1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?

She is playing with her socks.

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?

White sock: I´m queen of everything, in this part of town, I´m queen of the city and queen of the towns, and queen of the small little freaky things, and everyone here looks at me so… She is such a wonderful queen, and not every embracing at all, someone…  Has noting to worry about except.

Black sock: Ahhh, but I am the queen of evil and I most warn you, you can not escape my comonus of black magic.

3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock puppets represent?

We think they represent the mother and the daughter because they are always fighting, like all the context of Helena is the circus, that is how she is representing it. Also they can represent the 2 cities, the city of light and the land of shadows.

4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream?

She feels at the same time happy and sad, happy because she is living in a circus and she is doing what she wants, but sad because she wants to go out to real world to feel what it looks like because all her life has been about the circus and all her context turns around that.

5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different from the book.

Because on the book you imagine the things your own way, but when you see the movie you are watching the images so you can´t imagine it by yourself.

Once upon a time a bright college student named Bobby attended a lively debate on campus about the Holy Bible. The three speakers in the debate consisted of an atheist, a fundamentalist Christian, and a liberation theologian promoting biblical relativism.

The fundamentalist argued that God’s Holy Word was inerrant and having true religious faith required that every bit of it must be literally believed.

The atheist argued that if the Bible was a deposit of absolute truth, then God was a jealous, revengeful, war mongering, biased and land-grabbing Deity—not a God of Infinite love, wisdom and mercy. Besides, the Bible offered no rational response to the modern scientific theories of creation and evolution.

The liberation theologian argued that the stories of the Bible needed to be interpreted as a universal saving event and that contemporary men and women must find the relevancy of transformed existence for themselves. Liberation was the central core of the Bible stories.

Later that night Bobby returned to his dorm room and thought more deeply about the discussion of scriptural authority. Was the Word of God a perfect heavenly document or the work of imaginative human writers who were influenced by cultural, economic, political and personal circumstances? He found the topic every bit as perplexing as quantum physics. How could he ever find visceral confirmation to any point of view concerning the Bible’s inerrancy and authority? He felt that the fantastic images and events portrayed in Revelation challenged the scientific assumptions of modern cosmology, yet he sensed something powerful in John’s prophetical vision.

The thought of never finding an adequate conclusion made Bobby feel ill and intellectually exhausted so he lay down in bed.

Suddenly a beautiful angel appeared in Bobby’s room. “Don’t be alarmed,” said the angel. “You have a sincere heart to learn so I have been sent here to teach you amazing new things concerning God’s Word.”

“Is Scripture inerrant and sacred?” asked the wide-eyed student.

“Yes, but not in the way you think,” responded the heavenly creature.

“Things are either true or they are not true,” came the confused student’s reply.

“Go to your bookshelf and grab your Bible. Then begin reading through the Genesis chapters concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” said the angel.

Bobby gabbed his copy of the Bible, sat back on his bed, and opened it to the pages that the angel instructed him to read.

“Before you start to read put on these special glasses,” said the angel and handed Bobby a pair of unusual glasses with magical lenses.

“What kind of glasses are these?” asked the surprised student.

“They are special 3-D glasses from heaven. They will help you see new things within the linear stories of scripture that the human eye easily misses.”

Bobby put the magical glasses on and began to read from the Bible. “Wow! What is happening? The whole story has changed!” Bobby took off his glasses and gazed at the words on the pages. “When the glasses are off, I only understand the literal meaning of the words. But when I am looking through these glasses I see higher meanings being expressed!”

“What does the Bible teach with the glasses on?” tested the angel.

“The story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is about the spiritual process of how God transforms the human heart and mind,” came Bobby’s excited response. “I would never have expected that such a thing were possible.”

“Now put your glasses back on and look even deeper,” said the angel with a loving smile.”

Bobby put the glasses back on and went over the very same biblical passages again. “I don’t believe what I am now seeing!” he exclaimed. “The very same story is now informing me of how the Lord made his human nature fully divine while on earth and conquered all the forces of hell to restore the process of salvation!”

“Correct!” said the joyful angel. “God’s Holy Word has three tiers of meaning. On the lowest level is the literal meaning of the words. Above this, the words convey a purely spiritual meaning that is eternally relevant to everyone’s individual salvation. At the highest level the words address the Divine drama of the Lord’s glorification through perfectly unifying his human essence (Jesus) with his divine essence (the Father). That is why I said that God’s Holy Word was ‘inerrant’ in ways that you did not suspect. Only God can communicate in such a profound and transcendental way!”

“The world needs to know these things!” said Bobby.

“Yes, and God is sending angelic influences to all those who are open to new divine revelations.”

http://www.staircasepress.com

If you are a true believer and born again, you have the same Holy Spirit in you that Paul had in him.   You are in the same church that Paul is in.  Often times I think that people either forget this, don’t know this or just ignore this.  But, because they don’t know this they don’t realize that what God did for Paul he will do for you and I also.  This is what Paul said about what he taught:

 Gal 1:12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 So where did Paul get the gospel that he was teaching?   Apparently it was not from any seminary, temple, or human teacher on this earth.  This information did not originate on earth, but was from God.  So when I read through some blogs on the subject of the identity of the woman in Revelation 12, I was very surprised to see how many quoted some human reference or commentary.  Many of the blogs simply said I think this woman is __________.  What do you think?   Nobody could give any definitive identity to the woman, everything was based upon human reasoning and speculation.  So I will warn you up front that what I am about to tell you now, did not come from man, but is a result of what God has taught me and I believe you will see there is a major difference.  

 I cannot emphasize enough the complexity of the Bible.  God has written the Bible in a fashion that conceals vast amounts of information, making it very challenging for us to understand.  But once you begin to learn some of the techniques that God has used in writing the Bible and concealing information in plain sight you will soon begin to understand much more of the Bible.

 Let us start with the possible candidates for the identity of the woman in Revelation 12.  From everything that I have read so far here are the possibilities:

1. The Earthly Jerusalem, the Natural Nation of Israel, the Old Testament Wife of God
2. The Heavenly Jerusalem, the spiritual Mother of Jesus and the church
3. The New Jerusalem, the Church, the Wife of Jesus Christ
4. The natural woman called Mary, mother of the natural man Jesus

 There will no doubt be many that will read my list of 4 candidates and not understand it.  However, if you study the Bible very closely and carefully observe what is said, you will discover that there are 3 completely different cities in the Bible all called by the name Jerusalem.  This is just one technique that God uses to conceal truth in the Bible.  Call multiple things by the same name.  We have to realize that we have natural things and we also have spiritual things and both of these can be called the same name.  Every one of these cities represent a female in a relationship with God.  Also, all four of these women are described in the Bible as having children and being mothers.  So any of them could fit the pregnant woman in Rev 12.  I do not have the time to explain all of this in this blog, so you will have to either take my word for it or go and study it for yourself.   I already warned you that what I’m teaching came from God and not from a man, so it will certainly be different than anything you’ve ever heard before.

 In order to identify the symbolic woman in Revelation 12 I found that it was critical to identify the woman’s associated characteristics and descriptions first.  What we discover is that the description of the woman’s features clearly point us to only one possible identity.  It is what I call a dependent truth relationship.  Until you identify the parent truth, you will never understand the child truth.  These parent truths start with information found in Revelation 12:1:

 Rev 12:1  And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

 We see in verse 1 that this woman is clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and she is crowned with a crown of 12 stars.  What we should start with is the fact that this woman is a symbolic representation of a greater truth.  Normally God gives symbolic information using natural things to represent spiritual truths that we cannot see.  But, by understanding these natural things we can then transfer this knowledge into the spiritual truths.   The next thing we should do is understand that the sun, the moon and the stars are also symbolic references of natural things that also point us to much greater spiritual truths.  These symbols of the sun and the moon and the stars are three of the dependent parent truths that I was referring to earlier and these must be understood correctly in order to identify the woman in Revelation 12.

 Let’s start briefly with the crown of 12 stars.  We should know from Bible study that the number 12 has a lot of significance throughout the book.   This could apply to the natural nation of Israel who had 12 tribes, but it could also apply to the spiritual Israel who also had 12 tribes that originated from the apostles of the lamb.  So using this information we can see that the woman could either be natural Israel or the spiritual Israel.  Maybe I should stop and explain the term spiritual Israel, because I probably lost some of you by calling the church the spiritual Israel.  In Romans we read something very informative:

 Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 You see God calls the church the true Jews, having been circumcised in their spirits, not in their flesh.   I am of course not putting down the natural Jew, after all the church started with the 12 apostles who were all natural Jews.  Then they were followed on with the 120 Jews who were in the upper room in Jerusalem on Pentecost.  Next came the 5000 who were saved in Jerusalem on Pentecost when Peter stood up and preached.  Without the natural Jew none of us would probably be in the church today.  Then in Galatians we see another confirmation:

 Gal 3:29  And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 If you belong to Christ, you are called Abraham’s spiritual seed.  Unless you were born a natural Jew you cannot be a natural seed, so that only leaves a spiritual seed.  So Abraham is referred to as the spiritual father of the church.  What we have to realize is that God created patterns in the Old Testament to model things we find in the New Testament.  God created natural things to pattern and reveal the spiritual things to come.  Those are only two of the reasons why I call the church the spiritual Israel.  There are other’s that I will not get into in this blog.

 Now I will address the easiest and most profound symbol of  the identity of the woman in Revelation 12.  She is said to be clothed with the sun.  Wearing the sun as clothing.  The Greek word translated as “clothed” means “to put on” and “invest with clothing”.  This is an absolutely fascinating concept.  The sun is bright, the source of life and light on our planet.  The sun is also the closest star to our planet.  So what or who is this symbolic sun?  I’ll not keep you in suspense because the sun is Jesus Christ.  How did I come to that conclusion?  It is simply what the Bible says.  Let’s start with a verse in Malachi:

 Mal 4:2  But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

 You see a verse that speaks indirectly about Jesus Christ, not calling him the Son of Righteousness, but the Sun of Righteousness.  Surely you can see this and understand who it is talking about?  If not, take note of the fact that something or someone is called the Sun and that he will rise somewhere to bring healing to someone.  Now with all that in mind, let’s find out the who::

 2Pe 1:19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 In this verse we can see another reference to Jesus being a light that rises and shines in the hearts of believers.  We can also clearly see that He is called the Day Star.  The closest star to our planet that shines in the day is our sun.  Do you get it?  It is a very trick method that God uses to call the sun by a different title in order to conceal it from plain site.  But Jesus is clearly again called the Sun.  The reference to dawn is a reference to sunrise when light breaks in the morning and the darkness has to vanish.  These are spiritual truths reflected in natural symbolism.  But wait, I’m not done yet.  For those skeptics who are blind or dull of sight, I’ll give you one more great verse for the identity of the Sun.  This time it is Jesus himself talking and the words are in red in my Bible:

 Rev 22:16  I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 Here we have the same trick used by God, calling the sun by still another name.  The Bright Morning Star.  There is another reference to morning or dawn when the Sun rises.  We can easily understand that Jesus is the Sun that rises in the hearts of Christians to bring us light in our spirits.  If you don’t understand this you are in trouble.  Let me now approach this subject from a different angle to give you some additional perspective on this topic.  Is the church ever told to wear the sun?  Of course we are, but just not in so many words.  You have to look for it and figure it out.

 Rom 13:14  But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

 The Greek word translated as “put on” here means to invest with clothing, to be clothed with.  Interesting, is it not?   Is this what we are talking about, to be clothed with the sun?  This verse in Romans tells us to wear Jesus Christ like a garment or a coat.  If Jesus is the light or the sun, then we would be wearing the correct symbol, right?  Here is another witness to this revelation:

 Gal 3:27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 Again we clearly see a reference of the church being baptized into Christ.  Now if that it is true then according to this verse we also have “put on” Christ.  Put on again means to be clothed with Christ.  The church should be going around wearing the garment of Christ, right here, right now.  I’ll end this blog with just one more reference since I am running pretty long. 

 Rom 13:12  The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

 So we can see another word association being made.  This time the church is told to put on the armor of light.  Since it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where we get our day light from, I think it is clear that we are being told to put on the Sun.  The clear reference in this verse is to the spiritual day or night condition of our hearts.  I have given a number of key scriptures that identify the symbolic Sun as being Jesus Christ.  We can see this truth in many other verses in the Bible that I have not covered yet, but I will end this blog with this question for now:

 What woman in the Bible is clothed with Jesus Christ?

 Just figuring this one symbol out changes the meaning of the woman in chapter 12 of Revelation dramatically.  Perhaps in my next blog I will talk more about the other symbols.  To help you better understand this woman’s true identity.

Why is the little girl singing, “Christmas”?

In the dream…

…I’ve arrived in a pleasant tourist town with a friend.  It’s twilight on a Saturday—the atmosphere is fresh, alive.

We’re here for a big event, but we have to wait.  That’s okay–there’s much to see and do.

We enter a newly renovated building on the edge of downtown and descend a staircase.

Two floors down, we reach a subway platform where many people stand and wait.  A little girl sings, “Christmas…Christmas…Christmas,” in a sweet, hopeful voice.

So why does the little girl sing, “Christmas”?  I don’t know.  But I haven’t really tried to find out.  I just know that she sounds beautiful.

There is no problem in this dream, no conflict.  So why should I bother picking it apart?  Why can’t I just enjoy it?

Well…I can’t help but notice one obvious motif in the dream: I’m waiting, the people on the platform are waiting.  I’m reminded of the old expression, “As slow as Christmas.”

I’ve had to wait so many times for so many things in my waking life.  I’m tired of being patient.  But in the dream, I’m enjoying my wait.  The time of waiting seems to be just as full, just as meaningful, as what I’m waiting for.

So, I do know how to be “in the moment’—at least, I do in the dream.

However, by carrying this dream with me as an active memory, I can remind myself just how alive every single moment can be.  In that way, a memory can actually help me stay in the present.

© 2009, Michael R. Patton
sky rope (subterranean rappel): http://skyrope.wordpress.com
taking new steps: http://mythsteps.wordpress.com

Today’s Mileage:  10                                        Total Trip Mileage: 472

As I ride the bike today we are nearing our next two pilgrimage sites.  One is inland and the other is on an island in the bay south of Fort Myers.  Luckily, there is a boat dock near the first site from which we can “launch off.”  Given my leg speed on the stationary bike, it will be more like a canoe than a Jet Ski ride!

Shoreline:transition between two worlds

Portal to a new world view

We do not have to think of grand plans or read sacred texts to find meaningful life questions.   The places we inhabit, scenes that pass before us and activities we choose to pursue often invoke in us questions about the direction and purpose of life. Yesterday on NPR, a young man noted that camping outside a fast food restaurant for a night in order to win a year’s worth of chicken sandwiches caused him to seriously question what he was doing with his life. I had that experience once as I stood at midnight with my son in a line of “gaming geeks” outside a video game store.

Pathway to new choices

As I surf the web looking for images of our upcoming pilgrimage sites, I came to recognize that certain scenes seem to have particular relevance for me. Immediately I am drawn into them. I ask the question: Where does that lead to? Typically I pause and study the image then decide whether to delve further into the scene.  These scenes are often symbolic of some choice that I am either making or will be faced with making in the future.  These scenes bring about a contemplation of my choices, mundane or life changing.  I call these my contemplative scenes.  They typically involve one or a combination of the following objects: Bridges, pathways or trails, gates or portals, shorelines.

Contemplation on a mountain top

The symbolic significance of these objects is fairly obvious if you view a lifetime as an ongoing journey during which we are presented with a series of choices.  Sometimes we choose to make a life altering change (i.e. getting married, quitting a job), other times we choose a response to a life altering event (i.e. spouse leaving a marriage, losing your job). Viewing the choice as a bridge we have to cross, a fork in the road, a portal to a new life, a transition between worlds helps us take a deep breath and “think about it” before we “just do it.” Viewing our choices this way may keep us from being flippant about them and help us see them in the bigger picture of life. 

Bridge to someplace new

Another important image for me is the contemplation or meditation sites.  These are scenes like: a bench in the shade of a tree, an mountain overlook, a long stretch of shoreline, that invite us to sit for a moment and absorb the peace and beauty of nature before we strike off on our path.

Sometimes we choose to make the best of where we are at, other times we may choose to step through a portal into a new world. Tomorrow’s pilgrimage site visit will highlight our human need to find meaning and to establish paradise as we envision it.  This dream is all the more powerful when it is part of a movement or community effort. More on that tomorrow!

Cross the bridge and follow the stream.

Special thanks to Fran Smyth for the use of a selection of her beautiful nature photographs. 

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?

Helen while her mother is looking for her she is playing with the socks puppets and drawing .

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?

White sock :” I’m queen of everything, I am spot of town, i am queen of the city, and queen of the town ,and queen of the smallest freckly things , and everyone looks me so. She is such a wonderful queen, and not embracing at all, so normal that goes to school,there is nothing to worry about ,except” .

Black sock: Haaa..but i am the queen of evil and I’m aswong, you can not escape my Communist of black magic mothers.

3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock puppets represent.

The white sock represent what Helena want to be and the black sock represent what she is.

4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream?

She feels happy for her father that follows her dream but she doesn’t feel good cause she want to be normal .

5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different from the book.

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?

She is playing with sock puppets

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?}

I´m the queen of everything and watch down, I´m queen of the city and
the queen of the town, and queen of the soul and freaky things, and
everyone  looks me so.. she is such a wonderful queen, and not every
embarrassing it’s all, so when she goes to school has nothing to worry
about, except haa!!!,but i´m the queen of evil and I must warn you,
you  cannot escape my calamities of black magic puppets.
3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock
puppets represent?

The black one the life of Helena and the white one the life that
Helena want to have.

4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream?

That even when is her father dream is not her obligation to make it,
she have others dreams in life.

5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different
from the book.

In the book things are specified more the things that are happening in
the story and in the movie you can understand a little bit better
because there is acts and feelings you can persive.

.

Questions and Answers:

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?

Helena is playing with puppets and when her mum is outside of her room she makes like she is drawing.

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?

White puppet- I´m the queen of everything. And the swat of town. I´m the queen of the city and the queen of towns, and queen of the swords  and the wrickly things. And everyone here misses all, she is such a wonderful queen and not everybody sing it to all. Senile and ghosts go.There’s nothing to worry about. Except..

Black puppet- Ah, but im the queen of evil. And i´m a sword you. You cannot escape my enemies. Of black, magic, markets.

3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock puppets represent?

We think the white puppet represent Helena and the black represent the Mum.

4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream?

She feels angry and furios because she has to participate in the fathers dream, and she is fed-up because she is doing something she doesn´t wants to do.

5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different from the book.

a) In the movie you can see more details specificly and you can see the way she talks and in the mood she is.

Questions:

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?

Helen while her mother is looking for her she is playing with the socks puppets and drawing .

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?

White sock :” I’m queen of everything, I am spot of town, i am queen of the city, and queen of the town,and queen of the smallest freckly things , and everyone looks me so. She is such a wonderful queen, and not embracing at all, so normal that goes to school, there is nothing to worry about, except” .

Black sock: Haaa..but i am the queen of evil and I’m aswong, you can not escape my Communist of black magic mothers.

3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock puppets represent.

The white sock represent what Helena want to be and the black sock represent what she is.

4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream?

She feels happy for her father that follows her dream but she doesn’t feel good cause she want to be normal .

5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different from the book.

BOOK.-Helena is talking.
MOVIE.- The black and white socks “puppets”
BOOK.-Helena is dressed,when her mother told her to go out.
MOVIE.- Helena is not dressed.
BOOK.-No music .
MOVIE.- The put music

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?

3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock puppets represent?

4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream?

5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different from the book.

Answers

1. When Helena’s mother is looking for her, she is drawing.

2. The dialogue is:

White sock: I’m queen of everything, in this part of town. I’m queen of the city, and queen of the towns, and queen of the soul of  freaky things. And everyone here says: Oh she is such a wonderful queen, and not every embarrassing at all senile and ghosts score. There’s nothing to worry about except.

Black sock: Ha! But I am the queen of evil and I must warn you, You cannot escape my calamity of black magic puppets!

3. We think that the white sock represents the good part of Helena, and the black sock represents the bad part of Helena.

4. Helena feels about his father dream that it is to her to become a great circer not good because she says that she wants to have a real life.

5.  1) In the book doesn’t appear how the mother passed over and go to a hospital

2) In the movie the story appears in third person and in the book in first person.

Part 1

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her? she is drawing in a paper..
2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets? White sock: I am queen of everything and spot of down, I am queen of the city and queen of the town and queen of the seal and the small freckly things and everyone here excretes all she is such a wonderful queen and not everyone embarrassing at all its all normal in case of school there is nothing to worry about except.
Black sock: Ah! But I am the queen of evil and I’m assumed you.You cannot escape my canonise black magic mantles.

3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock puppets represent? The mom and Helena.
4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream? She feel awful.
5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different from the book.
The puppets are not on the book.

Part 1

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her? she is drawing in a paper..
2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?

White sock: I’m queen of everything, in this part of town. I’m queen of the city, and queen of the towns, and queen of the soul of freaking things. And everyone here says: Oh she is such a wonderful queen, and not every embarrassing at all senile and ghosts score. There’s nothing to worry about. Except:

Black sock: Ha! But I am the queen of evil and I must warn you, You can’t escape my calamity of black magic muppet!

3. Look at your answers for #1 and #2. Who do you think the sock puppets represent? The mom and Helena.
4. How does Helena feel about living her father’s dream? She feel awful.
5. List all the things you can think of that make the movie different from the book.
The puppets are not on the book

Under the gun. He’s emerging., originally uploaded by julesjulesjules m.

Unless you’ve been here, under the gun, with your blood racing and your skin on fire, you can’t possibly know what an incredible high this really is.

FREE WILL ASTROLOGY
December
© Copyright 2009 Rob Brezsny

ARIES (March 21-April 19): When Carolee Schneeman was a kid, her extravagant adoration of nature earned her the nickname “mad pantheist.” Later, during her career as a visual artist, she described her relationship with the world this way: “I assume the senses crave sources of maximum information, that the eye benefits by exercise, stretch, and expansion towards materials of complexity and substance.” I hope that you’re attracted to that perspective right now, Aries. To be in most productive alignment with the cosmic rhythms, you should be in a state of nearly ecstatic openness, hungry to be stretched — like a mad pantheist.

TAURUS (April 20-May 20): “Dear Rob: Last night my son and I were star-gazing. When we focused on the constellation Cassiopeia, an owl started hooting. Then a brilliant shooting star zipped by as a huge bat flew right over our heads. Was this a bad omen? Bats are creepy — associated with vampires. And in Greek mythology Cassiopeia got divine punishment because she bragged that she and her daughter were more beautiful than the sea god’s daughters. But I don’t know, maybe this blast of odd events was a good omen. Owls are symbols of wisdom and shooting stars are lucky, right? What do you think? Are we blessed or cursed? -Spooked Taurus.” Dear Spooked: The question of whether it’s good or bad luck is irrelevant. Here’s what’s important: You Tauruses are in a phase when the hidden workings of things will be shown to you — the mysterious magic that’s always bubbling below the surface but that is usually not visible.

GEMINI (May 21-June 20): The weeks ahead will be a ripe time to pull off magic reversals. May I suggest that you try to transform dishwater greys into sparkling golds? Or how about recycling the dead energy of a lost cause in such a way as to generate raw fuel for a fresh start? I’m confident, Gemini, that you’ll be able to discover treasure hidden in the trash, and that you’ll find a way to unleash the creative zeal that has been trapped inside polite numbness. Now ponder this riddle, please: Do you think there’s any mystical significance in the fact that the word “stressed” is “desserts” spelled backwards?

CANCER (June 21-July 22): Lately you remind me of the person Robert Hass describes in his poem “Time and Materials”: “someone falling down and getting up and running and falling and getting up.” I’m sending you my compassion for the times you fall down, and my admiration for the times you get up, and my excitement for the times you run. It has probably become clear to you by now that the falling down isn’t a shameful thing to be cursed, but rather is an instrumental part of the learning process that is teaching you marvelous secrets about getting back up and running.

LEO (July 23-Aug. 22): “I burn for no reason, like a lantern in daylight,” writes poet Joseph Lease. I think that’s a succinct formulation of one of your central issues, Leo. Burning for no reason, like a lantern in the daylight, can be the cause of either failure or success for you, depending on subtle differences of emphasis. This is how it can be failure: When you’re mindlessly and wastefully burning through your prodigious reserves of fuel without any concern for the benefits it may provide you and others. This is how it can be success: When you are exuberant and self-disciplined in shining your light and radiating your warmth just because it feels so good and so right and so healthy, and without any thought about whether it’s “useful” to anyone.

VIRGO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): In one of his short poems, John Averill (twitter.com/wiremesa) describes a scene that I think captures the essence of your current astrological omens: “Today is the day of the photo of moonrise over Havana in a book on a shelf in the snowbound cabin.” Here’s a clue about what it means: The snowbound cabin is where you are right now in your life. The moonrise over Havana is where you could be early in 2010. How do you get there from here?

LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): An estuary is a bay where the salt water of a sea mixes with the fresh water of rivers. These days you remind me of such a place. You are two-toned, Libra. You’re dual-purpose and double-tracked. You’re a hybrid blend of the yes and the no, the give and the take, the extravagant and the traditional. And somehow this has been working out pretty well for you. You’re not so much a dysfunctional contradiction as an interesting juxtaposition. You’re not being crushed by a squeeze of opposites so much as you’re getting massaged by the oscillating throbs of complementary influences. Keep doing what you’ve been doing, only more so.

SCORPIO (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): Big shiny egos with flashy tricks may be mucking around in everyone’s business, calling narcissistic attention to themselves as they pretend to do noble deeds. Meanwhile, I hope you’ll be doing the hard, detailed work that must be done to serve the greater good — quietly and unpretentiously improving people’s lives without demanding major tribute. That approach will stir up some sleek, silky karma that will come in handy when you undertake the building of your masterpiece in 2010.

SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21): “Dear Rob: I love to be proven wrong. That’s not an ironic statement. I actually get excited and feel creative when I acquire new information that shows me I’ve been operating under a misunderstanding. One of my very favorite life moments occurs when I am convincingly liberated from a negative opinion I’ve been harboring about someone. As you can tell, I’m quite proud of this quality. The way I see it, emotional wealth and psychological health involve having so much self-respect that I don’t need to be right all the time. -Sagittarian Freedom Fighter.” Dear Freedom Fighter: Thanks for your testimony. The capacity you described is one that many Sagittarians will be poised to expand in 2010. And this is an excellent time for them to start getting the hang of it.

CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): In an early version of the tale of Pinocchio, friendly woodpeckers chiseled his nose back to its original size after it had grown enormous from his incorrigible lying. From a metaphorical perspective, Capricorn, a comparable development may soon occur in your own life. A benevolent (if somewhat rough) intervention akin to the woodpeckers’ assistance will shrink an overgrown, top-heavy part of your attitude, allowing you to proceed to the next chapter of your story with streamlined grace.

AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): “There is light enough for those who wish to see,” wrote French philosopher Blaise Pascal, “and darkness enough for those of the opposite disposition.” I’m hoping you will align yourself with the first group in the coming weeks, Aquarius. More than ever before, what you choose to focus on will come rushing in to meet you, touch you, teach you, and prompt you to respond. Even if all the smart people you know seem to be drunk on the darkness, I encourage you to be a brave rebel who insists on equal time for the light.

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20): White dwarfs are small and extremely dense stars. They’re typically no bigger than the Earth but as heavy as the sun. You currently have a resemblance to one of those concentrated balls of pure intensity. I have rarely seen you offering so much bang for the buck. You are as flavorful as chocolate mousse, as piercing as the scent of eucalyptus, as lustrous as a fireworks display on a moonless night. Personally, I’m quite attracted to your saucy and zesty emanations, and I think most people with strong egos will be. But some underachievers with lower self-esteem may regard you as being more like astringent medicine. My advice: Gravitate toward those who like you to be powerful.

Homework: Go to YouTube and watch me give some pep talks and crazed lectures. Start here: http://tinyurl.com/lyr99n

CLICK HERE to learn more about Rob Brezsny’s “Free Will Astrology.”

CLICK HERE to subscribe to Rob Brezsny’s newsletter.

CLICK HERE to learn more about Rob Brezsny’s book, Pronoia is the Antidote for Paranoia, Revised and Expanded.

Michio Kaku is considered a radical among his mainstream peers. He has written several books that are at the ‘fringe’ of physics; “Physics of the Impossible“, “Parallel Worlds” and “Hyperspace“  are, but a few of his publications that explore extreme science.

Starting today, Dr. Kaku starts a new television show on the Science Channel called “Sci-Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible” in which he discusses subjects that would’ve been considered “tinfoil hat” a decade ago:

Explore the world of the seemingly impossible with the all-new series SCI FI SCIENCE. Hosted by internationally-renowned physicist and co-founder of string field theory, Dr. Michio Kaku, this series poses the idea that science fiction may not be so far from science fact. Examine topics that currently seem so far out… of the realm of possibility, such as invisibility cloaks, teleportation, time travel and more.

Is he a self promoter? Sure. He has to be in order to get the general public interested in science. Especially hard to understand esoteric physics.

Clips of Kaku’s show on the Science Channel

___

UFO ‘disclosure’ from the US government has been a long sought after endeavor by the likes of Steven Greer, Alfred Webre and Michael Salla for decades. Recently, disclosure was supposed to happen around Thanksgiving.

But of course, it never happened.

Fortean/symbologist Christopher Knowles has a take on ‘disclosure’ that is finding more fans among the more serious students on the UFO subject; ‘ultra’ or as Mac Tonnies observed, ‘crypto-terrestrials’:

Well, another ‘disclosure event’ has come and gone. I haven’t really been keeping track of how many there have been, but it seems as long as I’ve been paying attention to the UFO phenomena people have been making remarkable predictions of upcoming disclosures that have yet to come to pass. I do remember that expectation was running very high in the mid-90s, and UFOs were everywhere in the media, but…nothing. I wasn’t plugged into the pre-Internet UFO community per se, but I know there were a number of predictions (made by people like Jeanne Dixon and Phyllis Schlemmer) that some kind of massive UFO landing was due in the late 70s and nothing came of that either, obviously.

Anyone who approaches the UFO phenomena with an open mind comes to realize that whatever it is, it’s a much deeper, much, much older and much more prevalent reality than what the mainstream media- at least in certain western nations- would ever have us believe. It’s only natural then to assume that people in government are aware of it, have access to greater knowledge about it than you or I, and are intentionally keeping it all from us. But there’s also the possibility that the government knows about the phenomenon but also knows there’s nothing it can do about it, which some of the evidence speaks to as well. And governments generally don’t like to admit their impotence in the face of a superior power.
[...]

If these UFOs and aliens aren’t simply some kind of perpetual human delusion (which I’m not necessarily discounting), than I’ve personally never seen any evidence to dissuade me from the ‘ultraterrestrial hypothesis’- that we’re dealing with some kind of parallel reality to our own. Those massive interstellar distances might not be daunting in sci-fi but are quite a bit more so in sci-fact. The sheer scale of sightings and the millennia over which they’ve taken place tends to mitigate against ETs jetting back and forth from Sirius or the Pleiades, at least in my opinion. Which by default bolsters the UT hypothesis, if one is so inclined.

I’m partial to the Igigi theory myself, since all of the sightings and anecdotes we’ve heard strike me as some kind of monitoring/surveillance. Abductions/contact/experience reports speak less to the old “take me to your leader” trope one might expect of extrasolar visitors, and more a kind of “let’s keep an eye on the Project” kind of behavior you’d expect of some stay-behind monitors. It sounds cold, but it all strikes me as the kind of contact that human scientists have with fauna in the wild, more than any kind of preparation for a massive landing at the UN.

I’ve studied the UFO phenomenon on and off for over thirty years and have often wondered why the ‘aliens’ are almost always ‘humanoid’ in structure, especially when current theories of exo-biology claims since intelligence is an ‘accident’, other intelligent creatures in the Universe would just as soon look like vacuum cleaners?

Like everyone else, I just have an opinion and chances are, we’ll never know the complete truth.

The Secret Sun: The Exegesis: Disclosure and Its Discontents

From Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky, “The Thirteenth Category of Reason,” Memories of the Future [1927], trans. Joanne Turnbull (NYRB Classics, 2009) 125-26 (125-32; see my Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky’s Memories of the Future), an example of Russian early modern neo-Kantianism à la Bely, Bulgakov, et al., an excerpt about an old—and, as it turns out, thanatophatic—gravedigger who apparently occasions the phantasmagoric miscellany that is Memories:

[H]e is clearly out of his head and lives inside an apperceptive tangle whose knots Kant himself could not untie. For you see, all of those who are off (I won’t look for another definition) or, rather, out of their heads, evicted, so to speak, from all twelve Kantian categories of reason, must naturally seek refuge in a thirteenth category, a sort of logical lean-to slouched against objective obligatory thinking. Given that this thirteenth category of reason is where we entertain, in essence, all our figments and alogisms, the old gravedigger may be useful to my projected cycle of “fanatastic” stories.

So then, I propose a smoke, and he reaches up a sweaty hand for a cigarette; I squat down, light to light—and the thirteenth category of reason throws wide for me its secret door.

The categories of Kant, viz., “the coloured spectacles of the mind” through which we see the world, as Bertrand Russell put it:

1. Quantity: Unity, Plurality, Totality
2. Quality: Reality, Negation, Limitation
3. Relation: Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident), Causality and Dependence (cause and effect), Community (reciprocity)
4. Modality: Possibility, Existence, Necessity

Russell also said: “we must know that everybody has spectacles of the same kind and that the colour of the spectacles never changes. Kant did not deign to tell us how he knew this.” Krzhizhanovsky either didn’t believe we all saw likewise or believed there was something we caught in true colour out of the corner of our eye.

For some, thirteen is a lucky number . . .

“La Mort,” a.k.a. sparagmos, Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει [Panta chōrei kai ouden menei], i.e. “nothing endures but change” (Heraclitus)

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?                                                                                          While Helena’s mother is looking for her, she is makiing a puppet show with her socks.

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?                                                                               White sock: I’m queen of everything,  in spuft town, I´m queen of the city, and queen of the towns, and queen of the small frickly things and everyone that looks at me says ooh!! she’s such a wonderful queen and not every embaresing its all to several guyes in this sculen, there is nothing to worrie about except…..                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Black sock: haaa but I am the queen of evil and I’m a swor you, you can not escape my kind news of black magic muppets!

1. What is Helena doing while her mother is looking for her?                                                                                          While Helena’s mother is looking for her, she is makiing a puppet show with her socks.

2. What is the dialogue for the first scene with the sock puppets?                                                                               White sock: I’m queen of everything,  in spuft town, I´m queen of the city, and queen of the towns, and queen of the small frickly things and everyone that looks at me says ooh!! she’s such a wonderful queen and not every embaresing its all to several guyes in this sculen, there is nothing to worrie about except…..                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Black sock: haaa but I am the queen of evil and I’m a swor you, you can not escape my kind news of black magic muppets!

1. List 3 elements that tell you this part of the story is taking place in a dream.

1.The violinist  that becomes a rock, and when Helena touch him it become ashes.

2.The strange cat that eats the books.

3.The books that when they shout at them they fly.

2. What is the male character’s name?

Valentine.

3. List at least 3 things you associate with his name.

Romance, love, magic, and some kind of danger.

4. Look at your answers for 2 and 3. What might the male character be a symbol of?

The love relationships between a girl and a boy, the boyfriend that Helena didn´t have, and maybe she wanted one.

5. What does the male character say you need to know if you’re happy or sad?

He  told Helena ¨How do you know if you are happy or sad without a mask¨. Like if wearing a mask will show your emotions.

Tetro | Francis Ford Coppola, 2009

The word Tetro, in Francis Ford Coppola’s non-native Italian, means dark, bleak, sombre. Words that are reflected, perhaps somewhat unintentionally, in the director’s new titular character: the long-faced Angelo “Tetro” Tetrocini, played by Vincent Gallo. Both as an original script – Coppola’s first since 1974’s celebrated The Conversation – and as a character, Tetro’s reputation precedes itself. For the director, this must only exist as a reminder of tougher times, but times when the film world held its breath whenever he entered the room. Things have gotten easier in recent decades for the portly Detroit native, who has carved out quite a comfortable position for himself  producing  movies under his own American Zoetrope banner, and without the oppressive studio involvement that so plagued some of his more famous titles. The difference being that these days there seem to be fewer people left in the room who are willing to give him the time of day. For Vincent Gallo, on the other hand, Tetro’s towering reputation conjured up by Coppola’s writing seems only to work as a stimulant, inspiring him to the kind of glint-in-the-eye performance we’ve seen before in Buffalo ‘66. Indeed, Tetro is one cagey and confused individual, though less feral than Gallo’s memorable Billy Brown character, despite producing the same trademark New York whine. His whine here helps give the impression of a lost rich kid, or alternatively, as his long-suffering partner Miranda (Maribel Verdú) puts it: “like a genius, but without enough accomplishments…” The highlight of Tetro, however, comes not in its titular character, nor in the aged pen that brought him to the screen, but in a newcomer called Alden Ehrenreich whose infectious performance as Bennie, Tetro’s younger brother and the film’s protagonist, is quite wonderful. He is an actor who was apparently discovered by Steven Spielberg, and  one who I expect to see a lot more of in the future.

Tetro is a story of two estranged brothers who know little of one another but who share a certain common hatred towards their family – more importantly their father – and perhaps, on top of that, some kind of common artistic gift. This main premise helps evoke strong memories of Coppola’s Rumble Fish, which not only centered on a story between two brothers but also helped unearth no small amount of young acting talent in the likes of Matt Dillon, Diane Lane, and Nicolas Cage. As with Rumble Fish, Tetro is shot in sumptuous black and white with a dash of consciously placed colour, in this case to signify those scenes in the film that depict the past – just as we view our own memories in colour, whether they be in the form of photographs or home videos. The other colour comes in the form of a handful of over-exuberant fringe characters, who manage, along with the film’s theatrical encounters, heightened emotional drama, and underlying humour, to give Tetro the sense of a stage play or theatre piece. That is without mentioning the abundance of spot-lights in the film, a motif of sorts: those that Tetro runs every week at the local theatre club,  and those that eventually come to symbolise the car headlights of his pained past. While a neater effort than Coppola’s last film, Tetro suffers once again from the director trying to do too much. Not only does he not know when to stop, but Coppola also manages to take a warm, humble idea – a gentle stroll through downtown Buenos Aires – and turns it into a work of grand scale that lacks all kinds of foundation. An epic family drama that almost immediately spins out of the director’s control, resulting in a deeply flawed third act that does nothing but drag. While it’s easy enough to appreciate Coppola’s ambition here, I don’t imagine Tetro will receive much fanfare when it’s released stateside in the near future, and is more likely simply to be remembered as the film that introduced us to a fresh-faced future star.

Our Rating:

Mohn Light

Freiheit bedeutet Verantwortlichkeit;

das ist der Grund, warum sich die meisten Menschen vor ihr fürchten.

George Bernard Shaw

*