The Sacred 'Loc-Nar'

So this is an interesting 'framing device' to what I was intending to post in this article anyway.

The 'Sacred Loc-Nar' is this green orb thing, of varying size, but always green and glowing, that holds the original 1981 adult cartoon film of the classic French comic 'Metal Hurlant' (Heavy Metal). In the movie story segments, each mini-story turns on someone having 'found' this strange, mystical, as well as powerful, green object - which virtually always becomes the cause of some major disaster for those who find it.

The adult comic movie, supposedly made in Canada, is quirky (well, it's from a French comic book, after all!), but it's also brilliant. And it's a cult classic. Wikipedia and all other historical records of note now say that the movie was directed by Gerald Potterton, but in fact it was produced by Ivan Reitman (who nowadays says he 'only part produced it') and directed by Robert Altman who went to great lengths to distance himself from it altogether.

Altman hated it. And Reitman more or less disclaims it.

The key writer Dan O'Bannon, is a genuine genius, who wrote the movie 'Alien.' He, together with cartoonist Richard Corben, had been submitting work to the French Adult Comic Magazine Metal Hurlant, a magazine being published in Paris by the cartoon art genius 'Moebius.'

Heavy Metal 1981 comes across in some sense as a 'left-over' piece from the Sixties' cultural mindset, but then, the mindset of the adults in the Sixties, who were of course, in the first place not 'Sixties people' themselves but from an entirely earlier generation, is likewise an earlier one. Yet it radically overcomes all of the Sixties' failure of intellect and produces extraordinarily insightful but also confronting and not politically-correct philosophical arguments.

Altman always wanted to be regarded as a serious director and he never was that, certainly not of any note in the way that he wished to be perceived - which was as another Scorsese, at minimum.

Temple of the Sacred 'Loc-Nar.' LOL
From the movie...

Anyway the point re what I was going to try and get at here, is that there is a certain 'twisted quirkiness' in real life, and this 'adult cartoon' arguably captures it well enough. Altman didn't think so, neither did Reitman.

The 'twisted quirkiness' is this: ...well, why? But why?

And what you will only find, across almost every single major 'religious philosophical understanding,' for instance, is this kind of thing: they will go all the way through clearly rational and valid and testable, sound hypotheses, but then swerve away at the end, into a kind of a 'reality gone missing,' or a 'missing reality' which they say is real, but simply cannot be established in material reality as a fact. Like this, here: (take the modern Veda interpretations - not the actual Vedas, by the way, just the way people want to say that they are...). Your five senses are misleading, and so when you activate your 'Kundalini' you suppress the quality of illusion that is produced by your five senses, and you will 'see' the Universal 'reality' in a 'pure' spiritual way, and then after you do that deeply and successfully, you will see everywhere and into everything spiritually, and you will abandon your material life... Literally, they will say 'abandon.'

Strange, green liquid... What is it? (More LOL, just joking,
okay? Cleans your hands, doesn't do anything else).

Well now, see, when you were a small child, you had your five senses, and then you grew up, and the processing your brain did of what those senses brought you was more complex, and more complexity was there in your experiences, and you saw that life was more complex... ...and yes sure it involved disappointment, but to switch into manufacturing a stance on that disappointment by accusing it of only being part of a total illusion, is a self-justification, a rationalizing, of failure; it's not a recognition of any kind of external reality at all. It's an internal intellectual position. Now you can 'handle' external reality all you want that way, yes you certainly can, but that doesn't 'make it actually so.'

So I was going to 'quickly' add on top of the recent direction of discussions here, that no, I am not saying 'water-into-wine' metaphorically, although it can be that too. I am saying actual drinkable wine. Otherwise what's the point? You're either God, or you ain't god; stop pulling our legs.

You see, I am being confronted by the NASA stuff, in which there is every scientific and empirically testable reason to conclude that there are much more advanced intelligent species around the place, many of whom are literally themselves (we're not, they are) capable of traveling the vast distances to here. And, they do it.

And this introduces, not so much religious philosophy aspects (although it does also do that on one level), but this idea about complexity.

My conclusion is that if you merely take the same natural course and direction of what you yourself experienced growing from a child to a much older and more experienced adult, all that will happen is that your appreciation of the complexity of what your senses are telling you, about life and about all of the dynamics in there, reaches various thresholds, and you go past them into more enhanced ways of looking at things.

Strange green dress... What is this?! Take it off,
at once!

Now why would it be that you then suddenly turned backwards, and snuffed out what had been serving you perfectly well up until this second, in order to replace all of it with a hypothetical 'spiritual' other sense that no one can 'see' and that you yourself cannot 'see' but only 'imagine,' really. Sure they want to say 'oh but it is a spiritual, therefore non-material form of seeing...' It's not any kind of seeing; it's delusion.

If you go to the mainstream Christian mentality, it isn't any different. It's all 'spiritual.' If you go the Islamic it's precisely the same. Pie in the sky, when you die; jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today.

Listen, the word in the New Testament about what 'descended down onto them forcibly' is not 'dove' although it can be taken to say 'a dove' in Greek. 

Here we at last get some truth out of Wiki. They actually mention the word might be coming from the Semitic 'bird of Ishtar' but that 'makes it only worse' (I mean it makes my point even more cuttingly). The word in Genesis is 'Ishsha,' which is not translated at all into English, and you will see the footnotes there about that. They don't translated it either because they don't know what it means, or means to say, or 'they' do and won't say. 

See, for sure there is an implication of the word part 'aster;' star.

So I'm telling you, explicitly, we are dealing with something here that virtually no one has ever talked about properly, either from the ancient texts in any culture, but specifically for the Western mind, from the Judaeo-Christian texts -, and it is definitely not 'spiritual' as in completely incorporeal, and unseen. Although, yes for sure, there is the not plainly visible, as well as the stuff CERN is working on, namely, Neutrinos and 'invisible Universal particle lines,' and there certainly is moral and absolute reality 'Spirit.' There are all of those things; IE extreme complexity. 

Who actually got close to this in a recent YouTube channel dissertation was the prominent modern Islamic scholar Mufti Abu Layth. And that's because he's using the great Arabic Aristotelian texts as his sources.

But we are dealing with the 'quirky,' and also the intelligent 'other' person/individual conscious agent/agency. You can't push this around, in the same way you might, say a subservient intellect - this is a much higher intellect than we are, or than we have been. They're not going to be pushed around the way we humans all like to push those we overpower, around.

No advanced alien intelligence would be either, and we cannot expect them to be. Would they get so pissed off that they whack us in the head at some point, or just benevolently look down patronizingly, and disregard as? 

Very patronizing. WTF is that BTW, he is holding; betcha
he doesn't even know, and that's because he's an actor.
Prolly he thinks it's a scarf, an expensive scarf.

You cannot, just go doing a bunch of 'Kundalini' yoga and then somehow enter some exorbitantly advanced intellectual standing, without breaching through the reality of what that would be in your ordinary sensory context.

You cannot, do a bunch of 'chakra spinning' practices, and suddenly spin your way out of the human social context and messiness in there.

Judaeo-Christianity is a bit peculiar, frankly, because - well, a lot of deep ancient texts are - there are words in there which mean quite different things to what we commonly think that they do mean, and different to how we traditional 'take them' to mean: for example, the Jewish texts like the Zohar and so on, say 'columbarium' (like a dovecot), and also 'Palace of the Bird's Nest,' and in the New Testament, they say 'where the Eagle nests...'

How would they, for instance, back in those days, describe, say Darth Vader's 'Death Star?' Well okay I'm saying Death Star! Maybe we could say 'Life Star.' 

Waddya think? Any some good this one mayt? (As my Serbian Chicago Comex boss used to say to me when he had a winner and wanted to feign being a stoopid ignorant Slavic backwoodsman).