Cathedrals and churches

Alejo said:
Indeed, which perhaps leads to the possibility that cathedrals can be a tool, beautifully constructed but like any other tool their use may change from time to time depending on who wields them.

Perhaps to draw an analogy that may apply, it's like a Katana, the technique into making them is awe inspiring, and the culture and discipline could almost give one the notion that something so beautiful could never be used for nefarious purposes, but then you learn about the history of some of the behavior of samurai at the height of their power and you realize that these beautiful tools, were used for nefarious purposes, beyond war and survival.

So, perhaps something similar can be extrapolated to cathedrals, albeit at a different level, a tool that requires beauty to function properly, which means it needs creative energy and effort and discipline, but that can be welded by evil for their purposes.
Click to expand...
Superimpose that on the buildings.
 
In addition to what has already been mentioned about the energy and effort used in its elaboration, I think that perhaps some architectural styles and construction materials used could have some more properties, such as symbolism or beauty... I say this because I remember a comment in a section ( unfortunately I couldn't find it) where the Cs state something about stained glass transducing light or gravity in a certain way, if anyone finds what I mean thanks in advance.
 
While re-reading info on the Hyperboreans, I came across this on p.283 of SHotW and thought about this thread.

Getting back to our spinning Edward Leedskalnin in his airplane seat, we realize that he must have stumbled onto this secret and was able to utilize it to some extent. But Leedskalnin didn't have a landscape covered with megaliths to collect and store energy.
Click to expand...

A cathedral could be considered a (modern) megalith, yes? I also recall reading about stone having 'memory'.
 
Benjamin said:
While re-reading info on the Hyperboreans, I came across this on p.283 of SHotW and thought about this thread.



A cathedral could be considered a (modern) megalith, yes? I also recall reading about stone having 'memory'.
Click to expand...
Good find, I seem to recall something similar regarding stones, and their magnetic properties being able to record memories, depending on the emotional intensity of a given event. And the latest session mentions that even trees could hold on to some of that energy.

So, there might be something to this idea.
 
Alejo said:
...I seem to recall something similar regarding stones, and their magnetic properties being able to record memories, depending on the emotional intensity of a given event.
Click to expand...

This makes me think of what Laura et al. do with the 'Crystal Requests', sans the memories. Then I think of all those people in these cathedrals and old churches having their energies recorded in the stone through reverberating song over centuries.
 
I think one bias to avoid is to think of people in the past as retarded, unskilled, and incapable of achieving grand and beautiful building projects. In other words, just because people didn't have cell phones, they weren't idiots. One may even argue that maybe people today are less capable than then. Skills and workmanship were preserved and improved through the generations, within families and professional guilds. One could visit the Pantheon in Rome for instance. Whether it is a couple thousand years or just a few centuries old, it's a surprisingly good building, especially its famous roof. Our smart technological era has been building with materials of lesser quality and durability than those used by some Roman builders (see for instance MIT solves mystery of why Roman concrete was so durable -- Sott.net). So maybe the view that something could not be done in the past because we cannot do it to day is an oversimplification that can lead to a distorted assessment of some of the older monuments, even the recent ones before mass schooling.
 
In Session 15 June 1996, we can find about gravity and sound in the discution related to unstable gravity wawes:

Laura said:
Q: (L) Do thoughts produce gravity?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Does sound produce gravity?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Can sound manipulate gravity?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Can it be done with the human voice?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Can it be done tonally or by power through thought?

A: Both.

Q: (L) Then, is there also specific sound configurations involved?

A: Gravity is manipulated by sound when thought manipulated by gravity chooses to produce sound which manipulates gravity.
Click to expand...

Regarding cathedrals and churches, if you combine the effects of: the location (energywise) , the materials (memory recording/transmiting) , the shapes interwined , the toughts and intents of the builders/religious users (programation?) , sure you get interesting "properties", one might be wise to approch such tools with great "care", knowledge protect indeed !
 
This is a bit more that follows Oliverlejardinier's quote:

Laura said:
Q: (L) Now, did the fellow who built the Coral Castle spin in his airplane seat while thinking his manipulations into place?

A: No. He spun when gravity chose to manipulate him to spin in order to manipulate gravity.

Q: (L) Does gravity have consciousness?

A: Yes.
Click to expand...

One guy was able to shape and move massive stones via gravity manipulating itself through E.L. to create the Coral Castle, if I've understood this correctly. But last night I thought about why he built it. Idk.

Laura said:
Q: (L) Is it ever possible for the individual to do the choosing, or is it gravity that IS him that chose?

A: The gravity that was inside him was all the gravity in existence.
Click to expand...

I wonder about the gravity inside, not necessarily the hundreds/thousands of people who built the cathedrals, but the people who commissioned the building of cathedrals. Is that gravity the same as E.L.'s? If all the people who built the cathedrals knew how to build their own 'Coral Castles', would there even be any cathedrals?
 
Benjamin said:
This is a bit more that follows Oliverlejardinier's quote:



One guy was able to shape and move massive stones via gravity manipulating itself through E.L. to create the Coral Castle, if I've understood this correctly. But last night I thought about why he built it. Idk.



I wonder about the gravity inside, not necessarily the hundreds/thousands of people who built the cathedrals, but the people who commissioned the building of cathedrals. Is that gravity the same as E.L.'s? If all the people who built the cathedrals knew how to build their own 'Coral Castles', would there even be any cathedrals?
Click to expand...
So, did his mind/intent will the information/knowledge to gravitate to the point of creation? If that makes sense?
 
Benjamin said:
This is a bit more that follows Oliverlejardinier's quote:



One guy was able to shape and move massive stones via gravity manipulating itself through E.L. to create the Coral Castle, if I've understood this correctly. But last night I thought about why he built it. Idk.



I wonder about the gravity inside, not necessarily the hundreds/thousands of people who built the cathedrals, but the people who commissioned the building of cathedrals. Is that gravity the same as E.L.'s? If all the people who built the cathedrals knew how to build their own 'Coral Castles', would there even be any cathedrals?
Click to expand...
The theme of objective art that Gurdjieff mentions could be interesting and how it is applied to music, dances, literature or buildings and statues and that each one due to their level has access to what they wanted to transmit without deviations... in The Zelador also mentions a type of building that produces certain sensations due to its particular construction.
here a guy talks a bit about the objective art of Gurdjieff:
Picking up the proposal of G. Gurdjieff, who in turn is heir to the Sufi, Taoist and Platonic seeds, art can be divided into two great qualities: Objective Art and Subjective Art. What is objective art and subjective art? This is the question that I have been asked on numerous occasions and that I will try to answer in a few lines.
Almost all current art is subjective art. Only a very, very small part is objective art, contrary to what happened in other periods of our history -as in the classical Greek world- and contrary to what happens in most of the art of the so-called primitive peoples.
Subjective art means that the artist pours his subjective world and state onto the canvas he is painting, into the music he produces, into the poems he writes or into the dance he performs. That art is a mere projection of his dreams, of his imagination and fantasies, moods and shortcomings. The artist who produces subjective art is not really involved with the people who are going to see his painting, listen to his music, or read his poetry. He does not get involved with what is going to happen to the receiver of his art, let's say that he does not concern him at all. Subjective art is simply a kind of excretion of himself that the artist expects others to embrace. Undoubtedly, he or she is helped by the effort to shape their subjective world, but it helps them in a way similar to how the act of vomiting or spitting helps us: one takes away the discomfort and nausea, it makes you feel healthier, but it does nothing for others. In general, this artist does not take into account what will happen to the person who receives the vomit from him: it will cause nausea and may even make him feel sick before the work of art. In fact, this is the objective of many subjective artists, that others feel their discomfort, their anguish or their joy. They are just looking for 'the provocation'.
To take a famous example, the paintings of Pablo Picasso. He was a great artist but he only produced subjective art. Observing his paintings, one begins to feel dizzy, something is out of place in the mind. You cannot be looking at Picasso's paintings for a long time because his painting has not emerged from a silent and calm being, but has come out of chaos and that awakens the observer. Many of his paintings are the product of a nightmare or his grief at the society in which he lived. It can be said that almost all of today's art belongs to that category.
In the opposite sense, Objective Art is the complete opposite. The artist who seeks to produce objective art has nothing to eliminate or excrete from his internal world, he feels completely empty and clean of drives and emotions. Then, from this inner silence, love and compassion arise, the possibility of awakening true creativity arises. Silence, love, compassion, serenity and plenitude are the very qualities of meditation. And indeed, meditation, whatever the tradition from which it springs, is the basis of objective art.
The practice of meditation leads us to our center, to the inner core of gravity where true creativity comes from and which is 'far beyond' mere experimentation with forms and emotional drives. In this sense, our internal center is not just a personal and individual psychic center, it is the very center of Existence, of Being. When we are on the periphery of ourselves, of our center, it is when we are lost and we are different from others. others because we are isolated from the Universe. But when a person begins to move towards the core of himself, he discovers, as all the great religions affirm, that we are one with everything, that we are part of the eternity that is beyond speech and that surrounds words, and from there from which an objective artistic expression can arise. It is a universal experience that has been sought and is sought in all societies and times, that all the people around us are longing for but which is very difficult to express.
Objective art seeks to promote the same experience in all the people who receive it, hence it must come out of and must go to that universal and archetypal core that all humans share and that, in turn, unites us beyond egos. and individual emotional reactions. It is an art created with the recipient in mind, not a mere excretion of the creative artist. We have examples of objective art in all times and cultures and in all arts: the Parthenon in Athens and almost all Hellenic sculpture, the music of Gurdjieff and certain primitive music in which each instrument embodies the voice of a deity with which listening to them is listening to a conversation between divinities, sacred dances, mosaics based on sacred geometries like those of the Alhambra, or Zen, Taoist and Sufi art.
The objective art is, in reality, the one that people look for and, especially, the art
Click to expand...
 
Armagelipsis-matíasmaurán said:
The theme of objective art that Gurdjieff mentions could be interesting and how it is applied to music, dances, literature or buildings and statues and that each one due to their level has access to what they wanted to transmit without deviations... in The Zelador also mentions a type of building that produces certain sensations due to its particular construction.
here a guy talks a bit about the objective art of Gurdjieff:
Click to expand...

Whether subjective or objective, the myriad forms of art in cathedrals are easy to see. But for some reason, ever since I first learned about him, I never saw Leedskalnin as an artist. I don't know why, because that's exactly what he was. I have forgotten my artistic side.

Just after highschool, a friend of mine and I were having a conversation about art. I remember telling him that it wasn't the artist but 'the energy' that moved the brush. He didn't understand that (until years later when a professional artist said the same thing in a lecture he attended at university) and I remember it degraded into an argument. I couldn't articulate what 'energy' was and he thought I was talking about something psychological or made-up.

Thanks @Armagelipsis-matíasmaurán. That was helpful.
 
I never heard of any particular symbolizm related to something cosmic, numerology, energies etc. and churches, like with the pyramids. I don't mean menora or biblical and medieval symbolism of angels and heaven, the evil, life and death, demons etc. All I noticed is the acoustics (hence the construction) and medieval forms of building with some sort of ornaments and adequate symbols. I somewhat like such buildings because they are calming
 
Benjamin said:
Whether subjective or objective, the myriad forms of art in cathedrals are easy to see.
Click to expand...
Yet they have been used to deceive people about religion, false beliefs, handing over their power to what they allegedly represent, division through ideology, false history and deification of those who promote them. Most are beautiful and even amazing and awe inspiring but what do they symbolise, really; when they were created and now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom