Skip to content


“genre” isn’t so much a rigid set of requirements to me nowadays, as much as it is a type of road that leads towards a place; a springboard with which to express a feeling, or create an experience that has roots in a previous practice.
as time goes on and genres expand into more genres, it gets harder to identify more experimental pieces within strict rulesets, even if the base is as “pure” as it gets.
of course, as human beings and creators, i feel that we should be striving less for mechanical purity and rigidness, and becoming more in-tune with the natural fluidity of life and inventing ways to express that fluidity in our work. the “genre” is a means, not an end.



natasha dawn

from august 14th 2016

The (Un)Realized

the REALIZED (Possible) can only be that which is proven, finished, and thus, can only repeat fragments of itself in an endless, repetitive pattern

the UNREALIZED (Impossible) is the unproven, ever-evading a finality, always producing a new possibility, and thus, is forever un-repetitive

Assorted Writings on Values Within THE AUTONOMOUS SPACE: SELF / SELVES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“SELF” is our God(dess),

our lake which splits into rivers


much like the deities are the container of the spirit,

the “SELF” is a container for what we call “SELVES ( OF / ) SELF”,

that we exist as one,

and also as many.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

when we are born, a SELF is born with us

this SELF encounters experience, and through experience, births new SELVES

self within SELF; states within SELF

this process never ends until we do;

for to be human, to mirror our prophetic urges, our desire to understand life,

is to create new SELVES,

construct realities,

fully explore the network(s) of the SELF.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

to understand the multiplicity, the fluidity of the SELF / SELVES

and achieve peace within the UNITARY SELF,

that relieving warmth of life

that which we all chase

never knowing if we will find it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

fluidity [s]

The phrase πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rhei) “everything flows”[35] either was spoken by Heraclitus or survived as a quotation of his. This famous aphorism used to characterize Heraclitus’ thought comes from Simplicius,[36] a neoplatonist, and from Plato’s Cratylus. The word rhei (cf. rheology) is the Greek word for “to stream”, and is etymologically related to Rhea according to Plato’s Cratylus.[37]

The philosophy of Heraclitus is summed up in his cryptic utterance:[38]

ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ.
Potamoisi toisin autoisin embainousin, hetera kai hetera hudata epirrei
“Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers.”

The quote from Heraclitus appears in Plato‘s Cratylus twice; in 401d as:[39]

τὰ ὄντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καὶ μένειν οὐδέν
Ta onta ienai te panta kai menein ouden
“All entities move and nothing remains still”

and in 402a[40]

“πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει” καὶ “δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης”
Panta chōrei kai ouden menei kai dis es ton auton potamon ouk an embaies
“Everything changes and nothing remains still … and … you cannot step twice into the same stream”[41]

Instead of “flow” Plato uses chōrei, “to change place” (χῶρος chōros).

The assertions of flow are coupled in many fragments with the enigmatic river image:[42]

Ποταμοῖς τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμβαίνομέν τε καὶ οὐκ ἐμβαίνομεν, εἶμέν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶμεν.
“We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.”

Compare with the Latin adages Omnia mutantur and Tempora mutantur (8 CE) and the Japanese tale Hōjōki, (1200 CE) which contains the same image of the changing river, and the central Buddhist doctrine of impermanence.

However, the German classicist and philosopher Karl-Martin Dietz interprets this fragment as an indication by Heraclitus, for the world as a steady constant: “You will not find anything, in which the river remains constant. … Just the fact, that there is a particular river bed, that there is a source and a estuary etc. is something, that stays identical. And this is … the concept of a river”[43]

God(dess) Excelsia

S/he —— — — origin of all

Her form(s), [… … …] building blocks —- human


The —— —- — ? —- … “male” and “female”

S/he exists as th- source

S/he connect- —— their Selves

S/he is able to shape her form as s/he wishes

S/he —— humans desire (to be) …

–r without her we would never


Mother Excelsia watches from above THE UNITARY SPACE

[Mother Excelsia] laughs with us

[Moth– -xx-ls-a] cries with us

[M-th-ra- -xyls-ua] hurts with us

[M–h– —–xia] ——– — – us

Even i- —- not able to see her

—Or feel him

This impossible being…

radiates so much warmth…

Our desire —- to be (…)

———- make o– fantasies real—

To understand ourselves

To -nd-rst–d — worlds

It ———- God(dess) who pulls our spirits

Perhaps she wishes to meet us?


But ——– a barrier

What is the barrier?

It is ———- .

——- —— —- —– ?




—–end ———–

——————————-discovery————– (self)….

Hartshorne’s Principle of Dual Transcendence [s]

Hartshorne’s neoclassical theology is governed by his “principle of
dual transcendence” (OOTM, 44). In contrast with dual transcendence,
classical theism offers a half-truth—a single transcendence. In Omnipotence
and Other Theological Mistakes (1984), Hartshorne identifies “Six
Common Mistakes About God” (chapter 1) which, taken together,
describe classical theism. Classical theism is characterized by mistaken
conceptions of (1) divine perfection, (2) divine omnipotence, (3) divine
omniscience, and (4) divine sympathy, plus mistakes about (5) human
immortality and (6) human reception of divine revelation.

(1) The classical conception of divine perfection is maximally antisocial
in holding a perfect God must be wholly immutable and nonrelative
in every respect. For neoclassical theism, God is the surrelative
“subject of all change” (MVG, 251). Whereas classical theism affirms
divine immutability and denies divine change, neoclassical theism
affirms both, with change including immutable aspects.
(2) The classical conception of divine omnipotence errs in holding
that God is wholly determinative of all actual events. Such talk is nonsense,
void of coherent meaning. Neoclassical metaphysics holds that
nothing is wholly determinative of anything else. For neoclassical theology,
omnipotence means God is partly determinative of all actual
events, and partly determined by all actual events; where, by contrast,
less powerful entities are partly determinative of some actual events,
and partly determined by some actual events.
(3) The classical conception of divine omniscience wrongly holds
that whatever happens must have been eternally known as wholly
predetermined in every respect by God. Neoclassical theology holds
that omniscience means all-knowing, and knowing all things as they
really are means knowing the actually determined as actually determined
and knowing the not yet fully determined (not yet actual) as not
yet fully determined. Classical talk of knowing the partly indeterminate
as already wholly determined is logical nonsense.
(4) The classical conception of divine goodness wrongly holds that
God is impassible or unsympathetic, an “unmoved mover” (Aristotle)
who does not suffer. Rather than conceiving of God as an unmoved
mover, neoclassical theology conceives of God as unsurpassably
moved (and unsurpassably moving). Neoclassical theology holds that
divine goodness includes supreme and unsurpassable sympathy. The
all-inclusive one experiences every experience, suffering every pain
and joy fully.
(5) Classical theism frequently errs in conceiving of human immortality
as “a career after death” (OOTM, 4).19 Instead of the classical
view of “subjective immortality” as a never-ending, after-death career,
Hartshorne holds to a Whiteheadian doctrine of “objective immortality”
according to which “an entire career, with all its concrete values,
is an imperishable possession of deity” (OOTM, 40).20
(6) Classical theism is marked by an erroneous conception of infallible
special revelation (OOTM, 5). Logically, divinely inspired humans
cannot produce wholly infallible documents or doctrines because any
synthesis of the wholly infallible and the partly fallible must yield a
partly fallible product.
By emphasizing necessary divine absolutes and denying or ignoring
divine relativity, the single transcendence of classical theism produces
a supremely anti-social (nonrelative) conception of God—God
as a wholly other, immutable, unmoved mover. By contrast, the dual
transcendence of neoclassical theism yields a supremely social-relational
conception of God. Hartshorne says, “Maximizing relativity as
well as absoluteness in God [dual transcendence] enables us to conceive
him as a supreme person” (DR, 142). Logical metaphysical analysis
confirms the religious idea of God as the supremely relative person.

Mothership Connections


it is not to be free from pain


it is an acknowledging of all pain,

thus connecting deeper with the self,

able to experience and understand all elements of the human,

your Self becoming one with every Self,

becoming one with the world,

becoming one with all,

thus, finding peace

and utopia.



CAPITALISM vs. THE UNITARY SPACE – excerpt I: Introduction to the Concept of The Capital Wall

capitalism is a concept that exists far away from the UNITARY SPACE; an impossibility of thoughtless and catastrophic potential, made real.

capitalism — a weapon forged by a humanity that closed their gates of access to the AUTONOMOUS SPACE — thought no longer controlled by Thought — and gave their bodies and souls to the PANOPTIC SPACE.

in this sense, the goal of capitalism is to completely deny roads of access to the UNITARY SPACE through way of suppressing the AUTONOMOUS SPACE; to turn the three lands of humanity…


…into a manipulable corruption, by destroying the AUTONOMOUS; or perhaps, more like building a WALL around it, to suppress its access into humanity. this construction, known here as THE CAPITAL WALL, effectively weakens — eventually completely drains — the power of the individual’s AUTONOMOUS SPACE, making it more and more difficult to access the cycles of deep thought that lie within. eventually, after the full construction of the CAPITAL WALL, the maximums of human potential effectively cease to exist, leaving only DESTRUCTION.

and with the corruption of the three spaces of humanity, they take a new, far more damning form;


with no access to the modes of thought and expression, with no way to express ideas in an unfiltered and True manner, the human being falls into oversaturation of the PANOPTIC SPACE — a reliance and a dependence on the physical.

the fluidity and freedom of the human experience, the natural desire to connect with nature, becomes a rigid and commodified set of rules;

the invention of money and finance;

the use of harmful, environment-altering fuels;

the social construction of race;


the corruption of art as marketing;

the gender binary;


war and destruction as the human condition;

formalized government;


soullessly regurgitated, repeated forever — we cannot access anything deeper than this, because we are deflected time and time again by THE CAPITAL WALL.

without the balance between the PANOPTIC and the AUTONOMOUS, there is only raw destruction; Creation without Thought, Art without Ideas, Cultures without Humanity… and so on.
it is simply not complete and inherently destructive.

in this process, the UNITARY SPACE ceases to exist, as the UNITARY SPACE cannot exist without both the PANOPTIC and the AUTONOMOUS. and in this way, both internal and external human potential is brought to a core limit, and all who exceed that limit are destroyed.


so the UNITARY SPACE, the impossible liminal space where humans can find transcendental and metaphysical truths and find utopia, becomes the DESTRUCTIVE SPACE, where everything is destroyed in small parts that lead to a huge and massive destruction of all human life and the decimation of our planet.
it is an illusion of higher power brought only by recklessness. and without some kind of intervention, it will be our end.

Creative Process and Social Relations in the Metaphysics of Nature [s]

Whitehead on Creative Process

In Process and Reality (1929), Whitehead describes his method:
The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from
the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative
generalization; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered
acute by rational interpretation. (PR, 5)
Whitehead starts by observing experience. Whitehead finds that every
occasion of experience is partly (largely) determined by previous occasions
of experience, and partly determined by the experiencing self.
Whitehead sees the process of occasions of experience contributing to
subsequent occasions of experience as a creative process wherein each
present occasion makes its own novel contribution to other future occasions.
Then, by imaginative generalization, Whitehead hypothesizes that
all reality consists of actual occasions experiencing inheritances from the

past in partly self-chosen (self-creative) ways, thereby making somewhat
novel-creative contributions to future occasions of experience.

In each
actual occasion of experience, “The many become one, and are increased
by one” (PR, 21). Whitehead holds that “creativity” is an ultimate category—“
the universal of universals” (PR, 1)—applicable to every actual
occasion in some measure, however slight. Although Whitehead’s own
designation for his philsophy was “philosophy of organism” (PR, 18), his
philosophy came to be called “process” because it emphasized the necessarily
creative “process of becoming” (PR, 24, 29).
Relative to “process,” Whitehead’s designation has the advantage
of more nearly explicating a metaphysical connection between reality
and experience. Individual organisms are experiencing entities. They
feel and interact with others. They are social beings in the creative
process of contributing to other becomings.

Thus, an organic conception
of reality denies the mechanical view of nature as mostly bits and
particles of inert matter.

Mothership Connections

Modernity in Postmodern and Black Atlantic Views [s]

Slavery is not a major theme in any of the essays in Spirituality and
Society, and therefore it does not appear in the index. But there is an
important mention of slavery where Griffin identifies it as one of the
“disastrous” and “destructive consequences” of modern dualistic thinking
about “the nature of nature” (SSPV, 146).

Griffin says that dualism’s
materialistic view of nature” was “a major cause of colonization
(including neocolonization), mass enslavement, and war in modern
times,” and that dualistic ideas were used “to justify the enslavement
and even decimation of ‘primitives,’ in order to allow the ‘fully human’
Europeans to populate the planet and develop it” (SSPV, 146–47).

Griffin is correct in noting that modern dualism had “destructive
consequences” that included justifying colonialism and mass enslavement.
Additionally, consider the temporal priority of early transatlantic
slavery. Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century slaveholders and slave
traders required a worldview that could reconcile their increasing
commitment to enslaving others with their increasing commitment to
liberty for themselves. This morally duplicitous requirement encouraged
the development of dualistic thinking. Then, in the seventeenth
century, dualistic worldviews were further developed and widely
embraced. And, as Griffin notes, seventeenth-century dualism encouraged
the continuation and expansion of slavery and colonialism.
When we analyze modernity without reference to early modern
slavery, it appears that modern theory was leading practice. And
indeed Ferré says that premodern theory “follows rather than leads
practical success,” but in the modern era “verifiable theory began to
lead technological practice” (SSPV, 135).

However, when our analysis
includes study of early modern slavery, then we see that early modern
practice was a major cause of modern dualistic theory.
Beyond Griffin’s brief mention, Spirituality and Society includes
almost nothing about slavery. Similarly, of ten contributors describing
modern society in Postmodern Politics for a Planet in Crisis (1993), only
Roger Wilkins discusses slavery and “the contemporary burden of its
legacies” (158).28

From among constructive postmodern scholars, Wilkins, Thandeka,
and Cobb are the most attentive to the formative influences of slavery
upon modern self-understandings. In Learning to Be White: Money, Race
and God in America (1999) Thandeka offers an analysis of the construction
of white identity that is fully attentive to the influences of slavery.
In Postmodernism and Public Policy: Reframing Religion, Culture, Education,
Sexuality, Class, Race, Politics, and the Economy (2002) Cobb draws
upon Thandeka’s work and his own heritage as “a Southern white
whose ancestors owned slaves” (PPP, 162) to offer a postmodern deliberation
on domestic race and class relations. Cobb says:

Until whites recognize how deep is their self-identification as whites, they will
not understand the problems they create both for themselves and for those
whom they define as not white. The racial problem in the United States must
be redefined as that of the social construction of the white race. Until that is
deconstructed, there is no possibility for those who have been excluded from
whiteness to have equal opportunity. (PPP, 155–56)

Mothership Connections