This latest proving still continues! (See previous posts.) About a month ago I had the distinct impression its influence was waning, but no. It was just entering another phase. The physical symptoms are still around too – notably this remedy’s apparent affinity (in me at least) for the left deltoid muscle.
From repeating dreams featuring nested subroutines in either mathematical formulae or programming language, I’m now getting programming language addressing the relationships between various files and routines – how they call each other and incorporate aspects of each other within their own nested subroutines. This seems to relate to the evolving model of existence based on the theoretical understanding of black holes which I’ve introduced in the general essay Unscientific Attachment. More as it develops …
Having sent in my proving log last month when it all seemed to be tailing off, I now know what the substance is. Stangeria eriopus, the Natal Grass Cycad. An ancient plant first thought to be a fern and later discovered to be cone-bearing.
The proving director sent me a photograph of the plant she used as the source of the remedy. Its single leaflet is uncannily similar in appearance to a stone carving of a leaflet I recently made. The carving came into being without any premeditation, and the design was created in about 30 seconds flat. The whole thing was completed before I knew what the proving substance was. Indentations in the edges of the leaflets similar to those in my carving can evidently develop in older plants, as can the wavy surface which I started to carve in the lower leaflets and then thought better of (still evident in bottom left leaflet). Even the manner in which the leaflets attach to the central stem is similar.
A good example of sympathetic resonance in action? Certainly seems plausible. Now here’s one for all those people who feel that sympathetic resonance with a proving substance cannot be established prior to the ingestion of the physical token of it in the form of the remedy. This carving was made in December 2004. It was actually finished in the same week I received the invitation to take part in the proving, so at the moment of its initial creation, and for much of its execution, there was no conscious engagement with a scheduled proving. (I knew one was on the way because I had already started to experience a change in state, but had no idea where it would materialise from or when.)
The carvings I make seem to have a habit of resonating with provings. Last September I made a carving of a lotus/waterlily while doing another proving. That proving turned out to be an essence prepared from the sand used in the construction of a Tibetan Buddhist sand-painting, a mandala dedicated to the goddess Green Tara, which had been made in Glastonbury during that summer. Tibetan iconography traditionally has Green Tara seated on a lotus flower. These sand paintings are created over the period of 5 days or so, dedicated, celebrated, then ceremoniously destroyed. Since its completion, my carving has been steadily disintegrating, the only one of my works to do so.
Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Or is so-called “coincidence” just evidence of an underlying pattern and order we’ve yet to become fully aware of? And as for the disintegrating carving, well it just wouldn’t be good sympathetic resonance if it didn’t, would it?