece is about invention of new words and the causes that bring them to the light.  Actually, this is about something entirely different, but, well, you’ll find this out… 

I think that many new words are invented out of a pure ignorance of writers.  This is, of course, a generalization, so maybe it will be fair to put it this way: when I am writing I am ignorant to the point of invention of new words.  How about that?  I think it is a fair way to say.

I’ll give you an example.  In the process of writing The Leap of Faith I came up with a great word, the word I can relate to, and if you’ve read my books then you know what I mean.  And the word is encagement
Can you believe that until Bela Abel took his pen and started writing his stories, this word didn’t existed?  I still can’t believe it, but here is the fact – my American Heritage Dictionary vehemently denies it and my word processor spell checker underlines it as an error.  I still cannot get it, how come it is not there?  Look at these parenting verbs:

Enact begot Enactment; Encamp begot Encampment; Encase begot Encasement; Enchant begot Enchantment; Enclose begot Enclosure, no family without a creep, you know; yet Encompass begot Encompassment and (that’s a close one) Engage begot Engagement.  And so we have engagement without encagement!  There is no Encagement, as a condition of being encaged.  And why not?  Encagement concerns not only canaries and hamsters.  Every one out of nine my fellow citizens experiences this condition during his or her life; 2.2 million are doing it as I am writing this line [1].  Plus, how much more can use this word in a metaphoric sense.  It is a rich word, just think of that:

Encagement.  The rules of encagement.  Dreams of encagement.  The premonition of encagement.  Age of encagement.  Love your encagement and strive to make it better for yourself and others.  So instead of holding to your bars and drooling with gloom, or walking back and forth from wall to wall in two small steps, smile and look forward to the better future.  Blessed are those who were encaged for they’ll find freedom!

I keep browsing the dictionary.  Even Enchain begot Enchainment, but enchainment is not good enough, it even can’t be claimed its right for being synonymous to Encagement.  Let’s update our dictionaries:

Encagement  n  1.  The act of encaging.  2. The state of being encaged.  “Obvious rule of encagement: if meal A was good, expect dreck for meal B.” (Bela Abel) 3.  Something that confines your feelings, mind or body. 

Literature, Art, Music, Culture and Nature

[1] I hear these crazy figures over and over again, here are several references if you want to look further: id, January 2016, 51st State; also: St. Anthony Messenger, Vol. 123, #2 (July) 2015, the latter refers to Census Bureau, according to which in 2009 7.2 million (3.1% of population) of my fellow Americans lived under correctional supervision.

You may also like:
ON SPONTANEOUS HUMAN COMBUSTION
Combustion in simple Words is burning, and it is pretty hard to burn a human body, needless to say, make it burn "by itself. Even the best crematoriums can’t do it, they can't burn major bones, and for example, so they grind them into a powder. To the contrary, when SHC happens, the remains (if any) often include intact body parts like a foot inside perfectly preserved shoe or a hand in a glove and a handful of ashes. 
WHEN THE OLD SHITHOUSE WILL GO UP IN FLAMES Some of you, especially those who love The Doors, might remember Jim Morrison yelling to the crowd about astrology [1]:
“I think it’s a bunch of bullshit, myself. But I tell you this never mind if this is a quote, man! I tell you this. I don't know what’s gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the old shithouse goes up in flamesAlright Alright!!!”
]]>