narratives

[Sojourner]

At 12:26 AM 9/6/97 -0700, Peter Mead wrote:

>It was quite common in the sixties to smoke pot and goof on old movies
>and see a sinister, hidden, absurdist or universal meaning in just about
>anything.  Marx Bros. movie humor, for example, experienced when stoned,
>passed beyond yuks and into the realm of zen koan. Or became cerebral
>laffs. Or percolated up into a cosmic giggle which expressed the Real
>Human Condition.  So did Abbot and Costello and Ralph and Norton.  And
>then there was Busby Berkeley, Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin.  And then
>there were other musicals such as with with Fred Astair, Gene Kelley and
>so forth...all available on TV in front of a bong. 
>

Many religions which use "mind-altering" drugs believe the exact opposite,
that you are hallucinating most of your life until you come to a point of
clarity (whether with drugs or with fasting etc.) and you are NOT
hallucinating
and therefore can see the "lines of the world".  If you want to say that
drugs made you see things that weren't there, that's fine.  But, if what I
am hearing from you is being interpreted correctly by me, in reality the
medium of the drugs allowed you to sublimate these works, achieving a
higher awareness of their genius, and seeing their interrelatedness with the
world around you.  

Ask yourself this.  Why is it always you can determine immedietely what
works appeal to you, what works you find to be "works of genius", to be
of sublime beauty, and then only AFTERWARDS can analyze them enough
to "figure out" why this is so?  Perhaps if you could "see" the beauty and
the lines of connectivity to the world, then you might achieve this analysis
more quickly.

I think also, that this is the heart of the GR love/M&D hate thread that many
of us are experiencing.  GR whammo, whether by its chronological setting,
date of release, or primacy of experience (who here hasn't read GR before
M&D?), it hit us and we said "wow" before we could fully appreciate the
"wow".  And then books and analyses were published, research was done,
the Herero are real, and we feel justified in our initial reaction and
absorption
of TRP's wonderful GR.  But with M&D, it seems to be the opposite way 
round for many.  The words, the characters, the references, hints and
obscure linkings are there, but hardly any "wow" the first time.  Perhaps
a second reading, or a slower analysis, or a group discovery, and/or much
more will reveal a more subtle beauty, but without the "wow" we feel
disappointed.

The debate then revolves:  are we not "seeing" the higher-strung (perhaps)
lines of connectivity of genius or is it a fiddle being played with old and 
recycled cat gut?


	"Es el fin del mundo,
	 Y yo estoy bien.."

	   --REM