Ktismatics

7 June 2007

Self as Portal

Filed under: Culture, Ktismata, Psychology — ktismatics @ 9:40 pm

Individual creatures are suspended between the twinned determinisms of the genes and the world. In nature the individual is a carrier of genetic variation, a test case for the survival value in the environment of a specific randomly-generated genomic combination manifesting itself phenotypically. For any individual the environment includes conspecifics. But a pack or herd isn’t just a collection of individuals; the individual is genetically and irreducibly a social creature, capable of surviving and reproducing only among its fellow creatures. So the individual is thrice decentered: the genes, the world, the others.

Human individuals too occupy the genes, the world, and the collective. Human experience is uniquely mediated by intelligence, which transforms the individual expression of the genes into a self, the world into a reality, the collective into a society. The three human domains are yoked together through the uniquely human form of intelligence that is culture. Culture is remarkable in that, while it extends across the entirety of human society, each individual actively configures a personalized version of it and installs it in the brain. Language, understanding, history, tradition, exchange, organization, morality, invention, art — we live inside of culture, and culture lives inside of us. Communal culture is continually updating itself, incorporating countless incremental changes propagated across the species. Individual installations of culture also update themselves continually, emerging from the ongoing stream of encounters with the world and other people, as well as through the active reorganization of the individual mind. Culture is a cumulative installation, repeatedly ratcheting itself up from earlier, simpler iterations of itself — this is true both collectively and individually.

…Which brings us back to psychological practice. I’ve been talking about the self as a membrane, with therapy being a procedure for unclogging the membrane, facilitating the free transport of information, desire, intention, and so on between inside and outside. I wanted to de-emphasize the idea of self-as-entity and replace it with self-as-process. That still seems like the way to go. But the processes engaged in by the self are much more impressive than mere exchange between inside and outside. The self actively and continually transforms everything.

Culture isn’t a vast database stored in the archives of memory. When I want to write something I don’t make a series of selections from a memorized set of all conceivable English-language sentences, nor do I search through my dictionary and grammatical rule book for what I can say. Instead I construct a flow of language on the fly, assembling it from the various bits and pieces that make sense to say next. Language is more like a procedure, a way of transforming experience into communicable information. Similarly, morality isn’t a set of rules governing every possible situation; it’s a procedure for evaluating motives, decisions and actions on the fly, according to criteria that are relevant to the situation at hand.

We experience nothing in the raw. Everything that comes to us from the world, everything that goes out from us into the world, we subject to one or more relevant cultural procedures. This continual process of culturally transforming experience renders our interactions with the world meaningful. Meaning gradually accumulates in our past experiences; gradually our transformative procedures become more sophisticated.

We transform the world as we pass through it, subjecting it to a variety of procedures for embedding it in meaning. Every individual is a portal that opens onto multiple overlapping realities. The task of the practice isn’t just to unclog the flows between inside and outside. It’s to make sure the portal is working smoothly, flexibly, imaginatively, actively creating realities on the fly.

Advertisements

61 Comments »

  1. Ktismatics, you might know more about numerology? Isn’t Room 47 = 4+7 = 12, which is a significant Biblical nummer and should also be important in other religious systems? Is this the room of God? Isn’t Nikki looking for God?

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 7:42 pm

  2. sorry meant to say Room 48 of course

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 7:51 pm

  3. 11 is a double digit and is therefore considered a Master or Power Number. In Numerology 11 represents impractical idealism, visionary, refinement of ideals, intuition, revelation, artistic and inventive genius, avant-garde, androgynous, film, fame, refinement fulfilled when working with a practical partner. Eleven is a higher octave of the number two . It carries psychic vibrations and has an equal balance of masculine and feminine properties. Because eleven contains many gifts such as psychic awareness and a keen sense of sensitivity, it also has negative effects such as treachery and betrayal from secret enemies.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 8:00 pm

  4. dejan –

    47 is right I think, for the room number in Inland Empire; your math is what’s wrong. Here’s pertinent information from wikipedia:

    There exists a 47 society, an outgrowth of a movement started at Pomona College, California, USA, which propagates the belief (or, to some, the inside joke) that the number forty-seven occurs in nature with noticeably higher frequency than other natural numbers. The origin of 47 lore at Pomona appears to be a mathematical proof, written in 1964 by Professor Donald Bentley, which supposedly demonstrated that all numbers are equal to 47. However, the proof mentioned above was used by Professor Bentley as a “joke proof” to introduce his students to the concept of mathematical proofs, and is not mathematically valid.

    Joe Menosky, who graduated from Pomona College in 1979 and went on to become one of the story writers of Star Trek: The Next Generation, “infected” other Star Trek writers with it, and as a result the number (or its reverse, 74) occurs in some way or other in almost every episode of this program and its spin-offs Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise. The number might be mentioned in the dialogue, appear on a computer screen a character is looking at, or be a substring of a larger number. The number also appears on some of the DVD menu screens for the episodes. They range from extremely obvious (for example, “shields are down to 47%”), to very well hidden. Some examples are listed here:

    * In the TNG episode “Darmok,” Worf reports a particle gradient of 4/7.
    * In the DS9 episode “Whispers,” the planet Parada 4 has seven moons.
    * In the Voyager episode “Non Sequitur,” Harry Kim lives in apartment 4-G, G being the seventh letter of the alphabet. The intentionality of this reference to 47 was confirmed by Brannon Braga, the writer of that episode.

    There is a connection with Pomona College in IE — while Nikki is dying the street people are talking about catching a bus from Hollywood and Vine to Pomona.

    More wikipedia:

    The Polish legislative election, 1947 was held on January 19, 1947 in the People’s Republic of Poland. The anti-communist opposition candidates and activists were brutally persecuted and the eventual results were falsified.

    I know of no numerological associations with the number 47, though doubtless the kabbalists would know more than I.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 8 June 2007 @ 8:08 pm

  5. dejan’s analysis of the number 11 sounds pretty on, so far as I can tell.

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 8 June 2007 @ 8:19 pm

  6. In numerology, each number is usually reduced to a single digit, following a simple procedure. Each digit is just added together until a single digit number is achieved. So we get to 11.

    But this Pomona connection is apparent. In wikipedia I found that 47 is associated with:

    noted as the number of miracles performed by Jesus listed in the New Testament

    In the 1976 movie The Omen, the priest that warns Robert Thorn about Damien has 47 crosses nailed to his walls.[8]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_(number)

    and incidentally, Nastassja Kinski turned 47 in 2006!

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 9:07 pm

  7. In Roman mythology, Pomona was the goddess of fruit trees, gardens and orchards. She scorned the love of Silvanus and Picus but married Vertumnus after he tricked her, disguised as an old woman. Her high priest was called the flamen Pomonalis. The pruning knife was her attribute. She is a uniquely Roman goddess, and was particularly associated with the blossoming of trees versus the harvest.

    Pomona is usually associated with abundance. In 19th century statues and building decorations she is usually shown carrying either a large platter of fruit or a cornucopia. A nude statue of her is in the fountain in the little park before the Plaza Hotel in New York City.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 9:17 pm

  8. So if Pomona is abundance, then again an indication that Nikki might be looking for a way to Paradise (and this would also explain the knife that reappears?)

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 9:20 pm

  9. “She was the goddess of fruit that can be picked from trees, and she was linked by Ovid with an Etruscan deity, Vertumnus, whose name appears to be connected with the Latin word “VORTERE”, which means “to turn” or “to change”. An old statue of Vertumnus stood not far from the Forum in Rome, the subject of a poem by Propertius, who was a contemporary of Ovid.

    In Ovid’s story, Pomona had a garden from which she excluded her lovers, among them Vertumnus, who could change himself into different shapes. Disguised as an old woman, he approached Pomona and advised her to marry Vertumnus. This he did so successfully. Then, he resumed his natural appearance as a young man and won Pomona’s love.

    The legend of Pomona and Vertumnus has been one of the most popular of Ovid’s stories and has been the subject of innumerable paintings and musical works.”

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 8 June 2007 @ 9:53 pm

  10. well there is an echo of this in Nikki’s situation as the rich inaccessible woman in her own villa/garden, being seduced by the handsome Southern gentleman caller… those scenes indeed reminded me of Snowy White or the Red Riding Hood. Also on the thematic level – the article I referenced says the Pomona and Vertumnus story is about love as seduction/possession. On another level Pomona could be the fantasy of plenitude, the Paradise Lost, the feminine side of the sexualtion graph, the uterus, the Lacanian Real. The Roman story seems like a matrix as well for Hitchcockian stories, a la Vertigo, where the woman as a male fantasy is seductive and inaccessible at the same time. I believe Vertigo was based on another Ovid myth, Pygmalion.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 10:43 pm

  11. How likely is it that Lynch thought about the 47 and Pomona connection? Probably a pretty high likelihood I’d guess, since some assistant could do what you and I have just done. So the number 47 pops into Lynch’s head, he realizes the connection with Pomona College, has the Asian and black girl talk about catching a bus to Pomona. I think the Pomona mythic connection can be made to the story too, but I tend to believe it’s happenstance. There’s no way to know, though.

    When the Jimmy Stewart character is making up Kim Novak the shopgirl to look exactly like the Kim Novak the dead girl, it’s certainly a Pygmalion event. Hitchcock is compelled by the death and doubling of women characters — Psycho and Strangers on a Train come to mind. This phenomenon is characteristic of portalic transport — Jesus is doubled as god and man and he is crucified. During portalic transport from one reality to another means that you’re sort of simultaneously in both realities at once and that you’ve disappeared from both. This phenomenon of discontinuity between realities is something I’m getting back to in this post and the preceding one. I’d gotten overly captivated by continuity, losing sight of portals, alternate realities, gaps and voids, death-and-doubling, and the whole apparatus of disjuncture.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 8 June 2007 @ 10:58 pm

  12. another thing came to mind in the past week – do you know the film ”Mysterious Skin”? Shaviro wrote about it really well http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=477.

    Trauma is something unfathomable; it cannot either be recalled or fully banished.

    Mysterious Skin is a hauntological movie, about irreparability and ghostly presences. The trauma around which it turns is something that you can’t ever represent (to yourself, much less to others), can’t understand, whether you idealize and cling to it (as Neil does) or (mis)conceive it as radically alien (as Brian does). But it’s also something you can’t ever get away from, since everything you experience and feel, everything you are, is woven around it and through it, permeated by its residual presence. So it’s never there, but it’s also never absent. It can’t really be recalled, but it can’t be expelled either. If Neil and Brian learn anything in the course of the film, it isn’t some therapeutic lesson about “healing,” but rather how to be sensitive to a fatality that they cannot will (cannot ever have willed), but that they also cannot escape, and must “assume.”

    There is this kind of a presence in Inland Empire as well. It seems that the story unfolds through attempts to recover some traumatic memory, but it persistently fails.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:06 pm

  13. During portalic transport from one reality to another means that you’re sort of simultaneously in both realities at once and that you’ve disappeared from both

    Well curious coincidence, I just posted this same thought in relation to Mysterious Skin. This is a hauntological phenomenon.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:09 pm

  14. How likely is it that Lynch thought about the 47 and Pomona connection?

    Well in view of the fact that our whole culture derives from Greek and Roman mythology, he needn’t even have been aware of the connection, for it to be there. But Nikki as a rich Hollywood star in her ivory tower certainly resembles Pomona in the myth, just as her relationship with the dominating husband is Pygmalionic (and Lynch reworked Vertigo already in Mulholland Drive).

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:12 pm

  15. I’d gotten overly captivated by continuity, losing sight of portals, alternate realities, gaps and voids, death-and-doubling, and the whole apparatus of disjuncture.

    Yes you’re quite like David Lynch that way; lost between the cognitive and the unconscious. Maybe that’s why you feel yourself connected to his films.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:15 pm

  16. And what this reworking of Vertigo in Mulholland brilliantly brought into focus is a study of pathological (female) narcissism, for the relationship between the two women is narcissistic; the blonde invests her sense of self-worth in the success of the brunette superstar, and the superstar cannot exist without her worship. It is psychologically an extremely subtle depiction of that disorder, right down to the details – such as the aggressive defragmentation episode in the end which pushes the blonde to kill the brunette. This is what makes me think that when you get down to the basics, Inland Empire is also a story about a person trapped in the fantasy of romantic love (her version is even more masochistic than Diane’s; she keeps asking DO YOU LOVE ME?) and her tragedy, our universal tragedy, is the inability to feel ”agape”, where Inland offers a more optimistic ending with this hint of a possibility of neighbourly love and communion.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:23 pm

  17. “In Ovid’s story, Pomona had a garden from which she excluded her lovers, among them Vertumnus, who could change himself into different shapes. Disguised as an old woman, he approached Pomona and advised her to marry Vertumnus. This he did so successfully. Then, he resumed his natural appearance as a young man and won Pomona’s love.The legend of Pomona and Vertumnus has been one of the most popular of Ovid’s stories and has been the subject of innumerable paintings and musical works.”

    This reminds me of “countless” “first date” experiences…which are supposedly to lead to more.

    “I think the Pomona mythic connection can be made to the story too, but I tend to believe it’s happenstance. There’s no way to know, though.”

    I’m going with, “doesn’t matter.” It corresponds to meaningful events in the world and in cultural history. So I guess I agree with dejan: “Well in view of the fact that our whole culture derives from Greek and Roman mythology, he needn’t even have been aware of the connection, for it to be there.”

    BTW, The Doyle and dejan…this has been a VERY interesting exchange.

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 8 June 2007 @ 11:27 pm

  18. speaking of discontinuity. This is the original series ”Rabbits” which was later incorporated into IE. Watching this I suddenly realized that it’s not like the dialogue’s meaningless; rather, there is a delayed/discontinuous response. For example, the rabbit woman asks ”what time is it?” and the question is only answered later. It sounds like a comedy of failed recognitions, what Lacan would term meconaissances.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:36 pm

  19. This exchange has also gotten me thinking of the other side of the coin to these Pomona stories. The Father side, the Oedipus stuff. Solomon of the thousands of wives. Oedipus the king in the desired position but trapped in his fate anyway (of marriage to his mother). On “agape”…Jesus and the Father. Or ancient hero worship, such as worship of Roman Emperors. Orpheus strikes me as very good example; and he ends up being torn apart by the Bachantes, who only freakin’ wanted to have sex the guy! He was a gifted idiot, lol.

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 8 June 2007 @ 11:40 pm

  20. This reminds me of “countless” “first date” experiences…which are supposedly to lead to more.

    The shape-shifting (of the man) corresponds to the film’s jumping in and out of roles, and that seductive play as well between Nikki and the handsome actor in ON HIGH IN BLUE TOMORROWS. Obviously playacting is a theme in Pomona.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:41 pm

  21. “…Vertumnus, who could change himself into different shapes. Disguised as an old woman, he approached Pomona and advised her to marry Vertumnus.” This reminds me of the shape-shifting of “twisted” Father Market, who likes to rape and abuse…but convinces us to marry him anyway.

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 8 June 2007 @ 11:43 pm

  22. This reminds me of the shape-shifting of “twisted” Father Market, who likes to rape and abuse…but convinces us to marry him anyway.

    Can you elaborate a bit more on these links. Not all of those myths are known to me.

    Yes I’ve been trying to decipher the Oedipal content, especially because of that stabbing at the center of the film, there is a lot of castrational anxiety going on, images of the ”vagina dentata” as well.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 8 June 2007 @ 11:45 pm

  23. I’ll have to come back to this later…I’m at work. I’ll be back…

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 9 June 2007 @ 12:35 am

  24. I have yet to see Inland Empire, except for a snippet of it, without sound, on one of your blog posts. As for my reference to “Father Market”…I’m not aware explicitly of a “myth” there. I’ve been following ktismatic’s blog for a while now, and he’s talked a bit about Deleuze’s “Anti-Oedipus,” I think in reaction to Lacan and Freud. So far as I can tell, the term “Oedipus” there has some meaning in relation to capitalist economics. I, was relating that idea of the market as having a fatherly and/or kingly character, then, to a phenomenon I’ve observed…which isn’t necessarily mythic, but I think has a mythic kind of meaning. Pomona is about that unattainable woman who is desired by everyone. Solomon and his many wives, to me, points to the idea of a king who is desired by every woman, but only had by – relatively – a few.

    Orpheus, though, is the character of both Greek and Roman mythology, who had kingly musical gifts and was desired sexually by all (reminds me of King David)…but who was “unattainable” (he toward the end of the story spends all of his time in the wilderness lamenting the loss of his one true love)…and in the end is ripped to pieces by Dionysius’ (Bachus is the Roman version) posse of woman-followers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpheus

    As for my specific reference to Father Market’s being “twisted”…that had nearly nothing to do with the conversation being had by you and ktismatics…sorry. I’m Christian…I was being all Christian on ya’ there.

    As far as, however, my reference to Father Market’s disposition toward rape and abuse…I was referring to the link you provided:
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8299%28199522%2949%3A2%3C110%3ATLODTT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

    “He finds in it the disavowal of rape, fraud and other arts as a means of winning amorous consent…others…read the tale as a final affirmation of mutual love…” That link goes on to say that the Pomona story in Ovid should be read as a tale of seduction rather than of mutual love…which I suppose relates to the thread here on continuity vs. discontinuity, if you extend that theme to our “marriage” with the market…but either way I was simply referencing the basic topic of that link.

    ————————-

    And to Whomever wants to listen,

    I had a few musings over what’s been happening in this conversation between ktismatics and dejan. One was on this continuity and discontinuity thing as it pertains to architectural praxis (I’ve been trying to figure out how that Deleuze/Badiou break discussed in The Doyle’s next post is relevant practically).

    More with Deleuze’s “continuity”:
    http://www.thursdayarchitects.com/Texts/deconstruction.html

    More with Badiou’s “discontinuity”:

    This shot was taken from the crypt of a famous modern monestary, interestinlgy designed by a Neo-Platonist (which reminds me of Badiou). Notice that there are three openings: one red (a severe break between on reality and the other), one blue (a soft threshold between inside and out), and white (a reality in and of itself, the color that contains all colors). Also, you can see a bit of formalism in that architect’s work in general, which reminds me of Badiou’s “subtraction” from “sense.”

    Another link that is more purely about the “discontinuity,” and in which you can better see a bit of the “formalism” in the project:

    Or, for the formalism:

    What appears is more about the form than the sense.

    Another musing was on something ktismatics mentioned – “Pomona had a garden from which she excluded her lovers.”

    This reminded me of the goddess Demeter’s role in the working’s of the WAY OLD temple complex at Knossos. Supposedly that was the palace of King Minos…but the Queen was Demeter’s representative…and was very central to the practical workings of the palace as a temple and to the architectural symbolism of the temple, especially in relation to the land:

    http://www.msu.edu/user/schmid/greece.htm
    “The palace commands a fertile plain and harbor. It has been sited in a sheltered valley with its north-south axis aimed toward a high point in the distance that is shaped like a baby’s desire. To the left, the mountain slopes down to a V cleft. The cleft is repeated in the bull’s horn sculpted at the far end of the courtyard. The king knows that ruling by fear and force only goes so far. You need some legitimation, and the strongest comes by reference to nature…Just as King Minos wished, there is the bull leaping fresco and two statuettes of snake goddesses dating from 1600 BC. Their eyes penetrate your soul as they handle the writhing snakes. While their bare breasts are pushed up by a tight-fitting bodice, the goddesses are more intimidating than inviting.”

    Here Demeter…coming into play in Greek history later than the life of the temple complex at Knossos, really…has significance to our Pomona conversation, even though Pomona appears to be particularly Roman.

    And another musing was from something else ktismatics said: “She was the goddess of fruit that can be picked from trees, and she was linked by Ovid with an Etruscan deity, Vertumnus, whose name appears to be connected with the Latin word “VORTERE”, which means “to turn” or “to change”.”

    This got me thinking of the Roman god Janus…esp. in relation to stuff about architectural practice, discussed above.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_(mythology)
    Considering the relation of Deluze to this continuity/discontinuity stuff…and the talk of the beginnings and ends of an “event” in that essay…that Janus thing is pretty interesting.

    “Janus was frequently used to symbolize change and transitions such as the progression of future to past, of one condition to another, of one vision to another, the growing up of young people, and of one universe to another….His ability to see both forwards and backwards at the same time aided him in his pursuit of the nymph Carna whom he gave power over door hinges as a reward for her favours.”

    Interesting to this question of “continuity”…in the Queen’s quarter’s at Knossos there are frescoes of swimming dolphins.

    :)

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 9 June 2007 @ 3:06 am

  25. This reminds me of the temple sanctuaries…errr…porn sites on the internet…which are meant to break the walls of restraint upon desire (castration/a Roman kind of “acting civilized”/”pruning”). The porn sites have no doors, only “click here” icons. And the queens/temple prostitute is unattainable and hidden in her little sanctuary…except it turns out that “everyone” has had her from everywhere.

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 9 June 2007 @ 3:11 am

  26. It seems I go to bed at just about the same time as Dejan and Jason wake up.

    From Dejan’s quote from Shapiro: Trauma is something unfathomable; it cannot either be recalled or fully banished. Mysterious Skin is a hauntological movie, about irreparability and ghostly presences. The trauma around which it turns is something that you can’t ever represent (to yourself, much less to others), can’t understand, whether you idealize and cling to it (as Neil does) or (mis)conceive it as radically alien (as Brian does). But it’s also something you can’t ever get away from, since everything you experience and feel, everything you are, is woven around it and through it, permeated by its residual presence. So it’s never there, but it’s also never absent. It can’t really be recalled, but it can’t be expelled either.

    This is related to my posts on Vietnam veterans recently, the sense that trauma is itself a portal, changing not only oneself but also reality. The person who undergoes this kind of experience becomes hyperattuned to features of reality that escape most of our notice. While I don’t envy the experience, I don’t want to minimize this hyperattunement by speaking of it only as loss. Other people tend to deny and suppress the trauma-portalist’s way of experiencing the world, resulting in a repression that operates external to the self, as if the world has holes in it where the trauma-portalist sees reality. It makes the trauma-portalist feel like they must be hallucinating.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 9 June 2007 @ 5:47 am

  27. “Well in view of the fact that our whole culture derives from Greek and Roman mythology, he needn’t even have been aware of the connection, for it to be there.”

    You sound Jungian here. Nonetheless I agree that what Ovid tuned in on always remains latently present and available for someone else to see. Not unlike my Jesus, Mary and Joseph interpretation of IE — Lynch might not consciously have built those links into his movie, but the content of the movie affords certain interpretations regardless. There are elements of racial memory and collective unconscious — “The Locomotion” and the gypsy curse haunt all of us who have been nurtured on pop culture. But there are other ways in which these trivia are linked together virtually, waiting for someone to formulate these links actually; i.e., in conscious awareness. A movie like IE
    strips away the “collective consciousness” in which events and phenomena are already embedded in a “normal” meaning, thereby ignoring all the other affordances left unaccounted for. Lynch disconnects the signifiers from the signifieds, facilitating free play with alternatives strands of meaning. The film then serves as a kind of specular unconscious, reflecting back unformulated media-generated collective experiences derived from a lifetime of immersion in Western popular culture.

    “lost between the cognitive and the unconscious.”

    At the conscious level I’ve been trying to figure out how much Lynch consciously structured the material of his film, waiting for the viewer to discover it. My conclusion: not much. I also question whether Lynch consciously includes references to “deep” experiences with Ovid or Mary, and I conclude again: not much. So now I think what Lynch is doing is constructing a cinematic simulation of free association. Through whatever process he uses to pull them up from the unconscious, Lynch lands on various loosely-related images, words, and sounds. Then he allows free association to build connections forward from these pieces onto other pieces of unconscious that they trigger in his mind. And he’s got the art to embed this material into a portalic context that hovers between conscious and unconscious, outside and inside. This leaves the viewer with a portalic experience, not necessarily to extract from it what Lynch consciously structured into it, but for it to serve as an external specular source of unformulated experience — like an unconscious. You can either let it wash over you like a dream, or you can try to interpret the dream. But the interpretation is in your head and in the attunements you have to affordances embedded in experience, and it may have nothing to do with the way Lynch might structure all this stuff in his own head.

    In Mulholland Drive Lynch I believe consciously formulates the material in his movie to depict what you’re talking about. The structure is consciously portalic, and doubly so: each of the two girls passes through the other’s reality, transforming the other into a distorted image of herself (narcissism). So you have the doubling of selves characteristic of portalic transport, combined with the merging of selves characteristic of narcissism. Then Lynch also gives us the juxtaposition of experience and memory, of time moving forward and backward at the same time. The Silencio and Llorando give me goosebumps just thinking about it. I thought Mulholland was brilliant, the best new movie I’ve seen in years. You may be right about IE, that Lynch consciously is telling a story about tragic love. I’ll agree that tragic/masochistic love is a theme woven through the material, but I think maybe you’re particularly attuned to what the movie-as-unconscious affords about tragic/masochistic love. The ending is more optimistic, though to me it felt like a temporary hiatus, and the song is “Sinnerman,” about there being noplace to hide from the chaos of the Apocalypse when the skies are rolled up and the rocks rain down without mercy.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 9 June 2007 @ 6:03 am

  28. Jason –

    “I’m going with, “doesn’t matter.” It corresponds to meaningful events in the world and in cultural history. So I guess I agree with dejan: “Well in view of the fact that our whole culture derives from Greek and Roman mythology, he needn’t even have been aware of the connection, for it to be there.””

    I too went along with Dejan’s collective unconscious proposition a few comments ago. It matters only in terms of trying to infer “authorial intent,” as they say in Biblical studies circles. Is Lynch consciously trying to show Ovid to us, or are we seeing allusions to Ovid in Lynch’s material, just as we might see Ovidian themes in our own lives? Hard to say.

    Father Market is your own mythic figure, no — a personification of the marketplace? Your image of the marketplace as a shape-shifting rapist-seducer is shared by many. In fact, this was a big source of conversation about IE at Cultural Parody Center (Dejan’s blog) — is the whole movie a kind of sadomasochistic paean to the market? Is in fact Lynch Father Market? High drama ensued for months in following the labyrinthine turns of Father Market as he shape-shifts his way through the film.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 9 June 2007 @ 7:21 am

  29. So I just watched the rabbits show. I agree that the conversation is scrambled, where seeming nonsequiturs are sometimes delayed responses. But it’s still ultimately meaningless dialogue served up in a very static set, like Beckett. The juxtaposition of the somber placidity of the scene, the ominous boat horn and the laugh track together serve to scramble the mood cues in a dreamlike uncanny way.

    Two new things struck me this time. First, the projection of the rabbit’s ears on the wall behind them. Recall that until fairly recently TV reception came through a V-shaped antenna affixed to the top of the set — this apparatus was commonly known as “rabbit ears.” (Jason, this rabbit play is being watched on a television set by another anomalous character in the movie.) Second, only the man enters and leaves the room; the two women must stay. Only the man expects phone messages; only the man has secrets.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 9 June 2007 @ 7:34 am

  30. jason, thank you for your detailed explications. it is especially interesting that you mention Knossos, which i visited a few years back (tremendous vacation spot by the way – Crete is a beautiful island). the site itself isn’t much, because all you see under 42 degrees Celsius is a bit of old rock, but the idea THAT A WHOLE PALACE WAS ONCE THERE gives the uncanny ”hauntological” feeling that Inland Empire generates as well, that these remains form a portal to this new invisible dimension. Of course since we’re dealing with a matriarchal society, there are other parallels to explore, but I have to do some more research on that one before I can launch a substantial thesis.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 9 June 2007 @ 3:49 pm

  31. At the conscious level I’ve been trying to figure out how much Lynch consciously structured the material of his film, waiting for the viewer to discover it.

    In a Dutch interview I read, he said that the film is not meant to leave the viewer clueless. To the contrary, it is all supposed to come together. Not necessarily by intellect, but by intuitive processes for example. This would legitimize our attempts to make sense of the story. He also said that the film is about a HOLE, which legitimizes Lacanian readings by the likes of k-punk.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 9 June 2007 @ 4:04 pm

  32. Second, only the man enters and leaves the room; the two women must stay. Only the man expects phone messages; only the man has secrets.

    I wouldn’t know if the rabbit ears have a special significance, but strictly visually speaking ,cast shadows are menacing/threatening. You think there are two women and a man? I thought it was 2 men and a woman (the woman is ironing, voiced by Naomi Watts). But anyhow apparently the rabbits correspond to the triangle taking place in the ”real” movie (Nikki and her husband, Nikki and the handsome actor; Polish woman and the pimp, Polish woman and the greasy maffia punk)

    I downloaded the film yesterday and tried to make sense of that Polish episode where you see some downtrodden village and some people doing something, but still I had to agree with Le Colonel Chabert’s vision that this is in fact a rather tendentious representation of Poland as the menacing Eastern European Other, with no discernible legitimation other than Lynch’s closet Reganism.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 9 June 2007 @ 6:39 pm

  33. The structure is consciously portalic, and doubly so: each of the two girls passes through the other’s reality, transforming the other into a distorted image of herself (narcissism).

    I was talking more about the psychoanalysis of the self as expounded by Heinz Kohut – Mulholland lends itself particularly well to that school of thought. Both women display all the typical symptoms of pathological narcissism on the list, but primary is the idea that their sense of self is based in the idealized I of the other woman (Diane goes psychotic when Camilla decides to leave, and Camilla invites Diane to the party to propose the kind of a relationship where Diane would always be there, on the margins, to worship her – instead of breaking the tie completely, she decideds to keep Diane enmeshed).

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 9 June 2007 @ 6:44 pm

  34. You sound Jungian here

    You could call it Jungian yes but it can also be a structuralist point, from Merleaux Ponty or however you spell his name, the one who wrote about myths – the structures of stories never really change.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 9 June 2007 @ 6:47 pm

  35. The masochistic aspect is that in the psychoanalytic sense, the question ”do you love me?” is masochistic, what you infer by that question is that you’re putting that decision in the hands of the other, the real question being ”do I love myself?”. And Nikki is of course married to a dominator, who treats her like a possession.

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 9 June 2007 @ 6:51 pm

  36. PRIOR TO MY COMMENT – I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I STUPIDLY gave you guys the wrong link on Deleuze and “continuity” in my questioning of how the whole Deleuze/Badiou “break” has practical consequences (in my case, architecturally)! Argh. Even worse, the link I provided is annoying as hell (if you ask me). Sorry. Here’s the correct link (to which the Doyle referenced me previously, and which he and I then discussed):
    http://www.warwick.ac.uk/philosophy/pli_journal/pdfs/williams_pli_9.pdf

    The Doyle

    “I too went along with Dejan’s collective unconscious proposition a few comments ago. It matters only in terms of trying to infer ‘authorial intent,’…”

    Dude, I wasn’t trying to set up a construct of you vs. Dejan. When I said I “agree with Dejan,” I just meant that I resonated with his words, which I quoted. I didn’t mean to set them against yours. I realize I left myself open for the misreading, though. Sorry/oops.

    As far as “Father Market” goes, I guess “Father Market” is sort of my own mythic figure. As far as how he speaks through the film…I gotta see it. I went to Blockbuster; they said it wasn’t even in their system yet, but that it probably would be soon. I wonder where Dejan is getting his clips? Aahh…UTube. But where do they originate, I wonder. Must be a rabbit hole somewhere.

    And Dejan,

    You’re welcome for the detailed explanation.

    As for Knossos…I almost made it there for myself for a “day trip” (probably would have been more like 2/3 days). I was in Athens on the tail end of a semester long study abroad program all throughout Europe. I just couldn’t go. I was experiencing severe sensory and intellectual overload. I was tired. I do feel connected to the place, however, through my readings of Nikos Kazantzakis.

    “Of course since we’re dealing with a matriarchal society, there are other parallels to explore, but I have to do some more research on that one before I can launch a substantial thesis.”

    That would be a good exploration! So far as I know, no one knows quite exactly what was going on there, historically/anthropologically. I think the best understanding to date is that it was a more matriarchical society earlier on (2500BC/2000BC-ish), and then was later more patriarchial/kingly. But I just don’t have a very good conception of what was going on there along those lines. I would agree that the “whole place” is “hauntological.”

    I haven’t been there, but I think I know what you mean. When I put “whole place” in quotes there, I refer to all of the meaning embedded in the place, both in its own ancient history as well as in the now. So, in other words, I think our ancient history can sort of haunt us, in the way that you describe the term “hauntological.” Hence our Pomona discussion.

    And Dearest Whomever/Dejan/Doylomania,

    “the film is about a HOLE, which legitimizes Lacanian readings by the likes of k-punk.”

    “Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge. In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again. The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.”

    I’m going to guess that such Alice refernces have already been discussed in detail, but I figured I’d put the thought out there.
    :)

    “…Lynch’s closet Reganism.” That’s funny.

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 10 June 2007 @ 1:51 am

  37. “the idea THAT A WHOLE PALACE WAS ONCE THERE gives the uncanny ”hauntological” feeling that Inland Empire generates as well, that these remains form a portal to this new invisible dimension.”

    Derrida’s neologism hauntology is, in French, a pun on ontology and refers to the paradoxical state of the specter, which is neither being nor non-being.

    In Specters of Marx, Derrida claims that ‘there has never been a scholar that really, and as a scholar, deals with ghosts’. By this remark, we are sure that he does not wish us to believe that scholars have never tried to prove the truth or otherwise of uncanny apparitions or ghostly occurrences. Indeed, Derrida’s complaint is that the scholar will only seek to determine matters of supernatural veracity, positioning him or herself at a distance from the apparition, and attempt ‘to make or let a spirit speak’ . By not ‘dealing’ with ghosts, Derrida argues that traditional scholarship asks questions of the ghost only with the intention of ontologizing it, or interpellating it from the necessary distance of scholarly ‘objectivity’. This, he believes, constitutes an avoidance of spectrality, since to figure the ghost in terms of fact or fiction, real or not-real, is to attribute to it a foundational ground, either a positive or negative facticity that the notion of ghostliness continually eludes. It is this elusiveness that should be addressed, and so, for Derrida, a pseudo-concept like spectrality looks very much at home among the motifs that have been central to deconstruction for many years.

    The relevance of a trope of spectrality to deconstruction is clear . Ghosts are neither dead nor alive, neither corporeal objects nor stern absences. As such, they are the stock-in-trade of the Derridean enterprise, standing in defiance of binary oppositions such as presence and absence, body and spirit, past and present, life and death. For deconstruction, these terms cannot stand in clear, independent opposition to one another, as each can be shown to possess an element or trace of the term that it is meant to oppose. In the figure of the ghost, we see that past and present cannot be neatly separated from one another, as any idea of the present is always constituted through the difference and deferral of the past, as well as anticipations of the future. And so the liminal spirit, or to use Derrida’s favoured term, revenant, the thing that returns, comes to represent a mobilization of familiar Derridean concepts such as trace, iteration and the deferral of presence.

    The ghost as a cipher of iteration is particularly suggestive. At the beginning of Specters of Marx, Derrida talks about the way in which the anticipated return of the ghost may be mobilized on behalf of a deconstruction of all historicisms that are grounded in a rigid sense of chronology. ‘Haunting is historical, to be sure’, he writes, ‘but it is not dated, it is never docilely given a date in the chain of presents, day after day, according to the instituted order of the calendar .’ The question of the revenant neatly encapsulates deconstructive concerns about the impossibility of conceptually solidifying the past. Ghosts arrive from the past and appear in the present. However, the ghost cannot be properly said to belong to the past, even if the apparition represents someone who has been dead for many centuries, for the simple reason that a ghost is clearly not the same thing as the person who shares its proper name. Does then the ‘historical’ person who is identified with the ghost properly belong to the present? Surely not, as the idea of a return from death fractures all traditional conceptions of temporality. The temporality to which the ghost is subject is therefore paradoxical, as at once they ‘return’ and make their apparitional debut. Derrida has been pleased to term this dual movement of return and inauguration a ‘hauntology’, a coinage that suggests a spectrally deferred non- origin within grounding metaphysical terms such as history and identity. (Buse & Scott, 1999, p.10-11)

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 9:48 am

  38. “Both women display all the typical symptoms of pathological narcissism on the list, but primary is the idea that their sense of self is based in the idealized I of the other woman.”

    Wouldn’t you say that narcissism is a special case of the self looking to the other for fulfillment, either by serving the other or by incorporating the other into the self? Now you’re in Lacanian territory as I understand it: the lack, the phallus, desiring the desire of the other. And in this regard Lacan is a special case of Hegel’s master-servant discourse, as elaborated in this post. Projecting oneself onto another or introjecting another into the self — both of which happen often in Mulholland Drive — is also portalic: defining one’s own meaning in terms of the other, and vice versa.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 10:04 am

  39. “The masochistic aspect is that in the psychoanalytic sense, the question ”do you love me?” is masochistic, what you infer by that question is that you’re putting that decision in the hands of the other, the real question being ”do I love myself?”.”

    Again it’s Hegelian master-bondsman as mediated by Lacan.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 10:06 am

  40. “Dude, I wasn’t trying to set up a construct of you vs. Dejan. When I said I “agree with Dejan,” I just meant that I resonated with his words, which I quoted.”

    I agree with Dejan too, that the film affords these various interpretations. I was just bringing you up to date on the dispute at Dejan’s blog: Lynch’s consciously intended meaning or no? I’m more prone to saying that the film is a loosely structured assembly of unprocessed material — a cinematic representation of the unconscious — with a very lean story weaving its way through. Dejan believes that Lynch purposely built in a set of “deep” meanings that the viewer is charged with ferreting out. So is the meaning in the director or in the viewer? One of those PoMo issues.

    “through my readings of Nikos Kazantzakis.”

    Now I’m slipping through the rabbit hole. Did I mention to you or to Dejan that Kazantzakis used to live here in Antibes? There’s a plaque commemorating him in one of the town squares, containing his epitaph: “no fears, no hopes, I am free.”

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 10:13 am

  41. Wouldn’t you say that narcissism is a special case of the self looking to the other for fulfillment, either by serving the other or by incorporating the other into the self?

    That dynamic is not specifically Lacanian, it is from the self theory (Heinz Kohut, Otto Kernberg). Lacan’s self is decentered, the self theorists have a different conception of the self / it is integral. But they precede Lacan I think by some years in exploring narcissism.

    Like

    Comment by parodycenter — 10 June 2007 @ 10:34 am

  42. Now I’m slipping through the rabbit hole. Did I mention to you or to Dejan that Kazantzakis used to live here in Antibes? There’s a plaque commemorating him in one of the town squares, containing his epitaph: “no fears, no hopes, I am free.”

    We have to start a discussion soon on Kazantsakis and Christian Orthodoxy!

    Like

    Comment by parodycenter — 10 June 2007 @ 10:35 am

  43. Again it’s Hegelian master-bondsman as mediated by Lacan.

    I don’t know what it is, but I could recognize it very well; I once made out with a girl, something didn’t work out sexually, but she was still in love, and she said ”I’ll make you love me!” half-jokingly although the message was ”if you don’t love me, I don’t exist”

    Like

    Comment by parodycenter — 10 June 2007 @ 10:40 am

  44. “That dynamic is not specifically Lacanian, it is from the self theory (Heinz Kohut, Otto Kernberg).”

    I remember like it was yesterday — in fact, it was yesterday — I put the Kohut narcissism book in the box for shipping (moving truck arrives on Thursday). I was seeking the etiological synthesis of narcissism under Lacan, but the treatment plan of the self-psychologists is going to differ. For Kohut the analyst serves as the idealized, essentially maternal other that the narcissist never had — someone who mirrors and affirms the narcissistic client as an authentic self, lovable and capable of loving. Having had this affirming expeience from the therapist, the client at last internalizes this self-affirmation so s/he can look outward for love. That’s the general premise, isn’t it?

    Lacan I think wouldn’t pursue this same strategy; he would be more prone (I think) to say that the other cannot ever supply the narcissist with self-affirmation, that analysis leads the client to a realization that the other can never fill the hole in oneself. So I tend to see Mulholland Drive in this more Lacanian pessimistic light, where even when the two women essentially fuse egos they’re still both heading through the portal on their way to meet Hegel’s Ultimate Master, who is Death.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 11:35 am

  45. uuuhhh…jeez…lots of comments. i must go and return. but…last night i saw “Smokin Aces” (like, the film). It reminded me of “The Departed,” except less well crafted…and a bit more about the will (Smokin Aces) than about like a kind of Stoic cosmic destiny despite what we do (The Departed).

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 10 June 2007 @ 5:34 pm

  46. For Kohut the analyst serves as the idealized, essentially maternal other that the narcissist never had — someone who mirrors and affirms the narcissistic client as an authentic self, lovable and capable of loving.

    Yes that’s more or less the story, although the book on narcissism is great and very detailed and you can pick up a lot from it, so well worth a read.

    The two women ”fuse egos” – I’m not sure what you mean, and you know that EGO is a nono word, Ktismatics!

    Metaphysically, ontologically, philosophically, of course, we are dealing with the doubling of the same person. But psychologically, the trajectory of their relationship as shown in the film details exactly Kohut’s descriptions of pathological narcissism. This is especially evident in a short scene, when Camilla knocks on Dianne’s door saying ”Don’t let it be like this” and Dianne slams the door on her saying ”It’s all easy for you, well it’s not easy for me!” The fact that Camilla returns – not so much out of guilt, more because she wants to keep Dianne enmeshed in the pathological game of worship – is subtle. If this was about the end of a love affair, Camilla would surely spare Dianne the torment of finding herself humiliated at that party. But their affair is narcissistic, and so Camilla needs Dianne to be around and support her fragile self.

    Like

    Comment by parodycenter — 10 June 2007 @ 6:56 pm

  47. “EGO is a nono word.”

    In Kohut’s realm ego is center stage, but I agree that it’s not in Lynch’s movies. My mistake. I read Kohut’s book, but it’s been awhile. At the time I was persuaded that narcissism is the epidemic of the West, an apparent egocentrism masking an ego that’s incomplete. I’m less sure what to make of the narcissism label now, since I think ego is a flawed construct. The Hegel-Lacan trajectory makes more sense to me here: desiring the desire of the other, where love becomes a thing to be offered or possessed or craved rather than a kind of interpersonal relationship. That Mulholland is a Hollywood story, with the power of directors and producers being the force of destiny, embeds narcissism — enshrines narcissism — in a world of image and spectacle and commodity.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 8:48 pm

  48. The Doyle,

    Thanks for the explanation of hauntological. BTW…trace and Derrida…reminds me of “Smokin’ Aces.” The whole punch line of the film hinges on the fact that a bunch of old FBI agents from like the ’50’s, who thought they had killed the first ever undercover officer – because they thought he had gone rogue – are now dead/not present to give an account of what really happened/is happening.

    And thanks for trying to update me on the topics of discussion on Dejan’s blog, too. Gotcha. I could certainly see that as a Primo PoMo issue.

    “Now I’m slipping through the rabbit hole. Did I mention to you or to Dejan that Kazantzakis used to live here in Antibes? There’s a plaque commemorating him in one of the town squares, containing his epitaph: ‘no fears, no hopes, I am free.'”

    Yep, you did mention it. That’s part of what I mentioned Kazantzakis.

    Dejan,

    “We have to start a discussion soon on Kazantsakis and Christian Orthodoxy!”

    Another good discussion on the way, then! Lets keep tabs. Good discussions to come, from Dejan:

    1) On Knossos, Earth Mother, early “Greek” matriarchical societies and how it is or might be related to Pomona and Lynch’s Inland Empire (the unattainable woman housed the closed sanctuary…that’s more of a description of Pomona…I haven’t seen the film yet), and

    2) Katantsakis’ relation to Christian Orthodoxy, presumably springing from his book The Greek Passion.

    :)

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 11 June 2007 @ 6:08 pm

  49. “…part of WHY I mentioned Kazantsakis…” Oops.

    And I suppose “Lets start a discussion” does not just mean that it has to come from Dejan…duuhh…but lots of folk frequent Dejan’s blog, so…??

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 11 June 2007 @ 6:10 pm

  50. On Kazantsakis: “no fears, no hopes, I am FREE.”

    I think an interesting figure through which we could discuss Kazantsakis and Christian Orthodoxy…as well as PoMo stuff…might be Bergson. Kazantsakis was fascinated with Bergson, and owed much of his thought, especially political, to him. I know, too, that Nikos owed much to Bergson’s notion of the “elan vital.”

    Interestingly, Bergson converted to Christianity in 1921, and soon faded into obscurity…although finishing one of his most important works after that date (The Two Sources of Morality and Religion). From Wikipedia:

    “As early as the 1890s, Santayana attacked certain key concepts in Bergson’s philosophy, above all his view of the New and the indeterminate: ‘the possibility of a new and unaccountable fact appearing at any time,’ he writes in his book on Lotze, ‘does not practically affect the method of investigation;…the only thing given up is the hope that these hypotheses may ever be adequate to the reality and cover the process of nature without leaving a remainder. This is no great renunciation; for that consummation of science…is by no one really expected.’ According to Santayana and Russell, Bergson projected false claims onto the aspirations of scientific method, which Bergson needed to make in order to justify his prior moral commitment to FREEDOM.”

    This notion of the New and indeterminate brings to mind my recent conversations with The Doyle on Deleuze and the will. And The Doyle, to me, seemes interested in Deleuze due to his own interest in a certain freedom from social restraints. AND…I think…The Doyle’s questioning of Deleuze comes from his interest in a certain human freedom from what is pre-determined by our genes. I remember that The Doyle’s discussion on his support or lack thereof of Deleuze hinged on the question of the role of beauty and truth as having meaning and significance in and of themselves, apart from their value for mere survival. Doyle…am I mischaracterizing anything here (I probably am)?

    Interestingly, then, I see two avenues of discussion on Nikos and Orthodoxy: 1) a discussion on “faith and reason,” in Orthodoxy speak, and 2) Nikos’ thought on the a tektonified eschaton…again my description of Kazantsakis’ thought (a tektonified eschaton) is colored by my own Christianity, but Nikos’ thought iself owes much to Bergson, I think.

    What sayest you guys? Dejan…Doylomania?

    Like

    Comment by Jaosn Hesiak — 11 June 2007 @ 9:07 pm

  51. Jason –

    My creative and analytical juices seem to be lost amid the cardboard boxes piling up around me as we get ready to move. No posts, no comments, I am free?

    Initial reactions are about Bergson, whom your friend Dominic tauntingly waved in Dr. Carl’s face at Church and PoMo. Deleuze follows Bergson’s ideas about a kind of animistic primal force working through nature and the genes, spontaneously organizing itself into more and more complex creations. So even if there is a gradual progression of human aspiration toward beauty and truth and goodness, this trajectory is always an outworking of the elan vital rather than a strictly naturalistic phenomenon.

    This sense of the immanence and pervasiveness of the eternal life force (or God) does seem distinctly Orthodox. My problem is that I’ve never read anything by Kazantzakis.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 11 June 2007 @ 10:06 pm

  52. Rome Reborn

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 11 June 2007 @ 10:17 pm

  53. cardboard boxes…moving…sounds to me like you need to do a post on things that disappear…on memory, motion and chnge.

    :)

    and the Rome thing…thanks. i gotta check that out.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 12 June 2007 @ 2:28 am

  54. memory, ect…a commentary on “matter and memory” perhaps?
    :)

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 12 June 2007 @ 2:34 am

  55. Interestingly, then, I see two avenues of discussion on Nikos and Orthodoxy: 1) a discussion on “faith and reason,” in Orthodoxy speak, and 2) Nikos’ thought on the a tektonified eschaton…again my description of Kazantsakis’ thought (a tektonified eschaton) is colored by my own Christianity, but Nikos’ thought iself owes much to Bergson, I think.

    Well start by giving us your thoughts on both issues. I don’t know what the tektonified eschaton is?

    Like

    Comment by parodycenter — 12 June 2007 @ 6:22 pm

  56. Ktismatics, do you have to leave? If you don’t want to leave just don’t leave. Follow your desire!

    Like

    Comment by parodycenter — 12 June 2007 @ 6:42 pm

  57. It’s a rupture that leads to the eternal return (3rd time living in the same town in the US). There are conflicting trajectories of desire in our family. Currently my own desire is at a low ebb with respect to either choice. My main motivators are rage and depression — do these constitute desires or anti-desires? I think the latter. Neutrality is my most positive affect lately.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 12 June 2007 @ 7:54 pm

  58. I’ll have to come back later and explain the eschaton stuff. I’ll be back…probably tonight…

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 12 June 2007 @ 8:01 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: