vera/вера/בירה/وھرآ

My lady is reading Soner Yalçın right now and she just read aloud to me her translation of his summary of Qabalah. This provoked the obvious thought of Qabalah's relation to Sufism. Both are mystical interpretations of the religion. Both seek to extract the hidden truths contained within the holy scriptures. Both have a certain degree of initiation necessary and both have more recently become popular in Western Christian society (along with Zen Buddhism) for consumption by middle class people who have no time for initiation or any other symptoms of organised religion.

So my question is this: What is the Christian version of Sufism/Qabbalism?

i am, as best as you shall ever know, providing you ask not of me anything, natch(.)

This post has been edited by Los on October 24, 2009 04:04 am

always a pleasure to hear from you los...

why are all your posts ... los?

and why the 8 month hiatus?

BLISTANBUL;

i, Los, would say, of course, that it would be not too-incorrect to say that someone else, of whom i shant say more-of, would be somewhat correct to say that 'HE' may know "why all my posts are ...". But, only i, of course, can say: WHY "the (so-called)8 month (so-called)hiatus... Otherwise..., .

Reading your posts is like walking through a mine field in the dark.



But they do retain a certain level of charm only due to the fact that you don't seem to be an airhead. One question lingers though, and has done so for quite some time.. Are you purposefully expressing yourself with a needlessly complicated language or is this truly the way your mind expresses what you think?

The latter would be most unfortunate for the simple reason that if expressed orally, what you write would be near-impossible to comprehend. This leans me toward the former, which means that by choice do you make a soup of every answer - perhaps to feign lyrical superiority, or (as I would like to think) to entertain your linguistic talent both for the satisfaction of being separate from the rest of us and, I suspect, the slight satisfaction of leaving your counterpart confused and taken aback by the sheer rejection of - but not total diversion from - the normal way of communicating in writing.

However, this train of thought still leaves me slightly disappointed. This whole persona must be some sort of criticism or comment on society as a whole related to communication between people. You must have some sort of opinion about, or strive passionately to change something that relates to this subject. Perhaps you're convinced that without a generalized norm, language would be free enough to take it's true desired form; that sphere in which we all reside before we're defiled by society's forced conformism into an assembly line of grammar, rules, context and spelling. Perhaps you think that if people simply let go of these restrictive factors and let go of their fears of breaking their rules, communication would take on an infinitely more truthful and real form. Perhaps the art of the written word is something you've seen defiled by this conformism too many times.

Or?

I, love Los and, we welcome him, back from nothiongnessiness.

Speak to Los, seriously.

I believe he is into a unique (?) form of Suffism.

I presume this comment was directed at me, since I started this post and I do phrase things in a sesquipedalian fashion.

If it was intended for me, I'm not intending to comment on human communication (or anything else) in any respect. I'm simply writing out my thoughts as they occur to me in about the same fashion in which I speak. I was actually hoping to get some sort of answer to the question of how Christian mysticism manifests and reading into the secret meanings of the bible, but I see that was too much to ask without being accused of obtuse dialectic.

I'm actually curious what about my post (if–again-it was me to whom you were referring) seemed so inaccessible to you?

1. My lady is reading a book about Jews.
2. It mentions Jewish mysticism.
3. It was written by a Turkish Sunni (if Soner Yalçın is not a dönmeh himself. Just kidding, OR AM I?), which makes me think about the relation between Jewish and Muslim mysticism.
4. The two have much in common, both in terms of how outsiders and insiders view them.
5. Is there anything in Christianity which shares these traits?

I just read Los' post properly and see it was to him you were referring.

I maintain my post though, because I actually want that question answered.

But I may START writing things like Los, because that post is hilariously legalese-esque.

You're very welcome, westerort.

My mind expresses no thing; hey! everyone else; what does that previous question of westerort's say of westerort (you should all look at westerort's previous post in this thread to read that previous question of his in-question)? Of course, it is Los that asks that question of you. Also, westerort; do indicate where any of so-called "my language" was "needlessly complicated"? That question is NOT a part my-previous-welcome-towards-you.

i "feign" not, westerort, and not only because i've never met you, or Spartan King, and that i've been led to do believe that you're not a hot Turkala chick. As for "soup", you've certainly taken the cake, and that is when, as being presently-evidenced, i must gravitate from my busboy's field-of-action to your messy kitchen, chef, merely to polish the-cherry-to-be-on-top--Shall i place it? Perhaps it'll be clearer (to me) by the end of my reading of your possible-reply to this, my reply to your last "reply" to, ME. By the way, "separation" is one of the easiest things to prove, and so NO satisfaction--unless you're a feigning hot Turkala chick--Please do reply, darling, for we certainly are alone here-in. Also, toss "normal communication"; i know, i was rubbing-"it"-in--do forgive me!

"Persona"?! Are you Spartan King pretending to be a hot Turkala chick pretending to be westerort just to egg me, Los, on, to just avoid rendering "yourself" ready to be comfortable-enough to receive something from what-might-be-me-pretending-to-be-so-called-"you", that might take the form of an apology, to me from you-know-who?

i must stop now, but do answer-me this, as well: "Must" aside, what is "this subject" you last spoke-of?

This post has been edited by Los on November 04, 2009 02:36 am

What's "vera/вера/בירה/وھرآ"?

It's the Jugoslav word for "religion" written in four scripts.

Why don't you add some post-modernist jargon to your posts, Los? It will certainly add to the confusion and the entertainment factor.

No, i shant, Mythos; but you're very welcome (to try) to do so (as if you haven't); it may add to the so-called 'confusion', but not to the "entertainment"; otherwise, i've have failed to understand what you have failingly-meant for me to understand, perhaps because you're so entertained by what i (can) do (entirely not-my-fault), (and/)or, you're wrong...

"Factor"?

This post has been edited by Los on November 04, 2009 03:57 am

I think the great majority is entertained by what you (can) do and even though it is not your fault, it is your doing. For that I thank you.

Now, if you "factor" that in, you shall realize that some postmodern additions will increase the entertainment as well as the confusion, hence the saying : stone two birds with one bong.

Just read your posts out loud and you will (unless born into a society where speaking cryptically is the norm) hear, as it were, the overtly complicated (perhaps the word complicated is not prudent) diversions from the issue or question at hand. I am sure that you could answer or give opinion about whatever it is that you are thinking in a much more direct manner. My example, then, of your soup-like answers would be all of your answers. If this is not clear at this moment, I'm afraid that me pointing out such an obvious and almost liturgical description of what goes on in that strange mind of yours would be, to say the least, unnecessary.

I couldn't possibly feign an identity switch now, after posting a picture of myself, of being a hot turkala chick. You're reading in to that theory way too much. There's no triangle conspiracy between me, SK and this fake hot turkala chick. And certainly no ulterior motive to my questions. They are, simply, my questions. Oddly enough, they are and remain (even after your extensive "answer" to me) seemingly unanswered. Will they remain thus? Or are you mocking me right now?

The subject, or theme, of my last question is still (in my opinion) the most important one in figuring out what you're all about. I believe, as you know, that Los in itself is not the Los of in here, as in the medium of this forum. You know what they say; to observe something is to alter what you observe. My initial instinct was that you were playing around with this Schopenhaueran concept, assessing that the thing, or you, in yourself are being altered into whatever it is that we choose to alter you into. This social experiment would only be possible if the persona itself was so abstract that anyone who reads your posts would instinctively place their own opinion of what you're really trying to say; hence creating a multiple identity within multiple individuals. This could then be used, as a springing board to bounce interpretations of various posters to reflect a, albeit blurred, but at least a small measure of truth, not about us, but about yourself. In essence you lying or purposefully beguiling us to get to know yourself. Because, through this shell, we project into it, what we innately see in ourselves. So you have, as you interact with us, is a smorgasbord of personalities to add into your own.

If this would turn out to be true, I would be deeply impressed. And perhaps slightly melancholic...

This post has been edited by westerort on November 04, 2009 06:32 pm

Me? Using post-modernism jargon? That's non-sense. I don't even understand it, much less able to use it. It just flies through. Although, perhaps, this is exactly its point. Confusion-wise, it may not add to your posts. They are a mess as they are. But on the entertainment factor, I assure you, it will certainly be a boost. I direct you to the Post Modernist Essay Generator. Besides, since we have no clue what you are talking about, we may as well laugh while reading it. As Emre, masterfully put it, you shall stone two birds with one bong. Think about it.

Ahhh! The terrifyingly beautiful pregnancy of alteriority. No, i ain't mocking you, westerort; stay tuned; i'll be back with the sieve...

First off all; Mythos; which "it" did you refer-to at the end of your last post in this here thread?

.....tick...tock...tick...tock...