Analyzing Writing

Tuning into written works is one of the best ways to sharpen vision.  There are constant opportunities to practice because we read all the time.  At the same time, it's an activity that has a high ceiling in terms of how far you can push your vision. 

​

Three Level Model

​​

• Below is the model I use when analyzing writing by breaking it into three levels.  Consider it a rough sketch.  Maybe you can come up with a better one.  The exact differences between the levels are debatable.
   

  • Level 1:  Words and phrasing. Includes things like word choice, phrasing, syntax, use of metaphors.
     

    •    This level is at the overlap of the etheric and astral in terms of subtle bodies; it's just as much etheric as it is astral.  Recall how harmonious Moon-Mercury aspects can indicate good writing skills.
       

  • Level 2:  The thoughtforms.  These are the actual ideas the writer is trying to express, and how they are organized.   
     

  • Level 3: ​ The astral or noetic space that the writer is coming from.  Where the writer is getting his or her inspiration.  
     

• The  model is based on emanations.  Each level is more packed than the previous one.  You want to see the writing as extended along the chain of emanations.
   

• The levels are independent of another.  It's possible for someone to write eloquently with beautiful words and phrasing (level 1), but not have anything interesting to say (level 2).  Or, as is the case with many spiritual teachers, the quality of writing is mediocre (level 1) and they may not even have any profound ideas (level 2), but the space they are writing from is full of connection and light (level 3) and inspires regardless.
   

• Since the model roughly tracks the chain of emanation, the higher the level, the more generic it is.  That is, the higher the level, the less specific to writing.  Level 1 is the most specific to the craft of writing, level 2 less so and level 3, the ability to carry an astral space, applies to all sorts of media, like film, oratory, immersive computer games and music.  So applying this model to writing should improve your mapping skills of astral spaces 

​​

Level 1 (Words and Phrasing)
​

• Some words just fit better than others for what you are trying to express, even if they have identical meaning.  Good writers and speakers have a sense for this.  Most poetry is very dependent on this skill.  
   

• Part of the feel of a word is how it sounds.   Like music, this is a combination of physical and etheric qualities. Some examples:
   

  • 'Pulchritude'.  (Latin) It means beauty, but you'd never guess from the sound of the word.  It's just ugly.  It does not evoke the feeling you want in the etheric of the reader, unless you are trying to be ironic.  (Its opposite, 'turpitude', fits its meaning better.)
     

  • 'Celestial'. (Latin)  Technically, it means having to do with the sky or heavens.  But it feels superastral and elevated.  So when you talk about a celestial connection, the sound flows harmoniously with the meaning.
     

  • 'Orthogonal'.  (Greek).  Means at right angles.  A very specific definition used mostly in math.  Notice how the word itself sounds careful and precise.
     

• Another component of the feel of the word is where it fits in the meme.  Words do not exist in isolation; their meaning depends on how other words in the same language are used at a specific point in time and place.  Picture the meme as an astral cloud surrounding the word that is the greater web of meanings.  
   

  • X's law says that the more a word is used, the shorter it is or the more likely there is to be an acronym. 
     

  • Corporate or consultant jargon is pretty easy to feel.  "Synergy", "leverage", "get up to speed", "thought leader", "win/win", "value creation", "touch base".   As well as sports metaphors like "block and tackle", "caught offsides".  It's not just about the definitions but how certain words and phrases are used.
     

  • American hiphop and R&B culture.
     

  • Military.  Words that are deliberately misleading.  "Collateral damage" vs. the more truthful "civilian killings".  
     

  • Spiritual schools.
     

• Rhythm is also very important in terms of Level 1.  Good speakers and writers have a natural sense of rhythm with words.  Elements of rhythm includes cadence and the right ratio of words to the thoughtform being expressed.  
     

• Repetition includes syntactic repetition (as discussed in Aristotle) or repeating the same sentence structure as well as semantic repetition where you repeat the same thoughtform while using different words or phrasing to express it.  Repetition has a particular effect on the etheric.
   

• Examples to consider.
   

  • Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech.
     

    • He says: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
       

    • He could have said I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.
       

    • The meaning is identical, but the first variation is more powerful. He creates suspense by first showing what he does not want, which puts more weight on his main point.  
       

  • From Lincoln's second inaugaral address.
     

    • Yet, if God wills that it [the war] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
      
      The structure of the sentence reinforces the idea of evil and injustice of slavery that is he emphasizing.  For example, the way he stacks the two clauses begin with “until” on each other (as well as their evocative imagery) allows a powerful build-up of the space he’s trying to convey.  And the last clause has its own rhythmic momentum from the preceding ones, giving the feeling of natural inevitability to the flow of the sentence which mirrors the idea of divine retribution.
      ​

Level 2 (Expression of Thoughtforms)
 

• Remember that thoughtforms can be unpacked to varying degrees.  Level 2 refers to the level where you organize and present your ideas.
   

• People who are skilled at Level 2 are interesting to read.   They make clear and cogent points, even if they don't write in a particularly beautiful style.  Often by reading their writings your own thinking becomes clarified and alive, even if you disagree with their arguments.
   

•  Recall that there are usually many perspectives from which to regard a thoughtform, particularly if it is a rich one.  The more superastral facility you have, the more vantage points and perspectives you can play with in terms of expressing a thoughtform.  Good writers bring interesting angles to familiar ideas because they have a certain mastery over the thoughtform they are trying to express.  
   

  • Opening sentence from Richard Dawkins in Unweaving the Rainbow:  
    
    We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.
    
    With this provocative statement, Dawkins brings an unusual perspective on the theory of evolution (that the possible genetic combinations of people who have never been born far exceed the combinations of those who have been).  More importantly for our purposes, it takes a certain superastral facility with the thoughtform that allows him to see it this way.   You want to tune into this superastral facility or function of the writer.
     

• It's not the choice of words here that it's important but the way and the angle from which the writer is expressing his or her ideas.

​

Level 3 (Underlying Astral Space)

​

• Level 3 has to do with the astral space that the writer is writing from and his or her skill at passing it.  You could think of it as the source, or the inspiration.  It is at a very packed level of manifestation and in certain cases can be an archetypal space.  The writer usually is not directly aware of the space itself unless he or she has some esoteric training.  
   

• Writers who are strong at this level can pass the space of their inspiration even if they are not great writers in a technical sense (levels 1 and 2).  Still, the best writers are skilled at all three levels; in that case the writing is a clear, transparent expression of and conduit to the source.
   

  • Many spiritual teachers aren't particularly eloquent or great with words, but their lectures and writings still pass a very pure, connected space.  
     

• When you try to tune in at level 3, read the words slowly a couple of times.  Don't actively focus on the words or the meaning; what you want do is let the processing of the information occur in the background as you receive the astral space behind the words.  With practice you don't even need to really the read the words to catch the astral space that the writer is coming from.  You just open the pages, or visit the website, and the space hits you.  You can deepen the space by actually reading the words, of course.
   

• By tuning in at this level you can also gain insights into the author.  This could be a sense of their personality, their subtle bodies, and, in certain cases, even the time and physical space they were writing from.  ​
   

• Examples:
   

  • Robert Nozick, from The Examined Life:
    
    "Some...have claimed that happiness is the only important thing about life; all that should matter to a person- they say- is being happy; the sole standard for assessing a life is the amount or quantity of happiness it contains.  It is ironic that making this exclusive claim for happiness distorts the flavor of what happy moments are like.  For in these moments, almost everything seems wonderful: the way the sun shines, the way that person looks, the way water glistens on the river, the way the dogs play (yet not the way the murderer kills).  This openness of happiness, its generosity of spirit and width of appreciation, gets warped and constricted by the claim - pretending to be its greatest friend- that only happiness matters, nothing else."
     
    • You can hear, and even feel, the extraordinary care with which Nozick selects his words and meaning.  He is a methodical thinker who considers all angles and viewpoints.   His thinking has a certain texture to it: clear, capable of seeing nuance, applying just the right amount of pressure to make a point forcefully and gracefully.  And where he writes from, to me, is an extremely clear and refined noetic space with a genuine delight and wonder at the beauty of high ideas.
       
    • Note that I'm not referring to Nozick's writing style, although much of what I wrote could describe that as well.  Rather, I'm talking about his subtle bodies that are involved in thinking and writing, how they feel, the spaces they carry and transfer.
      
       
  • Howard Bloom, The Global Brain:
    ​​​​
    "Ancient stars in their death throes spat out atoms like iron which this universe had never known.  The novel tidbits of debris were sucked by infant suns which, in turn, created yet more atoms when their race was run.  Now the iron of old nova coughings vivifies the redness of our blood...If stars step constantly upward, why should the global interlace of humans, microbes, plants and animals not move upward steadily as well?  The horizons toward which we can soar are within us, anxious to break free, to emerge from our imaginings, then to beckon us forward into fresh realities.  We have a mission to create, for we are evolution incarnate.  We are self-awareness, her frontal lobes and fingertips.  We are second-generation star stuff come alive. We are parts of something 3.5 billion years old, but pubertal in cosmic time.  We are neurons of this planet's interspecies mind."
     

    • Again, don't focus on the writing style but on the feel of Bloom's mind.  The feel is Jupiterian and expansive.  He thinks in terms of grand possibilities and visions.  Less careful than Nozick, but also more willing to take leaps.   On a more subtle level, there's also a sensuality to Bloom's way of processing information.  You can feel how the process of thinking and writing is a sensual experience for him, something pulsing, visceral and creative in an organic way, not a dry, airy experience.  
       

• I've been discussing nonfiction so far, but level 3 is ​​just as important in fiction.  The ability to create and pass a rich world is far important to the ability of a work of fiction to capture the imagination than technical writing ability.  
   

  • The Harry Potter books are a good example.  J.K. Rowling is A mediocre writer in terms of technical ability, but the world of Hogwarts is so rich and absorbing that it feel real.  
     

    • Interesting description of how Rowling created the Harry Potter stories.  Note how the sudden inspiration, and then how much time and energy she spent fleshing out the world.   Link
       

  • Try novels of different eras.  Jane Austen novels, for example, are really good at conveying the flavor of Victorian England, the space of the characters that she writes. 
     

  • As your sensitivity increases, your tastes in literature might change.  Many novels have dark, gray or plain disturbing spaces.  Some are quite jarring. 
     

  • A few examples from my own experience.
     

    • I tried making it through Stephen King's It,  but found the space too revolting.   
       

    • R. Scott Bakker's The Prince of Nothing fantasy series is well-written from a level 1 and 2 perspective, but the space had a bleak, doomed quality to it; like bleached bones in the desert.
       

    • Frank Herbert, author of the Dune series, created some pretty amazing worlds.  He did not flesh these out in their entirety, instead he generally just showed scenes.  (Incidentally, he has a Mercury-Uranus-Pluto grand trine; pretty good one to have for a science fiction author).  By comparison, the works of his son which are in the same universe are flat and lifeless, even though they are more conventional in terms of plot.
       

    • Read an Aldous Huxley novel.  Even Brave New World.  You can just feel on an energetic level his skill and love of the English language.  I don't even think it's deliberate; it's just so ingrained in him that he can't help himself. 
       

  • Open question: how is the astral space behind a fictional world affected by the number of readers, especially over time?  Does it build?  Is the vividness of, say, the Harry Potter universe or the Lord of the Rings universe affected by how popular they are?  ​​​
     

  • Jung did not have a deep esoteric model, but the idea of the 'collective unconscious' and recurring archetypal themes in myths and legends may well point to something real in terms of astral spaces.  
    
    
    ​​

​