![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Freedom of the Word
There’s been a lot of excitement here and at Fantastic Planet the last couple days over the worthiness of labelling oneself and others. It’s fun to see such heated debate on a topic which is so obviously important to a lot of people. In keeping with the spirit of that conversation, I thought it would be worthwhile to add another layer on top of it.
Except for a few rogue dissenters, by and large the consensus seems to be that labels are dangerous because they limit us in a way that may be both inaccurate and unnecessary at best, or somehow downright dangerous at their worst. I think that’s an accurate rendition of what I’m hearing people say. I’d like to, for a moment, turn that upside-down though with some old-fashioned metaphysical speculation.
Whatever your own opinions or beliefs are about the origins of life, let’s for a moment examine the idea of incarnation, as seen in various religious traditions the world over. We could distill the essence of such ideas into a story about spirits (pure consciousness) and matter. By whatever mystical process, these spirits are either compelled or choose willingly to “descend” into matter. In this process of descent, they take on successive increasingly dense energetic bodies until they have a physical body such as we know them.
Now, what is it that would cause pure consciousness (ie, total freedom, limitless possibility), to want to take on an earthly flesh which poops, bleeds, sneezes, has nasty boogers, and someday withers and dies? Either we can simply say it’s a “mystery” or we can posit that there must be something to be gained by limitation. There must be a good reason, and something extremely powerful and worthwhile about incarnating into a fixed form, about focusing, honing down into a fixed point and sloughing off and forgetting about limitless potential.
Now, in more mainstream Christian doctrine, there’s only one spirit which ever entered the world and took on flesh in this manner we’re describing: Christ. We could understand this in our story as the Logos descending into the limitations of matter in order to reach the other beings who had come here and forgotten not only their Maker, and their potential, but the purpose of why they incarnated as physical beings in the first place.
Jeremy pointed me to a nice gnostic Christmas homily which extends this idea about Christ’s true sacrifice as incarnating into matter, rather than being crucified and released back to his Father:
The nativity and birth that we celebrate at Christmas Eve is a sacrifice as well. The Logos sacrifices the glory and light vesture of the celestial aeons in order to take on human form and dwell upon the earth. As Gnostics we recognize that the incarnation not the crucifixion was indeed the true sacrifice of the Logos.
The Logos took on the form of Jesus and came to remind people of their rightful Kingdom of Heaven. But many didn’t want to hear it. They’d grown accustomed to their earthly bodies and believed this was all there is. There’s a great passage in the Gospel of John where Jesus is on the Mount of Olives (Chapter 8):
31 Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples,
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33 They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. 16 How can you say, ‘You will become free’?”
For the Jews believed themselves to be free. But Jesus, with an intact memory of Heaven and a connection to the Divine Source knew how compared to that limitless beauty, they were mired in slavery. They were enslaved to sin and their desires, which occluded from them their true purpose in this incarnation. Interestingly here, Jesus points out that words (or rather The Word) does not enslave us or define us, but open us up, free us, bring us back to the higher realms and our true nature as free and beautiful spiritual beings.
So why is it that people nowadays think that words and labels limit us? Where did we get that notion from? Chakra author Anodea Judith points out:
Language limits and, therefore, specifies our thoughts. Yet I could name a thousand things I could not fit in a large house, for the physical world has even more limitation.
Compared to the physical world, words offer us even greater freedom, more possibility and more potential. So why are people so afraid to use them? Why do people get so easily trapped in them? Why isn’t the truth setting us free?
- Freedom Definition #1
- Educating the poor & freedom & choice
- Protecting Our Freedoms
- The Freedom That Freedom Brings
- Is The *Illusion of Freedom* Freedom?
- Prev: Label-Makers
- Next: Mini-Vacation #537
November 11th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
As a person who has always wanted to be a writer, I see words as my friends, and language as power. I have no explanation for why people are afraid of Word Power.
(Word Magic, on the other hand, is an entirely different affair…)
I’ve never been afraid of being labeled or of labeling people. In fact, I think I gain more power by knowing what someone wants to label me. Example: a person labels me a “faggot” in order to hurt me. I know I’m not gay, so I am not hurt by the label. However, this clues me in on what that person considers hurtful. But, rather than reciprocate with a dumb and pointless “No, you’re a faggot!” I instead opt to twist the language AND insult the person at the same time: “Well, if liking women is what you consider a faggot, then you must be the straightest heterosexual in the room.” A response like that is SURE to befuddle anyone who ponders it. After a while, they learn to not tangle with the semantics.
In short, I use words as weapons because often times people use them as weapons against me. Unfortunately, just owning a gun doesn’t make you a better sharpshooter– you need to practice. I get lots of practice with my weapons. The person trying to brand me a “faggot” is shooting at me but can’t hit his target.
That’s why I am friends with words– if you’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to you when you need them.
November 11th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
In 1984, Winston Smith’s workmate is working on the latest version of the Newspeak Dictionary and is incredibly excited because they’ve eliminated so many words from it, thus it’s more efficient, but also–Orwell’s point–it makes dissent much less possible and free thought that much more constricted because there are fewer words available to express it.
PKD, in talking about the gnostic gospels said somewhere that the vision of the universe they were speaking of was a holographic one but that they had lacked the words to describe it that way (it might be in VALIS where he says that). That’s also an interesting thought.
In terms of Jesus talking about the word (or Word) in the Jesus’ passage, there’s an argument to be made (by the gnostically influenced Sant tradition in India, for one) that the “word” he’s talking about ain’t necessarily (or just) his teachings but an actual divine sound (the Shabd) that you can tap into and “ride” like a wave to union with the godhead through certain kinds of meditation. A little off topic, mayhaps, but eye just had to get that in.
November 11th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
I think the truth really can set us free, but when labels become convoluted, they don’t represent the truth anymore. Labels get exploited, and we have to start creating new ones to compensate, to overpower the old ones until they become passe.
I think Words are so volatile, that they really do need to be used carefully. I think that the emergence of psychology could be a reason why labels seem so threatening. That if we call ourselves something for too long, we might just become it, maybe even in that gypsy curse sort of way. “May you get what you want.”
So, I think with pop culture out there in the forefront of our younger minds, labels are threatening because of certain traits that seem to stick to them. For instance, I grew up disowning the word “gay” because it represented so much more than what it was originally meant to, because of its pop culture implications. So I never really allowed myself to really associate with it without taglines, which ended up being a good thing, in my opinion. I think it’s a fear of being associated with all of the bad things, and then maybe becoming them. Or being convinced that “becoming them” is just a natural course of action… But then again, what would be so bad about representing a title and redefining it? I dunno, some titles and labels just feel SO powerful and hover so ominously with extraneous assocations, that it’s hard to apply them without absolutely cringing…
I mean, to speak of words being powerful… think of textbooks, legal documents, advertisements, signatures, historical texts, television, and religious texts. Now those are powerful words, and aren’t all words labels? Look at the power they get from being passed around, multiplied, and somewhat solidified into a cultural mindset. Power.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words, according to my therapist, probably hurt me.” hehe. I wonder if that version will replace the older mantra someday.
November 11th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
And I agree with James about other people using labels to define a person. It actually gives that person power when it totally misses the mark. But if it hits partly, like… let’s say someone is Wiccan, and someone starts spreading “witch” rumors, an opportunity in a more open-minded crowd may become rather destructive in a less-receptive crowd.
November 11th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Yes, Ant, the crowd mentality can run away with the idea of a word and convolute it. And of course, mob rule is terrifying, no matter how strong of an individual you are.
Luckily, there is a vocabulary for dealing with mobs. They usually consist of monosyllabic “buzz” words. Mobs tend to respond to these words in the same way that idiots respond to the loud sections in classical music.
Also, the power of words over mobs tends to boomerang. Not too long ago, even Bush haters like me had to marvel at Karl Rove’s ability to smear John Kerry with the Swift Boat campaign; now, I marvel at what a quagmire Bush is in. Of course, Katrina helped deconstruct Bush’s image, but what people miss is that if it hadn’t been for the Rove strategy of reducing language to primal knee-jerk reactions, maybe the people of this country would’ve had more understanding and sympathy for our leaders– people might have actually felt sorry for Bush, Michael Brown and all those caught with their pants down by the hurricane.
However, Rove and co. stripped the playing field of all subtlety with their Swift Boat campaign against Kerry, and so when Katrina came crashing down there was no way to defend the Fed, the local government, or anyone else in charge. The Bush administration was so successful at leading people via fear that– when exposed to something truly frightening –the people lashed out against their leaders!
Now, the very qualities that made Bush electable– “He’s a regular guy like you and me” and all that crap –are working against him.
November 11th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
I don’t think the danger is in labels themselves. As a writer I find that idea rather silly. Labels are simply words, and do not possess any power in and of themselves. The only “power” they possess lies in the meaning we give to them. If used conscientiously they can be very useful tools. For instance, I used to flit about studying one religion after another. When I found Buddhism and was able to connect with it in a way that made my interest in other religions pale in comparison I made the decision to take on the label “Buddhist” both as an expression of my connection and as a way to focus my efforts. I still study other religions, but Buddhism is what I come home to at the day’s end. That’s largely because I’ve internalized the label “Buddhist”.
Labels only become dangerous if we reify them. Labels are merely a map; they exist to point out certain aspects of a person’s character, nothing more. Thinking that the person is zir labels is mistaking the map for the territory. Labels should be like clothing, able to be changed as circumstances dictate and not mistaken for skin. Clinging to insubstantial ideas as though they themselves were what give you meaning (as opposed to you giving yourself meaning by internalizing the meaning of ideas) is only setting yourself up for suffering since labels are always slightly inaccurate. You’re bound to find some ways in which you don’t fit that label you so dearly love, and that’s not a problem with the person as much as the nature of language. Basically, people need to remember that language can at best acheive approximate descriptions of things because there are things that language can’t describe.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
words as maps are only as good as thier creators. we have to be careful what we ask for. the words we use have the single power to create our entire reality. they stimulate images and sounds and feelings in our minds which make the world appear before us. ours is a semantic reality. we can`t describe any reality without it.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
“I am like God, as solitary as He, as vain, and as desparing, unable to be one of my creatures. They dwell in my light, while I dwell in unbearable darkness, the source of that light.”
—Foucault’s Pendulum, Umberto Eco
November 11th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
worldimage, anything that has only as much power as we give it is dangerous. because we can give a lot. labels are reified all the time. i would go so far as to say that is their primary function. using them to navigate realms of uncertainty comes later, and is a sophisticated backlash against the first function and the deception it entails.
hebrides, as a surfer and a musician (sheesh, he’s using labels now, i thought he was “anti-label”) i find the idea of riding the divine soundwave to be supercool. the idea is a reasonable approximation of my favourite metaphysical experiences. the trouble is that our words are not that “word”. i have a feeling religion / philosophy is selling us fairy floss and pretending it’s fruit.
tim, do you mean jesus/lucifer, prince of this world (the world of lies), son of the demiurge? always out there with candy for the kids. he sounds like a used car salesman. no thanks i’ll walk.
because it’s a lie, all of it.
neo never left the matrix. not once. he only thought he did. the pills were placebo. so are words.
November 12th, 2005 at 12:34 am
True dat, mofo. But it also worked well as analogy as it’s difficult to explain the experience of peering beyond the veil to someone who has not experienced it firsthand. Thus words/labels are structered in such as a way to lead people, via symbolism and analogy, towards the inexplainable. This brings us back to summer debates that led to the idea of a Zen archon.
Unfortunately, people get wrapped up in the symbols and not in the transcendental work necessary to experience the language of experience firsthand — the actual slipping out of the so-called matrix.
November 12th, 2005 at 12:37 am
As a writer I see words not as friends but as tools. I also find them not limiting but limited. I often have ideas which I can’t put into words, or must struggle to describe. And yet friends have described me as eloquent. I don’t know if they provide more (or less) freedom than the physical world, but I do know that thought does not have to be limited by language.
It seems to me people aren’t so afraid to use words as they are to have words applied to them. I think the awareness of language’s artificiality is helpful here, to realize that words do not determine reality. One of the prime mistakes of religious fundamentalism is that it prioritizes words (scriptures) above reality.
In my opinion the truth (like the Tao?) cannot be put into words. Knowing that can be freeing.
November 12th, 2005 at 12:42 am
Mistakes? That’s its biggest selling point! Absolute unwavering certainty
November 12th, 2005 at 12:46 am
Maybe it’s not unfortunate. Jung called symbols “transformers” of psychic energy. Maybe being wrapped up utterly in a symbol is as powerful or more powerful than what you’re calling firsthand experience, cause after all, being wrapped up in a symbol IS a type of first hand experience.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:33 am
True, I suppose that works, too. But to counter this, I’d say that being so involved in the symbol itself is still going to fall into the realm of the Demiurge, ultimately. I like the where you might be going with that.
But I meant symbols as a progressive language that means different things the more one pursues a personal Initiation. It’s good to embrace all the experiences that sybmols offer, but from my own personal experience and my studies, I can say that at a certain point the mind rejects the power the label has and instead begins to inhabit a place outside of being part of the story told, and you start defining your own story.
I’m not sure how to put that without barfing out half-references to Campbell and Jung and other esoteric crap. I think “Abraxas” of the UR Group put it simply, in which I quoted him from a recent post of mine:
The symbols must lead one to invent it him or herself, becauuse there is no blueprint to it. This is the most difficult part of communcating the esoteric.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:36 am
Correction, there is a blueprint, as proposed in the monomyth. But the actual experiences must be accumulated. The symbol, I believe, is not as base as the myth, thus the symbol becomes the language and tools of embracing the myth. The symbols have power, of course, but only in the context of a story. A personal story. And that is the power of the monomyth presented by Campbell and expounded upon by others such as Colin Wilson.
The mythic structure to Initiation is as basic and prime as the architecture can go before entering into realms outside of human comprehension.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:39 am
But the demiurge is just another symbol… and a powerful one at that. So maybe it pays to be caught up in it.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:46 am
If I were to re-phrase what you’re saying it would go something like this: there is a basic blueprint of human experience which is either tied into the ground of being, or in the nature of the mind-brain somehow. Within this blueprint are nodal points, archetypes of symbols, which exert powerful energy, and draw experiences to them. Symbol/archetypes then become clothed in the language of the experiences which have constellated to them. Myth in turn is a meta-language of navigating to the “actual” nature of the symbols themselves, as distanced from our experiences which have colored them. By attempting to access the source of the symbol/archetype, you access and may unleash a vast store of creative/transformative energy.
So what’s the best way to do that? Focus on your own experiences (your private version of the myth)? Or on the nature of the symbol itself (the public version of the myth)? Seems like both are equally useful routes.
November 12th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Exactly.
November 12th, 2005 at 11:00 am
If being wrapped up in a symbol is a first hand experience, then it cannot be more powerful than a first hand experience. And being wrapped up is not an experience of freedom but of bondage.
November 13th, 2005 at 12:23 am
all experiences are firsthand experiences. there is only now. this is the only reference point we are allowed. try to do it any differently and you will go mad. words, along with pictures, are the engine of our reality. they result in feelings, which make our system run. see, hear, smell, taste, feel, exist. now.