Monroe Doctrine states:

[robinlandseadel at comcast.net]

          David Morris:
          Most of all, a little self-restraint couldn't hurt.

          Pokler may be only witnessing tonight—or he may really be part 
          of it. He hasn't been shown which it is. Look at this. There is 
          about to be expedited, for Friedrich August Kekule von 
          Stradonitz, his dream of 1865, the great Dream that 
          revolutionized chemistry and made the IG possible. So that the 
          right material may find its way to the right dreamer, everyone, 
          everything involved must be exactly in place in the pattern. It was 
          nice of Jung to give us the idea of an ancestral pool in which 
          everybody shares the same dream material. But how is it we are 
          each visited as individuals, each by exactly and only what he 
          needs? Doesn't that imply a switching-path of some kind? a
          bureaucracy? Why shouldn't the IG go to seances? They ought to 
          be quite at home with the bureaucracies of the other side. 
          Kekule's dream here's being routed now past points which may 
          arc through the silence, in bright reluctance to live inside the 
          moving moment, an imperfect, a human light, over here 
          interfering with the solemn binary decisions of these agents, who 
          are now allowing the cosmic Serpent, in the violet splendor of its 
          scales, shining that is definitely not human, to pass—without 
          feeling, without wonder (after you get a little time in-whatever that 
          means over here-one of these archetypes gets to look pretty 
          much like any other, oh you hear some of these new hires, the 
          seersucker cruwd come in the first day, "Wow! Hey-that's th-th' 
          Tree o' Creation! Hnh? Ain't it! Je-eepers!" but they calm down 
          fast enough, pick up the reflexes for Intent to Gawk, you know 
          self-criticism's an amazing technique, it shouldn't work but it 
          does .... 
          GR, P417, V 411

          Criticism as stupidity; the inanity of intelligence and the intelli-
          gence of inanity; the absurd hybrid of critical theory and blatant 
          foolishness that today constitutes all that is left of the critical—
          one must assess the force of this stupidity without simply reas-
          serting for oneself, however tacitly, the superiority of critical in-
          telligence. Stupid is no more a term of derision here than it is a 
          term of praise; it is crucial not to mistake this epithet for a ges-
          ture of rejection, an attempt to mark out and claim for oneself any 
          critical distance. It indicates a cultural condition that can hardly 
          be embraced but that the pathetic enterprise of criticism is 
          powerless to overcome by the application of more rigorous 
          intellectual tools. We are pursuing a logic for which we have no 
          taste; it binds and tangles one's writing in the most maddening 
          ways; but ultimately the stupid underground constitutes a critique 
          of criticism that must be taken up, however aggravating it is, just
          because it is aggravating. The spectacle of the masocritic trying to 
          give stupidity its due while thinking it through with all the proper 
          rigor, using it to judge himself judging, to judge judgment itself, 
          humiliating himself, elaborating his own discourse· as the vehicle 
          of a death that is anything but heroic or sublime: let us take this as 
          the true spectacle of criticism. Stupid vigilance, resistance to what 
          one has already made certain would occur, and would have 
          occurred in any case. Such a project may appear merely frivolous, 
          self-indulgently self-defeating, like the course of the fabulous bird 
          that flies in tighter and tighter circles until it disappears up its 
          own asshole. Masocriticism must not defend itself against this 
          perfect and proper charge. What it seeks is precisely guilt by 
          association, stupid abasement. If it is therefore impossible for 
          me to be either on the side of this essay or at any remove from it, 
          that is, for me, its "value." Its ethical value: its stupid value. 

          Paul Mann: "Masocriticism", page 137 

"I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy"
Tom Waits