Back to the past....riffing on THE PRESERVED

[Ian Livingston]

My thinking, really, is not so much that the unconscious itself is
stained, as it is everything--good and bad--of which we are not
conscious. What we can call "stained" is how we approach that ocean of
potential. I am thinking, I suppose, of something like karma--an
impetus that predisposes us to consciously interpret the new according
to a given perspective. You might say that we are paradigm-driven
where it comes to interpreting experience, "knowledge," whatever.
Zizek a couple of years ago picked up on an impetus Hitchcock and P
kicked into action at the end of the 50s, beginning of the 60s. The
notion of parallax as a psychological model of interpretation sort of
knocks the kickstand out from under the parked cycle of pomo, makes it
necessary to move or fall down. I haven't had my Sunday morning tea
yet. Starting to blather. But you get my point? It is not the
unconscious that was Preserved, but the interpretive framework the
conscious permits itself.

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Robin Landseadel
<robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>
>> so, I suggest, maybe, very tentatively, in P's view of history it got
>> perverted by a few, but spread like a stain.........
>
> Sounds like Gnosticism if you ask me.
>
> Paranoid Heretics, they're so predictable.........
>



-- 
"liber enim librum aperit."