Discussion:
Kubrick And His Symbols: A Jungian Analysis (Part 4)
(too old to reply)
Bill Reid
2007-01-10 23:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"How many roads must a man go down
before you can call him a man?"
- Robert Zimmerman

"I may have poor insight about myself...Who
can define where phobias come from?"
- Stanley Kubrick

"Proceed from the dream outward."
- Carl Jung

"Its origin and purpose still a total mystery."
- Dr. Heywood Floyd

I've repeatedly referred to Stanley Kubrick as
a "thinking man", and I really don't think that
I have to supply any supporting evidence to make
that assertion. All available testimonies about
his working methods to "create" his "art" describe
a long, sometimes seeemingly endless, process of
reading hundreds if not thousand of books, technical
papers, and essays, watching hundreds of films, and
then analyzing, evaluating, and discussing them with
his collaborators for further seemingly endless
hours. He explicitly disavowed his personal use of
any type of "psychedelic" drug that he feared would
dull his rational evaluation of the images and sounds
that he would choose to insert in his "art".

This is in sharp contrast to many other "artists",
who work quickly on seeming instant "inspiration".
Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein", the classic modern
nightmare about the horror of man's technology attempting
to play "God", as the result of images in a dream. Bob
Dylan has said he has "no idea" where his songs came from,
that he used to write them as fast as he could scribble
the words. Anthony Burgess wrote the novel "A Clockwork
Orange", which has always been described as a "nightmare vision"
of a technological society run amuck, in a matter of
weeks, and, according to him, based on single overhearing of
the English slang expression "queer as a clockwork orange"
in a bar. The "Beatles" pop group songwriting duo, according
to several stories, used to disappear into a room together,
only to re-appear a few minutes later (presumably in cloud of
their beloved cannabis smoke) with a new hit single.

Of course, Jung had this whole dichotomy "figured out".
He theorized there were four basic personality traits that
generally arose from the dichotomy between rational
conscious thought and "unconscious emotions". A person
would have some preponderance of the four traits that
would make them generally either a "thinking person"
or a "feeling person". But some of the four traits
would be found in ALL people, and Jung called the traits
that were in opposition to the dominant traits of an
individual "the shadow", because the individual (or
the society/country, as Jung felt that definable
groups of people also had a "personality") would
always be trailed, like a "shadow", by these "suppressed"
traits throughout their lives, and they would tend
to emerge, sometimes destructively or "neurotically",
throughout a person's (or a society's) life.

For a "thinking person", the traits are "thinking" (of
course), a focus and reliance on conscious thought, logic,
science, technology, etc., and "sensation", a focus and reliance
on "information" from the senses: vision, hearing, etc.
For a "feeling person", the traits are "feeling" (of course),
a focus and reliance on emotions, and "intuition", a focus and
reliance on ideas that are not derived from logic, but by
"insight" and "introspection".

Much has been made about Kubrick's "fear of flying", and
how ironically "irrational" that it seemed to manifest itself
around the time that he made a movie about space flight,
a movie that seemed to promise human transcendance through
futuristic technology. Well, a dedicated Jungian theorist
could indeed have a field day with that one, but by taking
even a closer look at the various possible relationships
between a person's dominant traits and his "shadow"
traits we might come to an even deeper, but perhaps
very startling "insight" into the mind of Stanley Kubrick.

Such dedicated Jungian theorists will note that I've
greatly simplified the voluminous and convoluted theories
of Jung for the purposes of this essay. For example, I've
condensed the "symbols" or images of the "anima", the
feminine traits in a man, from four down to two. I've not
covered at all his theories about the individuation of
the "self", the relation of an individual person within
society. I've blown by many other "Jungian symbols" that
actually have been seen in Kubrick movies, conflated
"mandalas" and "labyrinths" while ignoring "magic circles"
and "squaring the circles" and God knows all the stuff
about alchemy (but hey, why was Tom Cruise's mask a "golden
nugget" in "Eyes Wide Shut"?).

But let's be clear about this: Jung never said that "the
shadow" was necessarily a "bad thing", or something that
led inevitably to "neurosis". Rather, it was a "neurotic
relationship" between the dominant and "shadow" traits that
could sometimes cause "problems". In fact, a person could
be most "fearful" of their dominant traits, and might
"project" these fears onto "others" (part of the whole
process of "individuation of the self" that Jung theorized).

For Kubrick, as a "thinking" person, his dominant traits
would be "thinking" and "sensation": his focus and reliance
would be on "seeing" and "hearing" things, and "analyzing"
and "thinking" about them. He began as a photographer,
working for the (ironically-named) "Look" magazine, so he first
focused on "seeing" things. Later, he had a general "dream"
to be a filmmaker, and he began his well-known process of
"thinking" how to make a movie. Yet it would seem that these
traits are not well-suited to an "artist": wouldn't an "artist"
be better served by "feeling" and "intuition"?

It may very well be the case that in Jungian terms, he
constantly "projected" this paradox in his own life as part
of the overriding themes of his movies. I've repeatedly
summarized his overall theme as "the inability of man's
intelligence to overcome his animal emotions". And certainly,
in every movie he made, we see the abject failure of
"thinking" and "sensation", the dominant "Jungian" traits of
Kubrick himself, to avoid disaster.

The elaborate scheme to rob the racetrack in "The Killing"
failed for the gang members because of human "emotions".
In "Paths of Glory", Kirk Douglas came up with an elaborate
defense and then a scheme to prevent the soldiers from being
executed, which failed. The well-educated Humbert in "Lolita"
is "blind" to the destructive impact of his passion for the
nymphet, who he first "sees" in a bikini.

In "Dr. Strangelove", the "brainy" President Merkin Muffley
couldn't stop the world from being destroyed, and makes some
of the most comically irrational remarks in the movie, such as,
"you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!", and,
"there's no point in becoming hysterical at a time like this!"
in a hysterical tone of voice. The entire plot of the movie
turns on the failure of a several "rationally" conceived plans.

"2001" shows the failure of man's ultimate "rational"
creation, the HAL-9000 computer. "A Clockwork Orange"
is a similar tale of the failure of rational plans, along
with some explicit references to the failure of "sensation".
P. R. Deltoid exasperated, "We study the problem, we've been
studying it for damn well near a century, and we get no further
in our studies!", mocking "thinking". During his "re-conditioning",
which ultimately fails disasterously, Alex's eyes are propped open,
symbolizing the inadequacy of "sensation" vs. "intuition".
Half-way through the process, he says, "I SEE that all this killing
is wrong...", but as the doctor correctly notes "you're not cured yet".
Later, the Minister of the Interior (or Inferior, per Burgess) "thinks"
that a visual demonstration will "show" that Alex has been "cured",
and he introduces Alex by saying "You SEE before you a
changed man...", further mocking "sensation". And note
the title of his last movie, "Eyes Wide Shut", signifying the
failure of the senses to provide understanding, and note
the male characters saying things like "I've seen one or
two things in my life" and "I'm just looking around".

So we might just go ahead and theorize that Stanley Kubrick
didn't fully trust his OWN "thinking" trait as an "efficient"
method to make a movie, or a reliance on the "sensation" trait,
which equates to mere photography when making a film.
Certainly his "process" became so slow towards the end of
his life that it took him well over a decade to complete
a single film, with several other projects abandoned by
his death in various states of conceptual disarray. And it's
interesting to note that the movie that is widely considered
to be the most "forgettable" film of his career, "Barry Lyndon",
relied on gorgeous photography for most its "quality", with a
standard linear and narrated plot largely unencumbered
with any of the striking and memorable "symbolism" of movies like
"2001".

For some, the beauty and literal wordy plot was enough, but
"The Simpsons" has presented not one parody of it as a rough
gauge of its permanence in movie history. Kubrick apparently
learned the lesson he had already known, and he never again tried
to rely on purely beautiful visuals to illustrate a literal story
without the use of those baffling "symbols", from whatever source
he could find them. But the problem would be, as he surely must
have known, the slowness of "discovering" them by working in
his rational analytical manner.

But Kubrick's own personal relationship with technology is
itself baffling and irrational. After the release of "2001",
he gave a very lengthy interview to "Playboy" magazine.
The interview is remarkable not just from the standpoint of
the passage of time invalidating much of his "predictions"
about the future, but the irrational nature and apparent
genesis of his "predictions" and his other assertions
themselves.

For example, he flatly states that he "believes" in "flying
saucers", that alien intelligence MUST exist somewhere in the
universe, that you could come up with an "intriguing scientific
theory of God", that he was considering being cryogenically frozen
to attempt to acheive immortality, and that death itself could
be "cured" by the year 2001.

In other words, and not even with 20/20 hindsight, we might just
conclude he was insane...except that if he's nutz, he shared those
whacky ideas with at least tens of millions of others, including
Walt Disney's soon-to-be-thawed noggin. Throughout the interview,
he explicates two dominant themes: an intense fear of death,
and a naive and irrational belief in the power of technology
to transcend the inevitability and permanence of the grave,
and to propel us beyond this Earthly cradle.

And in the middle of it, he mentions Jung specifically:

"Carl Jung summed up this position when he wrote of
contact with advanced extraterrestrial life that the
'reins would be torn from our hands, and we would, as
a tearful old medicine man once said to me, find
ourselves without dreams...' I personally don't accept
that position."
- Stanley Kubrick

Of course you don't, Stanley, because you just made a multi-million
dollar movie with a plot where advanced exterrestrials give man
the gift of immortality. Space aliens, and technology in general,
are YOUR "God", your "dreams"; if space aliens don't save you, then
cryogenics or the magical ability to "cure death" by the year
2001 surely will...

Jung wrote specifically about "flying saucers", and concluded that
the phenomenon was just another example of "modern" man supplanting
new myths for the old ones that have been "disproven" by "technology".
Certainly, throughout history, men of science and math and logic
has exhibited the persistant irrational behavior of trying to "prove"
that "God" exists, such as the extension of Descartes' "mind-body split"
dichotomy and "Pascal's Wager". So Kubrick appears to be just
another in a long line of "rational" men who respond to those
nagging "shadow" archetypes of "God" and the related "fear of
death", and after years of his "process" of working on "2001",
he just wound up explicating these latest irrational myths of
"modern" man.

Interestingly, his previous movie, "Dr. Strangelove", had an
actual sub-title that indicated some sort of personal resolution
on the subject of death: "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And
Love The Bomb". This seems like a peculiar title for a movie
that seems to indicate total nuclear annihilation of the planet
is inevitable due to the inherent folly of man. But note
carefully he added the "plot device" of the "Doomsday Machine"
where EVERYBODY dies, and then consider this quote:

"God is dead, but the bomb endures; thus, they are no longer
alone in the terrible vulnerability of their own mortality.
Satre once wrote that if there was one thing you could tell a
man about to be executed that would make him happy, it was that
a comet would strike the earth the next day and destroy every
living human being. This is not so much a collective death wish
or self-destructive urge as a reflection of the awesome and
agonizing loneliness of death."
- Stanley Kubrick

So it looks here as if both "Dr. Strangelove" and "2001"
were some type of attempt by Mr. Kubrick to assuage his own
personal fear of death, though he tends to "project" his
technological "God" archetype and "comforting" global annihilition
fantasy onto his audience rather than himself. So this may
go a long way to explaining his seemingly irrational "fear
of flying": he seemed quite concerned with death, and at the
same time had some type of conflicting "instinctive" distrust
of the technology he so lengthily diefied verbally.

He even admits that fear of death is behind his "fear of
flying" in the "Playboy" interview when asked about it:

"I suppose it comes down to a rather awesome awareness of
mortality."

And in a later interview:

"Call it enlightened cowardice, if you like. Actually, over the
years I discovered that I just didn't enjoy flying, and I became
aware of compromised safety margins in commercial aviation that
are never mentioned in airline advertising. So I decided I'd rather
travel by sea, and take my chances with the icebergs."
- Stanley Kubrick

There is a subtle, but I think significant mix of ideas in this
"explanation". Aside from his supposed "statistics" about
"compromised safety margins", which were presumably compiled
with the same ruthlessness that he determined that "flying
saucers" were "real", while at the same time this several-pack-day
smoker ignored the well-known statistics about the corrosive
impact of nicotine on aterial walls, he says he "just didn't
enjoy flying".

So did Stanley Kubrick also have an irrational "fear of
airplane food", or what's the deal here? Perhaps a clue
lays elsewhere in the "Playboy" interview. After he
natters on wordily about his imaginary space aliens and
UFOs and immortal popscicles, he also addresses the issue
of family and children, and the future of "the family" in his
presumed "brave new world" of techological salvation:

"One can offer all kinds of impressive intellectual arguments
against the family as an institution...but when you get right
down to it, the family is the most primitive and visceral
and vital unit in society. You may stand outside your wife's
hospital room during childbirth muttering, "My God, what
a responsibility!"...and then you go in and look down at
the face of your child and -- zap! -- that ancient programming
takes over and your response is one of wonder and joy and
pride. It's a classic case of genetically imprinted social
patterns. There are very few things in this world that have
an unquestionable importance in and of themselves and are
not susceptible to debate or rational argument, but the
family is one of them."
- Stanley Kubrick

And indeed, by all accounts, Mr. Kubrick was very well
"integrated" with his "genetically imprinted social
patterns". Virtually every interview with him contains
notes that the interview session included the presence
of his children in his home, plus a somewhat intimidating
number of their pet animals, and he incorporated his
extended family members into his long-term film production
"team". He even cast his daughter in a role in the
movie "2001" with the predictable resultant risk that one
critic would refer to the scene as evidence that it was
the "ultimate home movie".

I've already speculated that the inclusion of the
scene at the end of "Paths Of Glory" with his future
wife represented Kubrick's personal desire to integrate
a positive feminine image into his life in the form
of a loving nuturing mother figure. I've also theorized
that the various negative images of women in Kubrick's
movies were inserted specifically as signs of a
"society gone mad", and that the movies "The Shining"
and "Eyes Wide Shut" were cautionary tales about the
importance of integrating "family values" into the
life of a man.

So Mr. Kubrick's "fear of flying" may actually boil
down to nothing more "irrational" than he was a "homebody",
he really liked to stick around the house and be with
the kids. And in many ways, this was perhaps a wise
choice from an "artistic" standpoint as well. If the
challenge of the logical, analytical "thinking person"
to create art is to develop "introspection", what is the
point of travelling the world? Perhaps to Kubrick, attempting
to find the answers about human nature by traveling would
be as foolish as Jack Torrance "overlooking" that in the
"final analysis", literally HE was the center of the only
part of the universe that really mattered, the unity of his
own "soul", as we see a picture of Jack at a fish and goose
soiree decades earlier in the hotel lobby after another of
Kubrick's "tracking shots" through the "maze" of
"self-discovery".

But this journey, although it would not involve physical
travel, also did not involve pure "intuition" or startling
flashes of "insight". It was more a process of "bringing
in" a world of previous thought on whatever general subject
he was working on, and the "thinking person" process of
tediously analyzing it over a course of many years, quite
often in conjunction with writing collaborators.

Kubrick always worked with writing collaborators in one
sense or another, either by choosing a novel that required
little plot changes to suit his themes, or at the other
extreme, authoring what were essentially original screenplays.
In the case of movies like "2001" and "Dr. Strangelove",
he largely wrote original screenplays working with one or
several collaborators. In the case of "A Clockwork Orange",
his "collaborator" was truly the novel itself, Anthony Burgess'
searing "nightmare vision" that Kubrick largely just "translated"
for the screen. It is from his collaborators on projects
where he made major changes from any original material
that we get testimony as to how he actually "created"
his "art".

In the case of "The Shining", he worked with Diane
Johnson, an American author whose "dark psychological"
novel, "The Shadow Knows", about a mother stalked by a
mysterious axe-wielding persurer, somehow intrigued Kubrick,
who at the time had a general goal to make "the ultimate
horror movie". She describes the start of their collaboration:

"I had dabbled with a couple of screenplays. But I got involved
because Kubrick was thinking of making 'The Shadow Knows' but he
never went as far as optioning it. He was considering it along
with the Stephen King novel, and when he finally decided to do
'The Shining', he said he would like to work with me on the
screenplay adaptation."
- Diane Johnson

She then describes the long process of developing the
screenplay, which consisted of reading hundreds of books,
including many psychology books and compilations of fairy
tales, in an attempt to "analyze" what is "scary".

And in the case of "Full Metal Jacket", Kubrick worked with
Michael Herr, who specifically mentioned in an interview that
Kubrick wanted to make the movie about the Jungian concept
of the "shadow":

"During the next few years, we talked on the telephone. I think
of it now as one phone call lasting three years, with interruptions.
The substance was single-minded: the old and always serious problem
of how you put into a film or a book the living, behaving presence
of what Jung called the Shadow, 'the most accessible of archetypes,
and the easiest to experience'."
- Michael Herr

Couple that quote with the specific reference to Jung in the
movie, and you could easily predict the rush of Kubrick's then-dwindling
audience to the bookstore to buy a copy of "Introducing Psychology".
So let's take a closer look at what's going on in "Full Metal
Jacket", a movie that Kubrick said he only intended to show
"the truth of war".

On the surface, and at just about any level, it is quite
simply another Kubrick tale about the failure of "thinking"
and "sensation", this time in the specific environment of war,
an arena he sees as properly dominated by "emotion" and
"intuition". From the beginning of the movie to the last
scene, Kubrick presents the real battle in war for the soldiers
is the struggle between "heart and mind".

This is a struggle that is first shown starting in boot camp,
and in a crucial scene, the drill sargeant says, "It is not a
rifle that kills. It is a hard heart that kills. It is
your killer instinct. If you hesitate at the moment of truth,
you will not kill the enemy, the enemy will kill you." And as we
see in the climax of the movie, it the "shadow" of the "thinking"
traits in a soldier that will cause that hesitation.

The names and "nicknames" of the characters in
"Full Metal Jacket" are significant. The protagonist
is nicknamed "Joker" to signify his primary trait as a
thinking man; he tends to "think" that everything is a
big joke. He and the other thinking man characters are
depicted as wearing glasses to symbolize their reliance on
"sensation", visual sight, that betrays them. "Joker"
aggravates his editor on the "Stars and Stripes" newspaper
by insisting on a rational visual sighting of a "blood
trail" before writing a story about "enemy kills";
his editor argues with him "you don't want people to
read our paper and feel bad, do you?"

His Jungian opposite in VietNam is nicknamed "Animal Mother",
very close to the Jungian concept of an "mother anima" symbol.
He is shown as relying on his "animal spirit" to make
decisions, as opposed to the "thinking men". "Joker"'s first
encounter with the several experienced military "authority"
figures who literally try to "wipe the smirk off his
face" is Drill Sargeant "Hartman", very close to a
literal "heart-man".

The failure of the "sensation" trait of the "thinking
man" is shown multiple times. In boot camp, the recruit "Pyle"
that "Joker" is assigned to help train goes "Section Eight"
("insane"), but "Joker" is powerless to stop it. In one scene
where the other recruits beat "Pyle", "Joker" is shown putting
his hands over his ears to block out the sound of "Pyle"'s
sobbing. Later, "Joker" acknowledges that "Pyle" is insane
in the "head" to "Cowboy", another recruit who wears glasses,
but they both fail to understand the importance, leading
to a later confrontation in the "head" with "Pyle" that almost
costs "Joker" his life.

"Joker" is finally sent to Hue city at the height of
the "Tet offensive" by his editor after being aggravated
by his "jokes". This becomes "Joker"'s final symbolic
journey of "self-discovery", where he finally learns
how to be a soldier in war; he explicitly says that
"I'm not ready for this" during a skirmish at the base
at the beginning of the offensive. And later, on the
way to Hue, he has an encounter with another military
"authority" figure that symbolizes exactly why he is
not ready. In front of a mass grave of people executed
by the VietCong, a colonel asks him why he has "Born To
Kill" written on his helmet and a "peace symbol" on his
jacket near his heart. The colonel is outraged by his
response that "it represents the duality of man...the
Jungian thing" and tells Joker "you've got to get your
head and your ass wired together", again symbolizing
the importance of getting rid of the "shadow" trait
of "thinking" in a soldier.

Hue is represented as a "maze" of annihilation, with constant
image of fire and the rubble of broken stones, with bedraggled
palm trees with their fronds knocked off. I've talked
before about the symbolism of the "monolith" in "2001",
and note the complete difference in images in "Full Metal
Jacket". In addition, Jung also said that images of fire
were a powerful symbol of death in many cultures (also,
Jung wrote about the image of the nuclear fireball as being
the ultimate symbol of annihilation without the possibility
of resurrection, so a veiwing of "Dr. Stangelove" is
interesting in that regard). We see the soldiers enter
the city in a classic Kubrick "tracking shot" from behind.

The platoon, now under the command of "Cowboy", the other
"thinking man" recruit from "Joker"'s boot camp with the glasses,
becomes "lost", as he tries to rely on maps, symbolizing yet
again the failure of "thinking" and "sensation" to guide them
through this "maze" of death. After two soldiers are shot
by a sniper, "Mother Animal", knowing "instinctively" that
there is only one sniper, takes effective command of the squad,
leading to the climax of the movie, the killing of the sniper.
And it is during this scene that we again see a literal
"maze", just like in "The Shining", symbolizing the
complexity of the "unconscious mind".

First we see a railing with a maze-like pattern in the
background as "Joker" enters the building in a yet another
classic Kubrick "tracking shot" through the "maze" of the
building, then we and "Joker" see the sniper. Then as "Joker"
tries to shoot the sniper, his gun jams, and this scene is
framed with "Joker" on the right, and a circular "labyrinth"
pattern on the wall to the left and behind him. This scene
is one of the most purely symbolic in all of Kubrick's movies,
as we ironically see that it is ostensibly his GUN that fails
him, when "Sgt. Hartman" clearly said that, "It is not a gun
that kills, it is a hard heart."

From that standpoint, this scene cannot be taken literally,
and Kubrick, with his stated knowledge of Jungian symbolism
and the explicit dialog reference, must have "deliberately buried"
the "labyrinth" symbol in plain sight right next to the protagonist.
It is "Joker"'s thinking, rational, conscious mind that has actually
failed him at the crucial moment, that's the REAL "reason" for the
"hesitation"; he is not "integrated" with his unconscious "labyrinth"
mind.

Then another soldier shoots the sniper, and then we see the
sniper is actually a young girl. As she lays wounded, she first
begins to speak in Vietnamese, which "Joker" interprets as "praying",
an "irrational" act. She then entreats them in English to "shoot me".
"Animal Mother" says "leave her for the rats", but "Joker" argues
"we can't just leave her like this". So as the symbolic
"integration" of "Joker" with his "killer instinct", "Joker"
shoots the sniper. As he turns to shoot her, we see the
"peace symbol" that he "joked" about is covered by the
folds of his flak jacket, so we only thing we see in the
frame, centered, is his face, and the logo on his helmet,
"Born To Kill". We see the struggle on his face as he draws
his (unseen) weapon and makes the choice to fire it. And then
we see his "Kubrick stare" afterwards, a mixture of both serenity,
resolution, and menance. In his final voice-over, he says
"I am alive, and I am not afraid". "Basic training" is
finally complete, as is this ridiculous long-winded anal-ysis.

But, despite Kubrick's acknowledgement that he WAS
afraid of death, HE is not alive any more; he passed
away in 1999 before finally completing his last movie,
"Eyes Wide Shut", which was released 13 years after his
previous movie, "Full Metal Jacket". So Stanley Kubrick
finally reached the end of his own personal "hero's journey",
his long and twisted "maze" of "exploring" his "unconscious" mind
in a peculiarly very "conscious" manner, and "projecting" the
images that he found there, images that make no "literal sense",
like the irrational symbols of a dream, for rest of the world to
"see", but most importantly, hopefully to "feel".

He lays beneath his "favorite tree" (Christian symbol of motherhood,
the continuity of life and home) under a blanket of stones (Jewish
burial custom). We haven't "seen" any "rational" evidence that his
"soul" has been made immortal, such as perhaps by the "god-like"
intervention of his imaginary super-advanced space aliens, nor have we
heard any lurid stories that his head bobs in liquid nitrogen next
to the racist Uncle Walt as he said he wanted to do. Rather, like the
"primitives" who built Stonehenge and the Pyramids, his most
profound symbols have entered the "collective unconscious",
perhaps to live forever in the mind of man: it is his legendary
acheivements that have become immortal.

---
William Ernest "I Am Finished" Reid
JW Moore
2007-01-11 05:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bill Reid wrote:

<extended masturbatory exegesis snipped>
I've tried oh so hard to let these pseudointellectual exercises pass,
but at the risk of inflaming what's left of this ng once more, let me
quickly point out that:

1) Jung was an insane sycophant whom even Freud finally disowned
2) Jung and Freud lived, worked and died a century ago
3) Kubrick was smarter than either, and didn't need narcotics to
sustain him
Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest "I Am Finished" Reid
Please live up to your moniker for once.

~~Jack
Don Stockbauer
2007-01-11 05:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ah thinks it looks lak uh transitor radio, Mildred, we done come awl
tha way frum Old Dime Box ta Victoria here ta see this here 2001 movie
an ah doan think them big black boxes is nuttin butt uh transitor
radio, radio being tha most imprtant invention uh all time since it be
used to connect awl Humanity now into a sinle big entity wut they done
be callin de Global Brain an it cant be nuttin left by no aliens
because everyone knwos that superrationality locks in amonst untiuhgint
lifeforms an dey done be cornmunninating by radio rather than be
trudging them big balcl mononucleosisliths big distance an we awl know
dta when you ahve awl them radio links uh goin you from the Galactic
Internet or the Galactic Brain and .....Mildred, you feeling uh littel
frisky, eh, them monoliths is sorta sexy looking whay say w get it on
rat here in the car at the Lone Tree Drive in: Hoo- whee doggie first
time in 13 years girlie....."
Yelps
2007-01-11 07:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JW Moore
<extended masturbatory exegesis snipped>
I've tried oh so hard to let these pseudointellectual exercises pass,
but at the risk of inflaming what's left of this ng once more, let me
1) Jung was an insane sycophant whom even Freud finally disowned
2) Jung and Freud lived, worked and died a century ago
3) Kubrick was smarter than either, and didn't need narcotics to
sustain him
I concur with all three points---but I won't negate Jung's voluminous
collections of Myth and Symbols. It can be a useful historical reference
and is quite good except when he gets into anal-y-sis.

dc
Post by JW Moore
Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest "I Am Finished" Reid
Please live up to your moniker for once.
~~Jack
ichorwhip
2007-01-12 02:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JW Moore
<extended masturbatory exegesis snipped>
Don't you mean "circumcised?"
Post by JW Moore
I've tried oh so hard to let these pseudointellectual exercises pass,
but at the risk of inflaming what's left of this ng once more,
Oh whatever gave you that idea....
Post by JW Moore
let me
1) Jung was an insane sycophant whom even Freud finally disowned
That's a bit harsh. I prefer the term "nutcase."
Post by JW Moore
2) Jung and Freud lived, worked and died a century ago
Now now Jack, you know Jung didn't die until the early 1960's. Freud
died in 1939. I do take your point, but "century" is a bit
excessive...
Post by JW Moore
3) Kubrick was smarter than either, and didn't need narcotics to
sustain him
Agreed!
Post by JW Moore
Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest "I Am Finished" Reid
Please live up to your moniker for once.
You know that ain't happening! Especially after I only gave his
"magma" opus a C-minus. I do want to say that Billy is a somewhat
changed person since he first really polluted this newgroup. He has
somewhat redeemed himself by at least trying to make a substansial
contribution, has he not?

"That's right, Dad they did a great job on my gulliver, I'm completely
reformed."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-01-12 03:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And who woulda thunk it, JW "Moore Existentialism" takes his
Post by JW Moore
<extended masturbatory exegesis snipped>
I've tried oh so hard to let these pseudointellectual exercises pass,
You could have tried just a little harder...
Post by JW Moore
but at the risk of inflaming what's left of this ng once more,
Take my word for it, a simple moron like you isn't worth worrying
about. The few intelligent people who used to post here were driven
away by the charming combination of idiocy and the kind of insanity
that causes normal people to look away and hurry about their business.
So fire away, you're preaching to the choir of about five mentally-ill
trolls
with the tenacity of a spam-bot, they ain't leaving as long as libraries
have free Internet service...
Post by JW Moore
let me
1) Jung was an insane sycophant whom even Freud finally disowned
Oh sure, I don't think Freud left anything in his will to Jung, but I
don't think he actually diagnosed Jung as "insane"...
Post by JW Moore
2) Jung and Freud lived, worked and died a century ago
Jung died in 1961. Stanley Kubrick died in 1999.
Since in your opinion, relevancy is relegated to the era of
person's lifespan, it's about time for you to be moving on
and forgetting about the films of Stanley Kubrick...
Post by JW Moore
3) Kubrick was smarter than either, and didn't need narcotics to
sustain him
Just those cigarettes.
Post by JW Moore
Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest "I Am Finished" Reid
Please live up to your moniker for once.
I am with you always, unto the end of the world...you incredible retard.

---
William Ernest "Moore Idiotic Trolls, Please" Reid
blue
2007-01-11 14:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
I've repeatedly referred to Stanley Kubrick as
a "thinking man", and I really don't think that
I have to supply any supporting evidence to make
that assertion. All available testimonies about
his working methods to "create" his "art" describe
a long, sometimes seeemingly endless, process of
reading hundreds if not thousand of books, technical
papers, and essays, watching hundreds of films, and
then analyzing, evaluating, and discussing them with
his collaborators for further seemingly endless
hours. He explicitly disavowed his personal use of
any type of "psychedelic" drug that he feared would
dull his rational evaluation of the images and sounds
that he would choose to insert in his "art".
This is in sharp contrast to many other "artists",
who work quickly on seeming instant "inspiration".
Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein", the classic modern
nightmare about the horror of man's technology attempting
to play "God", as the result of images in a dream. Bob
Dylan has said he has "no idea" where his songs came from,
that he used to write them as fast as he could scribble
the words. Anthony Burgess wrote the novel "A Clockwork
Orange", which has always been described as a "nightmare vision"
of a technological society run amuck, in a matter of
weeks, and, according to him, based on single overhearing of
the English slang expression "queer as a clockwork orange"
in a bar. The "Beatles" pop group songwriting duo, according
to several stories, used to disappear into a room together,
only to re-appear a few minutes later (presumably in cloud of
their beloved cannabis smoke) with a new hit single.
As with SK who avoided talking about his films, often artists come up
with excuses not to talk about their work as they are using the medium
to speak and feel it unnecessary.
Don't forget that Kubrick made a lot of his early films pretty quickly
and only started working much more methodically as he got older and had
the freedom to do so. Anthony Burgess has stated that ACO was based on
an incident where he and his wife were robbed and not just the title.

Many myths arise about artists being able to create magic out of thin
air but in reality the end product is probably one of several attempts
on a theme and the failures are just thown away.
I know several artists (and am one myself) and I've never met a single
one who could start 'cold' on a topic and produce something magical
within days. Where ever you get your inspiration from (books or real
life) the process has to start somewhere and all good work has a great
deal of thought behind it.

Personally, if I could say what I wanted with words I would, as it would
be quicker but I happen to think English is a much more unsubtle and
stilted communication device compared to music, sculpture, painting or film.
Bill Reid
2007-01-12 08:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by blue
Post by Bill Reid
I've repeatedly referred to Stanley Kubrick as
a "thinking man", and I really don't think that
I have to supply any supporting evidence to make
that assertion. All available testimonies about
his working methods to "create" his "art" describe
a long, sometimes seeemingly endless, process of
reading hundreds if not thousand of books, technical
papers, and essays, watching hundreds of films, and
then analyzing, evaluating, and discussing them with
his collaborators for further seemingly endless
hours. He explicitly disavowed his personal use of
any type of "psychedelic" drug that he feared would
dull his rational evaluation of the images and sounds
that he would choose to insert in his "art".
This is in sharp contrast to many other "artists",
who work quickly on seeming instant "inspiration".
Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein", the classic modern
nightmare about the horror of man's technology attempting
to play "God", as the result of images in a dream. Bob
Dylan has said he has "no idea" where his songs came from,
that he used to write them as fast as he could scribble
the words. Anthony Burgess wrote the novel "A Clockwork
Orange", which has always been described as a "nightmare vision"
of a technological society run amuck, in a matter of
weeks, and, according to him, based on single overhearing of
the English slang expression "queer as a clockwork orange"
in a bar. The "Beatles" pop group songwriting duo, according
to several stories, used to disappear into a room together,
only to re-appear a few minutes later (presumably in cloud of
their beloved cannabis smoke) with a new hit single.
As with SK who avoided talking about his films, often artists come up
with excuses not to talk about their work as they are using the medium
to speak and feel it unnecessary.
Sorry...the stuff about the Lennon, McCartney, Dylan, and Burgess
comes directly from their mouths or first-person eyewitnesses.
Post by blue
Don't forget that Kubrick made a lot of his early films pretty quickly
and only started working much more methodically as he got older and had
the freedom to do so.
Hmmmm...ever consider the paradoxical idea that "freedom" can
become a "straight-jacket"? Some people DO work better "under
pressure"...Anthony Burgess in particular said that he began to write
novels as fast as he could because he was diagnosed with a terminal
disease and was told he only had a year to live, and he wanted
to get as many books published as possible to provide for his
widow (of course, he actually lived for another 30 years or so,
but that's those whacky doctors for you!).
Post by blue
Anthony Burgess has stated that ACO was based on
an incident where he and his wife were robbed and not just the title.
He kind of just had a flash where he integrated the ideas together
and began banging away...with the spectre of his "imminent" death
before him...
Post by blue
Many myths arise about artists being able to create magic out of thin
air but in reality the end product is probably one of several attempts
on a theme and the failures are just thown away.
So you personally know and actually observed 24/7 the activities
of the people I mentioned?
Post by blue
I know several artists (and am one myself) and I've never met a single
one who could start 'cold' on a topic and produce something magical
within days.
That's you, and the people who are part of YOUR peer group...you
might want to consider that you're just no damn good. At least, I can
say that I know several people personally that do their best work
based on sudden flashes of inspiration.
Post by blue
Where ever you get your inspiration from (books or real
life) the process has to start somewhere and all good work has a great
deal of thought behind it.
Depends on how you define "thought". You just aren't really
knowledgable on this topic, or perhaps you really are just "rationalizing"
your own inability to CREATE quickly by "inspiration"...
Post by blue
Personally, if I could say what I wanted with words I would, as it would
be quicker but I happen to think English is a much more unsubtle and
stilted communication device compared to music, sculpture, painting or film.
So very wrong. Nothing wrong with the English language, or any
other language for that matter (leaving aside the inefficiency of
ideographs).
A great writer can paint with words a world that can never be portrayed
the same way in the audio-visual media.

---
William Ernest "Media Massager" Reid
ichorwhip
2007-01-12 01:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well that was actually okay Billy...

I'd give you a C-minus since you made more than a few mistakes here and
there, and did not resist the primal urge to "editorialize" throughout.
Your major problem with Kubrick is much apparent now. I knew you
didn't respect him (or anyone else) to begin with so it's no revelation
to me, but anyone else reading this now knows without a doubt how you
"feel" about Kubrick.

Overall, this verbose, disjointed, snarky "character assassination"
contained a lot of useful information. You must have done your
homework a little bit, and that accounts for the "interesting" parts.
I have no inclination to take you on point by point with this "essay"
of yours in any event. Let it stand as _something_ at least a little
worthwhile. Besides, I don't have the time for it.

Thanks for playing!

"Oh, please. Do put your hand over your mouth, it's bloody revolting."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-01-12 08:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ichorwhip
Well that was actually okay Billy...
Yeah, it could have used some true obscurantism to put it
over the top in terms of meaningless pseudo-intellectual nihilistic
blather...but that wasn't actually my goal and never will be...
Post by ichorwhip
I'd give you a C-minus
Since you are diminumizing me you might want to also patronize
me and give me something like a B-minus, if only to to keep me from
"feeling bad about myself"...
Post by ichorwhip
since you made more than a few mistakes here and
there,
Ah, let me guess, you're too busy to actually point these out
specifically (or at least the ones other than the ones I explicitly
admitted to)...let's just call it "error-ridden" and run away...
Post by ichorwhip
and did not resist the primal urge to "editorialize" throughout.
I wanted to make sure that my "voice" came through occasionally
so somebody didn't think I just cribbed the whole thing off a web-site
somewhere...
Post by ichorwhip
Your major problem with Kubrick is much apparent now.
My problem where he made some of my favorite movies ever?
Whaaa?
Post by ichorwhip
I knew you
didn't respect him (or anyone else)
I respect him a great deal, I think he was a brilliant man who
made several phenomenal movies. I respect all human beings
implicitly before encountering them, but after evidence is available,
according to their actual accomplishments in life. He accomplished
a great deal and I accordingly respect him a great deal.
Post by ichorwhip
to begin with so it's no revelation
to me, but anyone else reading this now knows without a doubt how you
"feel" about Kubrick.
Yeah, this basically constitutes mindless slander, because it has
nothing to do with what I wrote, just another form of ad hominen
attack for no apparent reason other than the free-floating hatred
of the dwindling number of "people" that post to Usenet. As I
said before, I expected it, I predicted it, and there it is. It's just
one part of this big thing called "life", is all...
Post by ichorwhip
Overall, this verbose, disjointed, snarky "character assassination"
contained a lot of useful information.
There was no "character assassination" in what I wrote, this is
just more venomous slander, like all the "errors" you won't have
"time" to specifically address...
Post by ichorwhip
You must have done your
homework a little bit,
A little bit, mostly by reaching over and pulling a few yellowed old
books out of my bookcase here to get the actual words right and
refresh my memory...
Post by ichorwhip
and that accounts for the "interesting" parts.
Well, I'm sorry about the lack of footnotes to allow you to
further research on your own, but projecting incorrectly as I
usually do I assume the source material is as quickly available
to you as it is to me...
Post by ichorwhip
I have no inclination to take you on point by point with this "essay"
of yours in any event. Let it stand as _something_ at least a little
worthwhile.
I thank God for even the smallest of victories!
Post by ichorwhip
Besides, I don't have the time for it.
I knew it! Pluck-cluck-cluck...
Post by ichorwhip
Thanks for playing!
Sometimes it's good "mental exercise" to take a break from
the serious work at hand and kind of fool around with some
other stuff that is sort of kind of orthogonally-related, and for
me, that is definitely the case here...and if you were to read
my syllabus, you'd note that Kubrick did this all the time
with his writing collaborators...

---
William Ernest "Half A Gold Star" Reid
Don Stockbauer
2007-01-12 09:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well that was actually okay Billy...
Yeah, it could have used some true obscurantism to put it
over the top in terms of meaningless pseudo-intellectual nihilistic
blather...but that wasn't actually my goal and never will be...
Post by ichorwhip
I'd give you a C-minus
Since you are diminumizing me you might want to also patronize
me and give me something like a B-minus, if only to to keep me from
"feeling bad about myself"...
Post by ichorwhip
since you made more than a few mistakes here and
there,
Ah, let me guess, you're too busy to actually point these out
specifically (or at least the ones other than the ones I explicitly
admitted to)...let's just call it "error-ridden" and run away...
Post by ichorwhip
and did not resist the primal urge to "editorialize" throughout.
I wanted to make sure that my "voice" came through occasionally
so somebody didn't think I just cribbed the whole thing off a web-site
somewhere...
Post by ichorwhip
Your major problem with Kubrick is much apparent now.
My problem where he made some of my favorite movies ever?
Whaaa?
Post by ichorwhip
I knew you
didn't respect him (or anyone else)
I respect him a great deal, I think he was a brilliant man who
made several phenomenal movies. I respect all human beings
implicitly before encountering them, but after evidence is available,
according to their actual accomplishments in life. He accomplished
a great deal and I accordingly respect him a great deal.
Post by ichorwhip
to begin with so it's no revelation
to me, but anyone else reading this now knows without a doubt how you
"feel" about Kubrick.
Yeah, this basically constitutes mindless slander, because it has
nothing to do with what I wrote, just another form of ad hominen
attack for no apparent reason other than the free-floating hatred
of the dwindling number of "people" that post to Usenet. As I
said before, I expected it, I predicted it, and there it is. It's just
one part of this big thing called "life", is all...
Post by ichorwhip
Overall, this verbose, disjointed, snarky "character assassination"
contained a lot of useful information.
There was no "character assassination" in what I wrote, this is
just more venomous slander, like all the "errors" you won't have
"time" to specifically address...
Post by ichorwhip
You must have done your
homework a little bit,
A little bit, mostly by reaching over and pulling a few yellowed old
books out of my bookcase here to get the actual words right and
refresh my memory...
Post by ichorwhip
and that accounts for the "interesting" parts.
Well, I'm sorry about the lack of footnotes to allow you to
further research on your own, but projecting incorrectly as I
usually do I assume the source material is as quickly available
to you as it is to me...
Post by ichorwhip
I have no inclination to take you on point by point with this "essay"
of yours in any event. Let it stand as _something_ at least a little
worthwhile.
I thank God for even the smallest of victories!
Post by ichorwhip
Besides, I don't have the time for it.
I knew it! Pluck-cluck-cluck...
Post by ichorwhip
Thanks for playing!
Sometimes it's good "mental exercise" to take a break from
the serious work at hand and kind of fool around with some
other stuff that is sort of kind of orthogonally-related, and for
me, that is definitely the case here...and if you were to read
my syllabus, you'd note that Kubrick did this all the time
with his writing collaborators...
---
William Ernest "Half A Gold Star" Reid
Kinder, kinder.
ichorwhip
2007-01-15 02:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well that was actually okay Billy...
Yeah, it could have used some true obscurantism to put it
over the top in terms of meaningless pseudo-intellectual nihilistic
blather...but that wasn't actually my goal and never will be...
Post by ichorwhip
I'd give you a C-minus
Since you are diminumizing me you might want to also patronize
me and give me something like a B-minus, if only to to keep me from
"feeling bad about myself"...
Okay, fine! I thought I was patronizing you just enough, but I can
NEVER do enough for you, so ungrateful...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
since you made more than a few mistakes here and
there,
Ah, let me guess, you're too busy to actually point these out
specifically (or at least the ones other than the ones I explicitly
admitted to)...let's just call it "error-ridden" and run away...
At least I read it Quizboy! Give me a break... I am very busy
actually, but since I mainly work at a computer I can at least monitor
and read what goes on here. You made some mistakes. Pardon me if I
don't have the time to properly analyze and correct your stuff at the
moment. What am I? Your editor?

"buh-bye"
i
"piop"
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
and did not resist the primal urge to "editorialize" throughout.
I wanted to make sure that my "voice" came through occasionally
so somebody didn't think I just cribbed the whole thing off a web-site
somewhere...
Post by ichorwhip
Your major problem with Kubrick is much apparent now.
My problem where he made some of my favorite movies ever?
Whaaa?
Post by ichorwhip
I knew you
didn't respect him (or anyone else)
I respect him a great deal, I think he was a brilliant man who
made several phenomenal movies. I respect all human beings
implicitly before encountering them, but after evidence is available,
according to their actual accomplishments in life. He accomplished
a great deal and I accordingly respect him a great deal.
Post by ichorwhip
to begin with so it's no revelation
to me, but anyone else reading this now knows without a doubt how you
"feel" about Kubrick.
Yeah, this basically constitutes mindless slander, because it has
nothing to do with what I wrote, just another form of ad hominen
attack for no apparent reason other than the free-floating hatred
of the dwindling number of "people" that post to Usenet. As I
said before, I expected it, I predicted it, and there it is. It's just
one part of this big thing called "life", is all...
Post by ichorwhip
Overall, this verbose, disjointed, snarky "character assassination"
contained a lot of useful information.
There was no "character assassination" in what I wrote, this is
just more venomous slander, like all the "errors" you won't have
"time" to specifically address...
Post by ichorwhip
You must have done your
homework a little bit,
A little bit, mostly by reaching over and pulling a few yellowed old
books out of my bookcase here to get the actual words right and
refresh my memory...
Post by ichorwhip
and that accounts for the "interesting" parts.
Well, I'm sorry about the lack of footnotes to allow you to
further research on your own, but projecting incorrectly as I
usually do I assume the source material is as quickly available
to you as it is to me...
Post by ichorwhip
I have no inclination to take you on point by point with this "essay"
of yours in any event. Let it stand as _something_ at least a little
worthwhile.
I thank God for even the smallest of victories!
Post by ichorwhip
Besides, I don't have the time for it.
I knew it! Pluck-cluck-cluck...
Post by ichorwhip
Thanks for playing!
Sometimes it's good "mental exercise" to take a break from
the serious work at hand and kind of fool around with some
other stuff that is sort of kind of orthogonally-related, and for
me, that is definitely the case here...and if you were to read
my syllabus, you'd note that Kubrick did this all the time
with his writing collaborators...
---
William Ernest "Half A Gold Star" Reid
Yelps
2007-01-15 20:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Since Bill Reid is plonked I had to read the post on Google. I guess he is
trying to reform his strategy or maybe it's just bait.
My "strategy" has always been the same: discussing the movies of
Stanley Kubrick in a group named "alt.movies.kubrick". I know that
this is not the goal of the five or so mentally ill never-wases that
populate this group, but I persist regardless...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Doesn't sound very much the "same." Where are your usual, constant, nasty
remarks? Thus the wondering if this was just bait.
Much can be said about Freud and Jung and much has been said and written.
As far as applying Freudian or Jungian theory to EWS, I'm not into it.
Kubrick was not sitting there thinking about Freudian or Jungian theory,
(or
existential psychology either) except in the context of the backdrop of
the
old novel. He was his own man.
You're unknowledgable on this topic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Oh? This would be fun to proceed further with-- not only do I hold an
advanced degree on the subject with an emphasis on Jungian and Existential
psychology I had already studied every translated book written by both
Freud and Jung by the time I was 18 years old and dismissed them as
primitive, and for the past 7 years have worked, giving technical help,
with an established, very elderly, Jungian, who has been compiling a
massive (over 20 volumes) Jungian Dictionary which will eventually be
available to the Jungian community on CD. I was also at one time on the
doctoral dissertation approval committee of a Psych school that specialized
in both Jungian and Existential psych.

I am neither a Freudian or a Jungian, an Existentialist or a
Behaviorist...all of those things to me, although useful and interesting
historically, and all of these things contain some truth----------they
ultimately are childish and primitive theory IMO, lacking in any true or
final usefulness to humanity.
"Kubrick clearly and
"consciously" eliminated all references to "Semitism" in his
movie; was this a tacit rejection of Freud in favor of Jung?"
NO
OK, it WAS a rhetorical question... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Sounds like you has a motive in saying this and it didn't sound very
"Rhetorical" as written.
and
".... the profusion of Christian images might be some type
of "ironic" or "sarcastic" comment by Kubrick about the split
between Freud and Jung"
Nonsense
Once again, OK, your opinion, stated simply... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


You actually believe Kubrick has this in his mind and was trying to make a
comment on Freud vs. Jung in EWS? I think that's just plain silly. I
don't think he could have cared less about the old arguments between Freud
and Jung, although he was doing some parody of sexual dynamics, in EWS and
of course the connection between Schnitzler and Freud is obvious, he was
going way beyond this stuff in EWS and were you to realize this your
understanding and appreciation of the film might change.
"And there can be no doubt many of the images in "Eyes Wide Shut"
were specifically discussed by Jung."
Thats like saying The Britanica Encyclopedia and Oxford Dictionary
discusses "images in "Eyes Wide Shut""
Right. You're doing well so far...
Jung discussed most everything----he never stopped his categorizing--So
one
can say "The Shaggy Dog," or the Oprah Winfrey show or a Beer commercial
could be Freudian or Jungian if one wants to be silly.
Sounds like fun on a rainy day! <<<<<<<<<<<


Not to me. I might use Jung as reference material as I would a dictionary,
at times, but I know too much about the mess of his students and devotees to
giver any credence to Jung as an analyst.
To Reid, Jung and Freud are both 'wacky" and EWS sucks and is boring--but
he still wants to pidgin hole EWS as a Jungian manifesto
Wrong. I'm just throwing some ideas out there, not a "manifesto".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Then you should have qualified your remarks. As they stood, they were very
contradictory.
and some how
relates it to Anti Semitism of Jung and then at the end throws in some
basic
Sociobiology.
Well, Kubrick hisself used to throw in a lot of "sociobiology" in
his interviews and sometimes explicitly in his movies, so don't we
have to consider what's really there? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Sociobiology is another matter altogether and yes Sk was clearly more into
Sociobiological thinking then Freudian or Jungian, whihc he probably looked
as as primitive.
No where does Reid state his own position.
I kind of skirt around my actual position, thanks for not asking, but
if you did I would tell you. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


It would be nice if people on AMK, would just talk like human beings,
conversationally, about their opinions and feelings, rather then constantly
lobbing nasty shit--and then wondering why they get plonked or get a taste
of their own shit. Unlike many on this NG I am quite capable of discussiing
these things without insults and when I write I don't care about trying to
impress or be stuffy, nor do I try to be a flamer. I would just hope people
would try to understand what I might say and stop with the nasty crap. I can
be 1000 times nastier to prove the point, but only after the shit has been
thrown.
he is just using
Jungian mumbo jumbo, as a way to attack EWS.
Nope. I said I didn't like it. I really liked "2001", and used the
same Jungian "mumbo-jumbo" to "analyze" that movie, so you are
just making an unsupported conclusion here... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ok. then.

But it is one thing saying you will discuss these films from a Jungian
viewpoint and another to make an argument that SK was thinking as a Jungian
or in any way promoting Jungian in either film.
Of course SK was up on these ideas--he was up on many ideas-----but his
own
output was not waving any of these flags.
OK, I buy that. So where's the beef? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The only real beef is how it was presented as though SK really was alluding
to Jungianism and the contradictoy nature of how you wrote the first 2/3's
and then went and called all it kooky, without saying what your point of
view is.

dc

---
William Ernest "Kill-Filed Ape" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-01-15 23:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
Oh? This would be fun to proceed further with-- not only do I hold an
advanced degree on the subject with an emphasis on Jungian and Existential
psychology I had already studied every translated book written by both
Freud and Jung by the time I was 18 years old and dismissed them as
primitive, and for the past 7 years have worked, giving technical help,
with an established, very elderly, Jungian, who has been compiling a
massive (over 20 volumes) Jungian Dictionary which will eventually be
available to the Jungian community on CD. I was also at one time on the
doctoral dissertation approval committee of a Psych school that specialized
in both Jungian and Existential psych.
I'm intrigued as to why you would abandon all psychology/psychoanalytic
theory to retreat into the mystical pre-modern world of magical,
irreducible "feelings" while continuing for years to work for a
"primitive" Jungian.
Post by Yelps
I am neither a Freudian or a Jungian, an Existentialist or a
Behaviorist...all of those things to me, although useful and interesting
historically, and all of these things contain some truth----------they
ultimately are childish and primitive theory IMO, lacking in any true or
final usefulness to humanity.
Childish and primitive theory? Presumably, then, you have completely
ignored all of the developments in post-Freudian psychoanalytic theory
over the past half-century, Lacanian psychoanalysis, etc? Or are you
hiding from the world some secret, some more "advanced" theory? Buffy
Theory, maybe?

Or have you some other secret, enigmatic Theory of Feelings perhaps?
Not that you'd be familiar with Spinoza and post-Spinozist ideas about
emotions and feelings, preferring the Spartacus mode of irrational and
mystical emotive histrionics ... ?
Post by Yelps
It would be nice if people on AMK, would just talk like human beings,
You're coming across here like some naive adolescent hopelessly lost in
a fantasy world, and suffering False Memory Syndrome about reading
"every translated book written by both Freud and Jung by the time I
was 18 years old and dismissed them as primitive," oblivious to just
how patently absurd and ridiculous you sound.
Yelps
2007-01-16 02:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From:Harry Bailey - view profile
Date:Mon, Jan 15 2007 3:23 pm
Email: "Harry Bailey" <***@yahoo.com>
Groups: alt.movies.kubrick
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Yelps wrote:


Ok I'll bite on your bait.
Post by Yelps
Oh? This would be fun to proceed further with-- not only do I hold an
advanced degree on the subject with an emphasis on Jungian and
Existential psychology I had already studied every translated book
written by both Freud and Jung by the time I was 18 years old and
dismissed them as primitive, and for the past 7 years have worked,
giving technical help, with an established, very elderly, Jungian, who
has been compiling a massive (over 20 volumes) Jungian Dictionary which
will eventually be available to the Jungian community on CD. I was also at
one time on the doctoral dissertation approval committee of a Psych school
that specialized in both Jungian and Existential psych.
I'm intrigued as to why you would abandon all psychology/psychoanalytic
theory to retreat into the mystical pre-modern world of magical,
irreducible "feelings" while continuing for years to work for a
"primitive" Jungian. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Nothing magic about my kind of "mysticism."
Post by Yelps
I am neither a Freudian or a Jungian, an Existentialist or a
Behaviorist...all of those things to me, although useful and interesting
historically, and all of these things contain some truth----------they
ultimately are childish and primitive theory IMO, lacking in any true or
final usefulness to humanity.
Childish and primitive theory? Presumably, then, you have completely
ignored all of the developments in post-Freudian psychoanalytic theory
over the past half-century, Lacanian psychoanalysis, etc? Or are you
hiding from the world some secret, some more "advanced" theory? Buffy
Theory, maybe? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Buffy is a Movie not the reality as it is. You should try both.


Or have you some other secret, enigmatic Theory of Feelings perhaps?
Not that you'd be familiar with Spinoza and post-Spinozist ideas about
emotions and feelings, preferring the Spartacus mode of irrational and
mystical emotive histrionics ... ? <<<<<<<<<<

Ha. Aren't you a clown. You haven't the vaguest notion. Spinoza was way
off in most every conclusion he came to.
Post by Yelps
It would be nice if people on AMK, would just talk like human beings,
You're coming across here like some naive adolescent hopelessly lost in
a fantasy world, and suffering False Memory Syndrome about reading
"every translated book written by both Freud and Jung by the time I
was 18 years old and dismissed them as primitive," oblivious to just
how patently absurd and ridiculous you sound. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You haven't a clue. The fantasy is yours. I don't care how "absurd and
ridiculous," I might sound like to you. Neither Jung or Freud had the
requisite inner experiences, necessary to even comment on the human
condition, much less start an -ism or a -ology that creates a proper mirror
for introspection or pretend to be able to cure the mentally ill, whether
Psychotic or Neurotic--in fact all their methods only reinforce the
problem.

It's karma. Karma is not a mystical thing. Its simply causation, both
linearly and simultaneous. You want to see it and know it. You'd need some
training, study and practice to do that.

Nirvana Sutra: "........once the poison drum is beaten, all those who hear
it will die, even if they are not of the mind to listen to it."

You might reject what I say, but that you will still get the effect and will
be glad to listen later.

dc


.
Post by Yelps
Since Bill Reid is plonked I had to read the post on Google. I guess he is
trying to reform his strategy or maybe it's just bait.
My "strategy" has always been the same: discussing the movies of
Stanley Kubrick in a group named "alt.movies.kubrick". I know that
this is not the goal of the five or so mentally ill never-wases that
populate this group, but I persist regardless...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Doesn't sound very much the "same." Where are your usual, constant,
nasty remarks? Thus the wondering if this was just bait.
Much can be said about Freud and Jung and much has been said and written.
As far as applying Freudian or Jungian theory to EWS, I'm not into it.
Kubrick was not sitting there thinking about Freudian or Jungian theory,
(or
existential psychology either) except in the context of the backdrop of
the
old novel. He was his own man.
You're unknowledgable on this topic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh? This would be fun to proceed further with-- not only do I hold an
advanced degree on the subject with an emphasis on Jungian and
Existential psychology I had already studied every translated book
written by both Freud and Jung by the time I was 18 years old and
dismissed them as primitive, and for the past 7 years have worked,
giving technical help, with an established, very elderly, Jungian, who
has been compiling a massive (over 20 volumes) Jungian Dictionary which
will eventually be available to the Jungian community on CD. I was also at
one time on the doctoral dissertation approval committee of a Psych school
that specialized in both Jungian and Existential psych.
I am neither a Freudian or a Jungian, an Existentialist or a
Behaviorist...all of those things to me, although useful and interesting
historically, and all of these things contain some truth----------they
ultimately are childish and primitive theory IMO, lacking in any true or
final usefulness to humanity.
"Kubrick clearly and
"consciously" eliminated all references to "Semitism" in his
movie; was this a tacit rejection of Freud in favor of Jung?"
NO
OK, it WAS a rhetorical question... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sounds like you has a motive in saying this and it didn't sound very
"Rhetorical" as written.
and
".... the profusion of Christian images might be some type
of "ironic" or "sarcastic" comment by Kubrick about the split
between Freud and Jung"
Nonsense
Once again, OK, your opinion, stated simply... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You actually believe Kubrick has this in his mind and was trying to make a
comment on Freud vs. Jung in EWS? I think that's just plain silly. I
don't think he could have cared less about the old arguments between Freud
and Jung, although he was doing some parody of sexual dynamics, in EWS
and of course the connection between Schnitzler and Freud is obvious, he
was going way beyond this stuff in EWS and were you to realize this your
understanding and appreciation of the film might change.
"And there can be no doubt many of the images in "Eyes Wide Shut"
were specifically discussed by Jung."
Thats like saying The Britanica Encyclopedia and Oxford Dictionary
discusses "images in "Eyes Wide Shut""
Right. You're doing well so far...
Jung discussed most everything----he never stopped his categorizing--So
one
can say "The Shaggy Dog," or the Oprah Winfrey show or a Beer commercial
could be Freudian or Jungian if one wants to be silly.
Sounds like fun on a rainy day! <<<<<<<<<<<
Not to me. I might use Jung as reference material as I would a
dictionary, at times, but I know too much about the mess of his students
and devotees to giver any credence to Jung as an analyst.
To Reid, Jung and Freud are both 'wacky" and EWS sucks and is boring--but
he still wants to pidgin hole EWS as a Jungian manifesto
Wrong. I'm just throwing some ideas out there, not a "manifesto".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Then you should have qualified your remarks. As they stood, they were very
contradictory.
and some how
relates it to Anti Semitism of Jung and then at the end throws in some
basic
Sociobiology.
Well, Kubrick hisself used to throw in a lot of "sociobiology" in
his interviews and sometimes explicitly in his movies, so don't we
have to consider what's really there? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sociobiology is another matter altogether and yes Sk was clearly more into
Sociobiological thinking then Freudian or Jungian, whihc he probably
looked as as primitive.
No where does Reid state his own position.
I kind of skirt around my actual position, thanks for not asking, but
if you did I would tell you. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It would be nice if people on AMK, would just talk like human beings,
conversationally, about their opinions and feelings, rather then
constantly lobbing nasty shit--and then wondering why they get plonked or
get a taste of their own shit. Unlike many on this NG I am quite capable
of discussiing these things without insults and when I write I don't care
about trying to impress or be stuffy, nor do I try to be a flamer. I
would just hope people would try to understand what I might say and stop
with the nasty crap. I can be 1000 times nastier to prove the point, but
only after the shit has been thrown.
he is just using
Jungian mumbo jumbo, as a way to attack EWS.
Nope. I said I didn't like it. I really liked "2001", and used the
same Jungian "mumbo-jumbo" to "analyze" that movie, so you are
just making an unsupported conclusion here... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ok. then.
But it is one thing saying you will discuss these films from a Jungian
viewpoint and another to make an argument that SK was thinking as a
Jungian or in any way promoting Jungian in either film.
Of course SK was up on these ideas--he was up on many ideas-----but his
own
output was not waving any of these flags.
OK, I buy that. So where's the beef? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The only real beef is how it was presented as though SK really was
alluding to Jungianism and the contradictoy nature of how you wrote the
first 2/3's and then went and called all it kooky, without saying what
your point of view is.
dc
---
William Ernest "Kill-Filed Ape" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-01-17 03:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
It's karma.
I was referring to Theory - philosophical, psychoanalytic,
neuroscientific - not to the phantasmatic ravings and dogma of some
obscurantist religious cult, whether pagan or post-pagan (even a
twisted Scientologist or Creationist would present a more "convincing"
fairy tale than what you've managed here). But you seem not to
understand, even at an elementary level, the difference between theory
and fantasy, nor the difference between refuting a theory and
irrationally rejecting it.
Bill Reid
2007-01-17 04:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
It's karma. Karma is not a mystical thing. Its simply causation, both
linearly and simultaneous. You want to see it and know it. You'd need some
training, study and practice to do that.
I studied for a while under a disciple of a very famous Indian guru.
But then as a result, the CIA tried to recruit me to do "remote viewing"
inside the Kremlin but that's a whole other story...
Post by Yelps
Nirvana Sutra: "........once the poison drum is beaten, all those who hear
it will die, even if they are not of the mind to listen to it."
You might reject what I say, but that you will still get the effect and will
be glad to listen later.
So, were those "mandalas" on the walls of Ziegler's party in "Eyes
Wide Shut"? You know, those things that were supposed to be like
"Christmas stars", but were more like a set of intersecting triangles
in a circular pattern? Why do you think those things were there? Just
a set designer's "idea" of what might "look good" that Kubrick
just "unconsciously" approved?

---
William Ernest "Rhetorical Answers Only" Reid
Yelps
2007-01-17 22:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
It's karma. Karma is not a mystical thing. Its simply causation, both
linearly and simultaneous. You want to see it and know it. You'd need some
training, study and practice to do that.
I studied for a while under a disciple of a very famous Indian guru.
But then as a result, the CIA tried to recruit me to do "remote viewing"
inside the Kremlin but that's a whole other story... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Remote viewing is real. I was involved in legitimate experiments run by
Charles Tart, in the early 80's and it did work...although the results are
difficult to use or show numerically. I personally was able to view
locations in a group and then draw the imagery and was right on,
Post by Yelps
Nirvana Sutra: "........once the poison drum is beaten, all those who hear
it will die, even if they are not of the mind to listen to it."
You might reject what I say, but you will still get the effect and
will
Post by Yelps
be glad to listen later.
So, were those "mandalas" on the walls of Ziegler's party in "Eyes
Wide Shut"? You know, those things that were supposed to be like
"Christmas stars", but were more like a set of intersecting triangles
in a circular pattern? Why do you think those things were there? Just
a set designer's "idea" of what might "look good" that Kubrick
just "unconsciously" approved? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Kubrick was playing with this imagery, because of the "Secret
Society"/Illuminati/Satanic connection, in EWS. But Kubrick was just
playing with it. It wasn't just a "set designers" random "idea" but also
not meant to have serious meaning beyond his little jokes on the world.
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
But I'm always willing to learn; could you tell us more
about "existential psychology" and where we might read
up on this "topic"? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



"Existential psychology" and "gestalt" is very much a school of thought in
historical psychology.


Here is a link that at a glance, look like it explains it briefly.
http://psych.eiu.edu/spencer/Existential.html


Overall, in practical, simple terms the objective of existential psychology,
is based on the idea that the person (patient) should be viewed as how THEY
experience the world not as how they are seen to be in the world. In other
words its "put yourself (the therapist) into the other person's shoes and
see things through their eyes, rather then from the eyes of judgemental
norms.

"Humanistic Psychology," essentially came out of "Existential Psychology,"
and is also related to "Transpersonal Psychology." which ends up right back
into Yoga.

dc
Post by Yelps
From:Harry Bailey - view profile
Date:Mon, Jan 15 2007 3:23 pm
Groups: alt.movies.kubrick
show options
Ok I'll bite on your bait.
Post by Yelps
Oh? This would be fun to proceed further with-- not only do I hold an
advanced degree on the subject with an emphasis on Jungian and
Existential psychology I had already studied every translated book
written by both Freud and Jung by the time I was 18 years old and
dismissed them as primitive, and for the past 7 years have worked,
giving technical help, with an established, very elderly, Jungian, who
has been compiling a massive (over 20 volumes) Jungian Dictionary which
will eventually be available to the Jungian community on CD. I was also
at one time on the doctoral dissertation approval committee of a Psych
school that specialized in both Jungian and Existential psych.
I'm intrigued as to why you would abandon all psychology/psychoanalytic
theory to retreat into the mystical pre-modern world of magical,
irreducible "feelings" while continuing for years to work for a
"primitive" Jungian. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nothing magic about my kind of "mysticism."
Post by Yelps
I am neither a Freudian or a Jungian, an Existentialist or a
Behaviorist...all of those things to me, although useful and interesting
historically, and all of these things contain some truth----------they
ultimately are childish and primitive theory IMO, lacking in any true or
final usefulness to humanity.
Childish and primitive theory? Presumably, then, you have completely
ignored all of the developments in post-Freudian psychoanalytic theory
over the past half-century, Lacanian psychoanalysis, etc? Or are you
hiding from the world some secret, some more "advanced" theory? Buffy
Theory, maybe? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Buffy is a Movie not the reality as it is. You should try both.
Or have you some other secret, enigmatic Theory of Feelings perhaps?
Not that you'd be familiar with Spinoza and post-Spinozist ideas about
emotions and feelings, preferring the Spartacus mode of irrational and
mystical emotive histrionics ... ? <<<<<<<<<<
Ha. Aren't you a clown. You haven't the vaguest notion. Spinoza was way
off in most every conclusion he came to.
Post by Yelps
It would be nice if people on AMK, would just talk like human beings,
You're coming across here like some naive adolescent hopelessly lost in
a fantasy world, and suffering False Memory Syndrome about reading
"every translated book written by both Freud and Jung by the time I
was 18 years old and dismissed them as primitive," oblivious to just
how patently absurd and ridiculous you sound. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You haven't a clue. The fantasy is yours. I don't care how "absurd and
ridiculous," I might sound like to you. Neither Jung or Freud had the
requisite inner experiences, necessary to even comment on the human
condition, much less start an -ism or a -ology that creates a proper
mirror for introspection or pretend to be able to cure the mentally ill,
whether Psychotic or Neurotic--in fact all their methods only reinforce
the problem.
It's karma. Karma is not a mystical thing. Its simply causation, both
linearly and simultaneous. You want to see it and know it. You'd need
some training, study and practice to do that.
Nirvana Sutra: "........once the poison drum is beaten, all those who hear
it will die, even if they are not of the mind to listen to it."
You might reject what I say, but that you will still get the effect and
will be glad to listen later.
dc
.
Post by Yelps
Since Bill Reid is plonked I had to read the post on Google. I guess he is
trying to reform his strategy or maybe it's just bait.
My "strategy" has always been the same: discussing the movies of
Stanley Kubrick in a group named "alt.movies.kubrick". I know that
this is not the goal of the five or so mentally ill never-wases that
populate this group, but I persist regardless...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Doesn't sound very much the "same." Where are your usual, constant,
nasty remarks? Thus the wondering if this was just bait.
Much can be said about Freud and Jung and much has been said and written.
As far as applying Freudian or Jungian theory to EWS, I'm not into it.
Kubrick was not sitting there thinking about Freudian or Jungian theory,
(or
existential psychology either) except in the context of the backdrop of
the
old novel. He was his own man.
You're unknowledgable on this topic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh? This would be fun to proceed further with-- not only do I hold an
advanced degree on the subject with an emphasis on Jungian and
Existential psychology I had already studied every translated book
written by both Freud and Jung by the time I was 18 years old and
dismissed them as primitive, and for the past 7 years have worked,
giving technical help, with an established, very elderly, Jungian, who
has been compiling a massive (over 20 volumes) Jungian Dictionary which
will eventually be available to the Jungian community on CD. I was also
at one time on the doctoral dissertation approval committee of a Psych
school that specialized in both Jungian and Existential psych.
I am neither a Freudian or a Jungian, an Existentialist or a
Behaviorist...all of those things to me, although useful and interesting
historically, and all of these things contain some truth----------they
ultimately are childish and primitive theory IMO, lacking in any true or
final usefulness to humanity.
"Kubrick clearly and
"consciously" eliminated all references to "Semitism" in his
movie; was this a tacit rejection of Freud in favor of Jung?"
NO
OK, it WAS a rhetorical question... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sounds like you has a motive in saying this and it didn't sound very
"Rhetorical" as written.
and
".... the profusion of Christian images might be some type
of "ironic" or "sarcastic" comment by Kubrick about the split
between Freud and Jung"
Nonsense
Once again, OK, your opinion, stated simply... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You actually believe Kubrick has this in his mind and was trying to make
a comment on Freud vs. Jung in EWS? I think that's just plain silly. I
don't think he could have cared less about the old arguments between
Freud and Jung, although he was doing some parody of sexual dynamics, in
EWS and of course the connection between Schnitzler and Freud is
obvious, he was going way beyond this stuff in EWS and were you to
realize this your understanding and appreciation of the film might
change.
"And there can be no doubt many of the images in "Eyes Wide Shut"
were specifically discussed by Jung."
Thats like saying The Britanica Encyclopedia and Oxford Dictionary
discusses "images in "Eyes Wide Shut""
Right. You're doing well so far...
Jung discussed most everything----he never stopped his categorizing--So
one
can say "The Shaggy Dog," or the Oprah Winfrey show or a Beer commercial
could be Freudian or Jungian if one wants to be silly.
Sounds like fun on a rainy day! <<<<<<<<<<<
Not to me. I might use Jung as reference material as I would a
dictionary, at times, but I know too much about the mess of his students
and devotees to giver any credence to Jung as an analyst.
To Reid, Jung and Freud are both 'wacky" and EWS sucks and is boring--but
he still wants to pidgin hole EWS as a Jungian manifesto
Wrong. I'm just throwing some ideas out there, not a "manifesto".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Then you should have qualified your remarks. As they stood, they were
very contradictory.
and some how
relates it to Anti Semitism of Jung and then at the end throws in some
basic
Sociobiology.
Well, Kubrick hisself used to throw in a lot of "sociobiology" in
his interviews and sometimes explicitly in his movies, so don't we
have to consider what's really there? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sociobiology is another matter altogether and yes Sk was clearly more
into Sociobiological thinking then Freudian or Jungian, whihc he probably
looked as as primitive.
No where does Reid state his own position.
I kind of skirt around my actual position, thanks for not asking, but
if you did I would tell you. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It would be nice if people on AMK, would just talk like human beings,
conversationally, about their opinions and feelings, rather then
constantly lobbing nasty shit--and then wondering why they get plonked or
get a taste of their own shit. Unlike many on this NG I am quite capable
of discussiing these things without insults and when I write I don't care
about trying to impress or be stuffy, nor do I try to be a flamer. I
would just hope people would try to understand what I might say and stop
with the nasty crap. I can be 1000 times nastier to prove the point, but
only after the shit has been thrown.
he is just using
Jungian mumbo jumbo, as a way to attack EWS.
Nope. I said I didn't like it. I really liked "2001", and used the
same Jungian "mumbo-jumbo" to "analyze" that movie, so you are
just making an unsupported conclusion here... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ok. then.
But it is one thing saying you will discuss these films from a Jungian
viewpoint and another to make an argument that SK was thinking as a
Jungian or in any way promoting Jungian in either film.
Of course SK was up on these ideas--he was up on many ideas-----but his
own
output was not waving any of these flags.
OK, I buy that. So where's the beef? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The only real beef is how it was presented as though SK really was
alluding to Jungianism and the contradictoy nature of how you wrote the
first 2/3's and then went and called all it kooky, without saying what
your point of view is.
dc
---
Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest "Kill-Filed Ape" Reid
Jack Rass
2007-01-18 00:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
I studied for a while under a disciple of a very famous Indian guru.
But then as a result, the CIA tried to recruit me to do "remote viewing"
inside the Kremlin but that's a whole other story... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Remote viewing is real. I was involved in legitimate experiments run by
Charles Tart, in the early 80's and it did work...although the results are
difficult to use or show numerically. I personally was able to view
locations in a group and then draw the imagery and was right on,
snipped...


How do you feel about guys like Major Ed(Dr. Doom)Dames, a remote viewer
'specialist' who is one of the mainstay guests on Coast to Coast AM?
Yelps
2007-01-18 01:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Rass
Post by Bill Reid
I studied for a while under a disciple of a very famous Indian guru.
But then as a result, the CIA tried to recruit me to do "remote viewing"
inside the Kremlin but that's a whole other story... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Remote viewing is real. I was involved in legitimate experiments run by
Charles Tart, in the early 80's and it did work...although the results
are difficult to use or show numerically. I personally was able to view
locations in a group and then draw the imagery and was right on,
snipped...
How do you feel about guys like Major Ed(Dr. Doom)Dames, a remote viewer
'specialist' who is one of the mainstay guests on Coast to Coast AM?
I think I know who you mean...but most anyone on Coast to Coast see, pretty
odd and unreliable. I listen to it sometimes late at night if I am in the
car, mostly for entertainment camp value. If they have that medicated
sounding, whiney voice that almost every guest and listener that calls in
has, ...I just can't get behind it.

But I know that remote viewing has some validity, based on my own experience
and the data from the experiment which followed classical, scientific
methodolgy. In fact I had a course once with Tart on scientific methodology
and psi and he was strict about proper methodology and scientific validity.

The experiment basically had a large group of people picked at random from a
large class, go to one from a list of many possible locations in San Diego
and another large group of people, picked at random, stayed back and focused
on where the first group went. Both groups were to relax and concentrate,
focusing on the sending and recieving of a mental picture of the location.

I was in the stay-back group and we were all to independently draw the
imagery that popped into our mind at a certain time. Then the group came
back with a Photograph of the location--it was pretty amazing stuff...the
people who had strong imagery, such as myself, were spot on, with their
drawings. Although I didnt know where it was, I drew it exactly, as did
about a third of the stay back group. My drawing was exactly the
photograph, but with less detail. What Tart did with the results later, I
don't know.

dc


"PRAISE FOR THE WORK OF CHARLES T. TART
"Tart is the most important writer [on] the scientific study of expanded
consciousness in the world at the moment."
- Colin Wilson

"One of the world's leading experts in the field [of] consciousness
research."
- Frances Vaughn

"If all academic scientists had his open and discriminating mind, progress
would be made exponentially."
- C. Norman Sheely, M.D.

"A pioneer in the integration of ancient wisdom and contemporary science."
- Roger Walsh


Charles T. Tart. Tart pioneered the field of consciousness studies decades
ago, with his classic best-selling anthology Altered States of
Consciousness, in print for more than 20 years and selected by Common
Boundary as one of the one hundred most influential psychology books of the
twentieth century. Tart is credited with almost single-handedly legitimizing
the study of altered states, including hypnosis, meditation, lucid dreaming
and drug-induced states. He initiated several important lines of research in
parapsychology, including teaching ESP and out-of-body experiences. His
resume lists more than 250 articles in leading scientific and professional
journals including Science and Nature, and numerous well-known books. His
Transpersonal Psychologies (Harper & Row, 1975), for example, became the
core text in the then new field of transpersonal psychology.

As one of the world's foremost authorities on the human mind, Dr. Tart is
unique in being tough-minded and rigorous, a creative researcher, and a
critic of "New Agey" nostrums, but also open-minded and courageous in
researching controversial phenomena of the mind. His lifework has been to
identify important core facts vital to understanding human consciousness by
clearly and substantively distinguishing this data from popular
misconceptions or religiously- or scientistically biased beliefs.

Among his many other well-known titles are Waking Up; Open Mind,
Discriminating Mind; and Living the Mindful Life. Currently a Professor
Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Davis, and a core
faculty member of the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, Dr. Tart is a
rare combination of scientist/laboratory researcher, serious student of
spiritual disciplines, and talented educator."
Yelps
2007-01-18 08:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
loved the movie, favorite of all time, but I RESPECT their opinion
and have never sought to argue them out of it.
Post by Yelps
Now if-------------the ending of the film, where Bowman passes through the
Stargate and then recapitulates and transcends time and ages into an old
man reaching out to the monolith, and then is reborn as a
Starbaby-----------is outside of the personal experience of the viewer,
then the viewer is either going to hate it, or if they like it they will
like it, it will be understood as an intellectual thing and they might
build
Post by Yelps
up intellectual thoeries about it.
Nah, as was noted at the time, a lot of people loved it, from many
different ages and walks of life. What's the point of trying "shrink"
anybody based on their HONEST reactions to a movie? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I don't know how old you were at that time, but NO. The day the reviews for
2001 hit was like a wake up call to acid heads everywhere that they were in
with a bad crowd, being here on this ignoramus planet with such a huge
majority of complete nitwits and programmed machines.

You aren't understanding me really---which in itself, is the same thing as
proving what I am saying: You loved the movie, but clearly the experience
of Bowman at the end of the movie must be just an abstraction to you.

Granted, no film ever made could do true justice to the full blown
psychedelic, entheogenic, mystical experience, but 2001 really tries and is
still the leader. There is also Brainstorm--done by Trumbell, where he uses
the same simulation technology that SK basically had developed for 2001.
Trumball later continued working int that direction but here is what he says
in an interview when asked why he's not still making movies after brainstorm
which had the horrible tragedy of Natalie Wood's death.


I mean, what's the point of this:

"Perhaps there is a certain element of the lumpen literati that is
so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that it
finds the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic
intelligence anathema."
- Stanley Kubrick

Say what?!!??!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


He said:

"2001 would give a little insight into my metaphysical interests," he
explains. "I'd be very surprised if the universe wasn't full of an
intelligence of an order that to us would seem God-like. I find it very
exciting to have a semi-logical belief that there's a great deal to the
universe we don't understand, and that there is an intelligence of an
incredible magnitude outside the Earth. It's something I've become more and
more interested in. I find it a very exciting and satisfying hope"--SK
Post by Yelps
Other people who were properly experienced with Entheogenic plants and
their derivitives, and/or the deepest Yogic experience, saw immediatly
what
Post by Yelps
the scene was and could relate to it---BECAUSE such an event, was within
their own personal experience. >>>>>>>>
Yeah, a lot of "dopers" liked the movie, so what? A lot of stone cold
sober people liked it too.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Very naive statement because you are making a couple fatal errors of
understanding, First of all using the term "doper," in relationship to
people experiementing with LSD is way off. Sure there were dopers, either
the Pot type of "doper" or the hard drug kind of "doper," might like the
movie or may have taken LSD, but the serious, yogic, LSD users were not
"dopers."

Secondly LSD, used properly would make a person far more "sober" then the
average person. Granted you wouldn't be driving a car or operating heavy
machinery, but in terms of the dictionary defintions of
"sober,"-------------use point 5&6

so·ber (sbr)
adj. so·ber·er, so·ber·est
1. Habitually abstemious in the use of alcoholic liquors or drugs;
temperate.
2. Not intoxicated or affected by the use of drugs.
3. Plain or subdued: sober attire.
4. Devoid of frivolity, excess, exaggeration, or speculative imagination;
straightforward: gave a sober assessment of the situation.
5. Marked by seriousness, gravity, or solemnity of conduct or character. See
Synonyms at serious.
6. Marked by circumspection and self-restraint.
tr. & intr.v. so·bered, so·ber·ing, so·bers
To make or become sober.


Third you are grossly underestimating the hate that was being spewed out
about 2001 at it's release. If it hadn't been for the times which was at
the height of LSD use, the movie would have fallen on entirely deaf ears
and blind eyes. The furor about 2001 was about the same as the hate towards
EWS.


Again I am speaking about serious experimenters not people who were ill
prepared and smoking weed and drinking and out to party. I am talking only
about people who approached it carefully and deliberately and knew the rules
and either had a inborn ability to do so, or had learned how to meditate
and center the mind to some degree.

You are being very akin to the reviewer who said, 2001 was ""hopelessly
hippie-dippy,"

"The film was immediately declared by many a colossal bore and a flop, and
word was Kubrick had gone off the deep end. Fortunately for Kubrick,
however, a cultural phenomenon saved the film from the label of failure: LSD
acid trips. The psychedelic craze was in full effect, and hippies didn't
seem concerned that the film took so long to get where it was going and
refused to tell viewers where it was in the first place. As it turned out,
2001 became a huge commercial hit for the time, and in a slow pace only
Kubrick could appreciate, the mystical tale of the transformation of man
from beast to Star Child became not only his most well-received of films,
but the rare film that rivals even Citizen Kane in terms of admiration and
influence."
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
What you're missing is the movie is actually
about the mystery of "yearning" and "searching" and not about seeing
something you've ALREADY "experienced"...you're off-base AGAIN,
keep trying though, you're bound to be right about something someday...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Nice try, but no kewpie doll.

It about trying to communicate the experience to others who aren't so lucky.

A famous guy in the LSD culture named Al Hubbard gave SK some LSD--he gave
it to many others, including Cary Grant, James Coburn, Jack Nicholson,
Anais Nin and others. This was well known within the LSD culture at the
time. Others such as Groucho Marx and John F. Kennedy also experimented with
LSD.

http://www.fargonebooks.com/high.html

But beyond LSD is the experience of Life and Death itself and the means to
awaken to one's true identity and that "yearning" and "searching" has been
there throughout human history and Visionary Plant use + yoga was alwasy the
means.

Aldous Huxley had said, "once you open that door......you can't go back."



dc

Some comments by Douglas Trumbull:

"I feel like I'm kind of an oddball in the movie industry. I don't want to
just keep going back onto sets, you know? A lot about making movies is a big
ego thing. You're king for a day or king for a month of king for six months
and get to order everybody around and be the big guy. And I think a lot of
directors are very seduced by that kind of narcotic function that doesn't
have anything to do with the validity of the movie or any dedication to the
cinema in the big picture or breaking out of the mold or breaking new ground
or doing anything like a Kubrick would have been doing. They're just
cranking out another movie.
Some people just accept the industry as it is. They say, "Oh, it's 35mm
film, it's a Panavision camera, it's these lights, it's this crew, get your
sound man, your electrician, your grip, and go." So they bore into the
nuances of performance or editorial techniques. They're looking for some
ethereal, emotional, story-driven, character-driven thing to emerge. It's
very subtle and that's fine, it's great. It just doesn't interest me very
much. I think that's still the easy part of making movies. Because if you
have a good script and a good actor, that will be there automatically. A lot
of people are making a lot more out of it than it really is.
My whole career as been about immersive media. Not movies per se but
immersive media. That's why I've gotten into simulator rides and Showscan,
high frame rates, IMAX, 3-D. I've been experimenting with these media
experiences that I feel have the potential to be a profound personal
experience for the viewer. If you could combine 3-D-like IMAX with the frame
rate of Showscan, you would have a medium that is indistinguishable from
reality. That's doable today, but unfortunately, it requires brute force,
millions of feet of film, a lot of light and a $500,000 projector, so it's
not ever going to be a huge medium. There's only a limited number of IMAX
theaters in the world. But I really believe that people are profoundly
affected by things that really happen to them. Not so much by stories they
hear or connect to the stories or characters through an empathetic third
person, observation, but by direct personal experience. So the closer you
can take the medium to delivering the direct personal experience through
3-D, through high brightness, through high clarity, through wide view,
through binaural sound and even physical sensations like we've done with
simulator rides, you completely take over someone's nervous system and throw
them into the movie, he ain't never gonna forget it."

In another interview he says:

"dt: in the meantime, i have worked with a canadian engineer who has
invented something very much like "brainstorm". is it not something like a
helmet, more like a walkman-sized device. you push a button, and you get
emotionally or sexually stimulated, euphoric, angry, fearful or depressed,
as you desire.. spiritually, you feel like you are encountering god..
welt: this sounds like a hallucinogen..
dt: yes it does. this is why the inventor is having scruples to bring his
technology to the market. he is afraid of what might happen, no matter whose
hands it might end up in..
welt: this could pass for science fiction.
dt: but it isn't science fiction. it's reality.
welt: and how does this device work?
dt: it has very delicate, directional magnetic fields that aren't much
stronger than the natural magnetic field that envelops the earth. it
isolates the magnetic field on certain frequencies..
welt: but the real interface to hack is not the computer, but the human
brain. the long term goal could be the total networking of human beings...
dt: myself, i am more concerned with the projection of images directly into
the human eye..
welt: then one day, the ultimate cinema will all happen inside your head:
interactive, sensual, emotional, maybe through chip implants.
dt: or as a visual aid for the blind. in any case, we will be entering a new
world. other than in a normal movie, where emotions, worries, euphoria are
conveyed by the way of empathy, we will be feeling those things directly. it
will be a very personal experience, much more memorable than anything that
came before it.."




---
William Ernest "I Admit None Of My Orgies Had Masks" Reid
Bill Reid
2007-01-18 16:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
loved the movie, favorite of all time, but I RESPECT their opinion
and have never sought to argue them out of it.
Post by Yelps
Now if-------------the ending of the film, where Bowman passes through the
Stargate and then recapitulates and transcends time and ages into an old
man reaching out to the monolith, and then is reborn as a
Starbaby-----------is outside of the personal experience of the viewer,
then the viewer is either going to hate it, or if they like it they will
like it, it will be understood as an intellectual thing and they might
build
Post by Yelps
up intellectual thoeries about it.
Nah, as was noted at the time, a lot of people loved it, from many
different ages and walks of life. What's the point of trying "shrink"
anybody based on their HONEST reactions to a movie? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't know how old you were at that time, but NO. The day the reviews for
2001 hit was like a wake up call to acid heads everywhere that they were in
with a bad crowd, being here on this ignoramus planet with such a huge
majority of complete nitwits and programmed machines.
Ah yes, I'm having a true "flashback" here: LSD fascism. Fortunately,
the storm-troopers for that brand of hatred were so wasted they couldn't
figure out if the "final solution" was to dump acid in the water supply
or herd non-psychotomimetics into camps for "re-education"...
Post by Bill Reid
You aren't understanding me really---which in itself, is the same thing as
No, I understand you perfectly. You equate being stoned with a
"transcendant experience". You are now laying out a precise set
of fascist procedures for somebody to PROPERLY enjoy a movie.
Post by Bill Reid
You loved the movie, but clearly the experience
of Bowman at the end of the movie must be just an abstraction to you.
Step 1 to PROPERLY appreciate "2001": Drop acid.

Don't worry about any further steps, because fascists have
very simple minds and their rules are easy to follow, except
when it is impossible, such as the rule about not being a Jew
in Nazi Germany...
Post by Bill Reid
Granted, no film ever made could do true justice to the full blown
psychedelic, entheogenic, mystical experience, but 2001 really tries and is
still the leader. There is also Brainstorm--done by Trumbell, where he uses
the same simulation technology that SK basically had developed for 2001.
What about "Altered States"? I liked that one too, but I must admit
I forgot "Step 1" when I saw it, so I fear I must submit to your wordy
and misformatted "re-education camp" here on Usenet...
Post by Bill Reid
"Perhaps there is a certain element of the lumpen literati that is
so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that it
finds the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic
intelligence anathema."
- Stanley Kubrick
Say what?!!??!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"2001 would give a little insight into my metaphysical interests," he
explains. "I'd be very surprised if the universe wasn't full of an
intelligence of an order that to us would seem God-like. I find it very
exciting to have a semi-logical belief that there's a great deal to the
universe we don't understand, and that there is an intelligence of an
incredible magnitude outside the Earth. It's something I've become more and
more interested in. I find it a very exciting and satisfying hope"--SK
I like the fact he used the "I" word here, finally, instead of saying
"one" or "people", and I liked the term "semi-logical"...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Other people who were properly experienced with Entheogenic plants and
their derivitives, and/or the deepest Yogic experience, saw immediatly
what
Post by Yelps
the scene was and could relate to it---BECAUSE such an event, was within
their own personal experience. >>>>>>>>
Yeah, a lot of "dopers" liked the movie, so what? A lot of stone cold
sober people liked it too.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Very naive statement because you are making a couple fatal errors of
understanding,
Yes, "fatal errors"...come the revolution, this is the warning that
I shall be first for the "final solution" to the "problem"...
Post by Bill Reid
First of all using the term "doper," in relationship to
people experiementing with LSD is way off. Sure there were dopers, either
the Pot type of "doper" or the hard drug kind of "doper," might like the
movie or may have taken LSD, but the serious, yogic, LSD users were not
"dopers."
This of course in no way invalidates or modifies "Step 1"...
Post by Bill Reid
Secondly LSD, used properly would make a person far more "sober" then the
average person.
Yeah, I'm one of those funny people who can hit a baseball better when
I'm drunk, so I know what you're talking about...
Post by Bill Reid
Third you are grossly underestimating the hate that was being spewed out
about 2001 at it's release. If it hadn't been for the times which was at
the height of LSD use, the movie would have fallen on entirely deaf ears
and blind eyes.
Wrong. You are grossly underestimating the hate in your own heart,
which is always the blindness of fascists. John Russell Taylor in the
"London Times" wrote of seeing "2001" for a second time:

"In the audience when I saw the film again, there were lots of
children, especially boys, under 15, generally with fathers and
sometimes mothers in tow...And their reactions were fascinating.
The mother was clearly a trifle restive...she kept asking her
husband, 'sotto voce', what this meant, what was happening...The
boy, on the other hand, obviously loved it all. He shushed his
parents...and kept bubbling 'Isn't it good?...What's there difficult
to understand?'"

Since we can presume he was not under the "sober" influence
of an indolaic compound, he must immediately report for "re-education"
because of his faulty perception of the movie...
Post by Bill Reid
The furor about 2001 was about the same as the hate towards
EWS.
Perhaps the critics just forgot to take Viagra(TM) before seeing it?
Post by Bill Reid
Again I am speaking about serious experimenters not people who were ill
prepared and smoking weed and drinking and out to party. I am talking only
about people who approached it carefully and deliberately and knew the rules
and either had a inborn ability to do so, or had learned how to meditate
and center the mind to some degree.
You are being very akin to the reviewer who said, 2001 was ""hopelessly
hippie-dippy,"
Note the fascist tendency to lump people together according to
"one drop of blood" ("akin")...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
What you're missing is the movie is actually
about the mystery of "yearning" and "searching" and not about seeing
something you've ALREADY "experienced"...you're off-base AGAIN,
keep trying though, you're bound to be right about something someday...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nice try, but no kewpie doll.
It about trying to communicate the experience to others who aren't so lucky.
A famous guy in the LSD culture named Al Hubbard gave SK some LSD--
Except Stanley Kubrick specifically disclaimed any use of drugs other
than cigarettes...
Post by Bill Reid
he gave
it to many others, including Cary Grant, James Coburn, Jack Nicholson,
Anais Nin and others.
Jack Nicholson in particular was open about using LSD, didn't deny
it. What did you think of the "Monkees" movie he wrote called "Head"?
How did that stack up in your fascist ranking of movies based on their
ostensible presentation of the LSD experience, seeing that "2001" is
your personal "Triumph of Will"?
Post by Bill Reid
This was well known within the LSD culture at the
time. Others such as Groucho Marx and John F. Kennedy also experimented with
LSD.
Groucho looked a little high when he was doing that "You Bet Your
Life" show all right...
Post by Bill Reid
But beyond LSD is the experience of Life and Death itself and the means to
awaken to one's true identity and that "yearning" and "searching" has been
there throughout human history and Visionary Plant use + yoga was alwasy the
means.
Aldous Huxley had said, "once you open that door......you can't go back."
Didn't they used to have a term for people who couldn't handle
acid? Something like "burn-out", right? They took one trip, and
never came back...and can't you identify them physically by their
oddly-disturbing permanently dialated pupils, the classic medical
symptom of brain damage?

And you still owe me one detailed description of the room I am
typing this in, Mr. Fascist Acid-Head Remote Viewer...

---
William Ernest "OK A Hint: It Has A Floor AND A Ceiling" Reid
Yelps
2007-01-22 12:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Ah yes, I'm having a true "flashback" here: LSD fascism. Fortunately,
the storm-troopers for that brand of hatred were so wasted they couldn't
figure out if the "final solution" was to dump acid in the water supply
or herd non-psychotomimetics into camps for "re-education"... <<<<<<<<<

This reminds me of a passage from Hugo's Les miserable

"Must we continue to lift our eyes towards heaven; is the luminous point
which
we there discern of those which are quenched? The ideal is terrible to see,
thus lost in the depths minute, isolated, imperceptible, shining, but
surrounded
by all those great black menaces monstrously massed about it; yet in no
more danger than a star
in the jaws of a cloud.
Book Seven Les Miserables, Victor Hugo "


People are afraid of the unknown and they might imagine all kinds of scary
things, But the reality is you are going to die, that could be said to be
fascist--a fascist universe. The proper entheogenic experience is to remove
the fear. people can learn what it all means. If that is "fascist" then you
are paranoid. For instance, old Tim Leary's "commandment" was "Thou shalt
not alter they neighbor's consciousness." You seem to be mixing up the
"Central Intelligence Agency," with Yogic meditators using visionary plants
with too many episodes of Alias. The power of the proper visionary
experience is that it breaks down false and replaces it with real. There is
no room in that foer fascism.
Post by Yelps
You aren't understanding me really---which in itself, is the same thing as
No, I understand you perfectly. You equate being stoned with a
"transcendant experience". You are now laying out a precise set
of fascist procedures for somebody to PROPERLY enjoy a movie. <<<<<<<<<<<<


Thats a totally warped statement. Was Bowman "stoned" in 2001? Don't be a
numbskull. You wouldn't call the experience Bowman was having as "being
stoned," because what was happening to him in the story, was a death and
rebirth and a witnessing of the cosmic reality and then becoming
enlightened.

Equating the proper entheogenic experience with "being stoned" is idiotic.
"Being stoned" is what happens and what DID happen to many people who had no
clue about how to meditate and they just let their ego and mind, block and
interfere with the experience. They would get scared and turn away. It
would be like if Bowman, covered his eyes and starting singing, "this is not
happening, this is not happening" In most cases people just do not know what
to do--they are unprepared.
Post by Yelps
You loved the movie, but clearly the experience of Bowman at the end of
the movie must be just an abstraction to you.
Step 1 to PROPERLY appreciate "2001": Drop acid. <<<<<<<<<<<<


I didn't say anything about this being a requirement for people to
"appreciating the movie" But to really understand the movie one would have
to have that kind of experience in some way, with or without visionary plant
use. The visionary plant + yoga experience is far and away the most
efficient and powrful experience, is is pure ego death and dissolutiomn and
rebirth--a non-destructive testing of life of the death process as well as a
recapitulation of the past, present and future. Calling that expereince
"being stoned" is naive, silly and derogatory to the universe.
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
Don't worry about any further steps, because fascists have
very simple minds and their rules are easy to follow, except
when it is impossible, such as the rule about not being a Jew
in Nazi Germany... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You are being absurd and nutty. This has about as much to do with this
conversation as "Poynesians."
Post by Yelps
Granted, no film ever made could do true justice to the full blown
psychedelic, entheogenic, mystical experience, but 2001 really tries and is
still the leader. There is also Brainstorm--done by Trumbell, where he uses
the same simulation technology that SK basically had developed for 2001.
What about "Altered States"? I liked that one too, but I must admit
I forgot "Step 1" when I saw it, so I fear I must submit to your wordy
and misformatted "re-education camp" here on Usenet...


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by Yelps
"Perhaps there is a certain element of the lumpen literati that is so
dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that it finds the
grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic intelligence
anathema." - Stanley Kubrick
Say what?!!??!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"2001 would give a little insight into my metaphysical interests," he
explains. "I'd be very surprised if the universe wasn't full of an
intelligence of an order that to us would seem God-like. I find it very
exciting to have a semi-logical belief that there's a great deal to the
universe we don't understand, and that there is an intelligence of an
incredible magnitude outside the Earth. It's something I've become more and
more interested in. I find it a very exciting and satisfying hope"--SK
I like the fact he used the "I" word here, finally, instead of saying
"one" or "people", and I liked the term "semi-logical"...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This phrase "semi-logical" means beyond logic--and is poitning to something
that is beyond logic --but still the reality of life and death. The idea of
transcending mundane logic is nothing new and is central to the Middle Way
of Buddhist Yoga.
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Other people who were properly experienced with Entheogenic plants and
their derivitives, and/or the deepest Yogic experience, saw immediatly
what the scene was and could relate to it---BECAUSE such an event, was
within their own personal experience. >>>>>>>>
Post by Yelps
Yeah, a lot of "dopers" liked the movie, so what? A lot of stone cold
sober people liked it too.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Very naive statement because you are making a couple fatal errors of
understanding,
Yes, "fatal errors"...come the revolution, this is the warning that
I shall be first for the "final solution" to the "problem"...

This is just wacky. Its as dumb as saying that the universe is a "fascist"
because it is beyond your understanding and control in you current state
and a denial of any possible NATURAL, and inherent way to see what it all
means or develop an more enlightened life state.
Post by Yelps
First of all using the term "doper," in relationship to people
experiementing with LSD is way off. Sure there were dopers, either the
Pot type of "doper" or the hard drug kind of "doper," might like the movie
or may have taken LSD, but the serious, yogic, LSD users were not
"dopers."
This of course in no way invalidates or modifies "Step 1"... <<<<<<<<<<<<<

YOUR "final solution" paranoia is no different from any other kind of
paranoia and fear of what is an unknown to you.
Post by Yelps
Secondly LSD, used properly would make a person far more "sober" then the
average person.
Yeah, I'm one of those funny people who can hit a baseball better when
I'm drunk, so I know what you're talking about...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Not related.
Post by Yelps
Third you are grossly underestimating the hate that was being spewed out
about 2001 at it's release. If it hadn't been for the times which was at
the height of LSD use, the movie would have fallen on entirely deaf ears
and blind eyes.
Wrong. You are grossly underestimating the hate in your own heart,
which is always the blindness of fascists. John Russell Taylor in the
"London Times" wrote of seeing "2001" for a second time: <<<<<<<<<<<

You are being wacky here too.

<<<<<<<<"In the audience when I saw the film again, there were lots of
children, especially boys, under 15, generally with fathers and
sometimes mothers in tow...And their reactions were fascinating.
The mother was clearly a trifle restive...she kept asking her
husband, 'sotto voce', what this meant, what was happening...The
boy, on the other hand, obviously loved it all. He shushed his
parents...and kept bubbling 'Isn't it good?...What's there difficult
to understand?'"

You can show me all the quotes you want, I'm sure I've read about all of
them, But the simple fact was 2001 was totally panned by most every high
profile critic n the Mr. Normal TV--in virtually the same way EWS was
panned.

My younger brother and I saw 2001 and of course loved it--and the next day I
dragged my Mother and younger sisters--they hated it and the conversation
was as above in your quote.

Since we can presume he was not under the "sober" influence
of an indolaic compound, he must immediately report for "re-education"
because of his faulty perception of the movie...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Its very simple---VERY few people responded favorably when 2001 came out and
it was immediatley related to the LSD experience by the young people who
were using LSD. There is no mystery about this. It is not brain surgery.
The entire cultrue of the world was altered by the 1960's. A trickle down
effect. A change to the morpho-genetic field. Art film type critics or
those into avante garde or potheads would like it, but even many Sci-fi fans
hated it. It was not a movie for Mr. Normal of 1968--so it was bashed and
bashed in the usual press and media, little different from how EWS was
panned. But people experienced with the yogic, entheogenic experience knew
what was being referenced.

You are just naive about this.
Post by Yelps
The furor about 2001 was about the same as the hate towards EWS.
Perhaps the critics just forgot to take Viagra(TM) before seeing it?
<<<<<<<<<<<

UGH.
Post by Yelps
Again I am speaking about serious experimenters not people who were ill
prepared and smoking weed and drinking and out to party. I am talking only
about people who approached it carefully and deliberately and knew the rules
and either had a inborn ability to do so, or had learned how to meditate
and center the mind to some degree.
You are being very akin to the reviewer who said, 2001 was ""hopelessly
hippie-dippy,"
Note the fascist tendency to lump people together according to
"one drop of blood" ("akin")...

No dude, you are just being a wacko and making incongruent remarks that are
wacky.
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
What you're missing is the movie is actually
about the mystery of "yearning" and "searching" and not about seeing
something you've ALREADY "experienced"...you're off-base AGAIN, keep
trying though, you're bound to be right about something someday...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nice try, but no kewpie doll.
It about trying to communicate the experience to others who aren't so lucky.
A famous guy in the LSD culture named Al Hubbard gave SK some LSD--
Except Stanley Kubrick specifically disclaimed any use of drugs other
than cigarettes...............<<<<<<<<<<<<


Not quite. You are being naive. It was made illegal in Oct 1966. You don't
understand that in those days it was well known amonst the people who were
experimenting. I can assure you that the AL Hubbard story is completly
true.
Post by Yelps
he gave it to many others, including Cary Grant, James Coburn, Jack
Nicholson, Anais Nin and others.
Jack Nicholson in particular was open about using LSD, didn't deny
it. What did you think of the "Monkees" movie he wrote called "Head"?
<<<<<<<<<

The Monkey Movie keeps playing on cable in the last few months Ive seen it
flipping channels--its a dumb movie and like the Monkeys was a Canned
version of the 1960's. Pretty idiotic. The Movie "Candy," was a better
one and later Groucho did a film --Peyter fonda made "the trip" which was
interesting but still very lame, and their were a few B movies about people
freaking out on LSD--all best seen as camp or historical nonsense.

Only 2001 is even slightly close. Beyond that you would have to look to
the better Biblical Epics to even be in the same category.

Look plain and simple entheogens is the origins of religion.--that people
forget that and that there is a "Mr. Normal" opposing it in each day and
age is a fact --and you can search as far back into history as you can.
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
How did that stack up in your fascist ranking of movies based on
their
ostensible presentation of the LSD experience, seeing that "2001" is
your personal "Triumph of Will"? <<<<<<<<<<<<

Thats crazed. You aren't making any sense,
Post by Yelps
This was well known within the LSD culture at the time. Others such as
Groucho Marx and John F. Kennedy also experimented
with
Post by Yelps
LSD.
Groucho looked a little high when he was doing that "You Bet Your
Life" show all right...
Post by Yelps
But beyond LSD is the experience of Life and Death itself and the means to
awaken to one's true identity and that "yearning" and "searching" has been
there throughout human history and Visionary Plant use + yoga was alwasy the
means.
Aldous Huxley had said, "once you open that door......you can't go back."
Didn't they used to have a term for people who couldn't handle
acid? Something like "burn-out", right? They took one trip, and
never came back...and can't you identify them physically by their
oddly-disturbing permanently dialated pupils, the classic medical
symptom of brain damage? <<<<<<<<<<

People who took acid in the 60's were in all different categories. Without
proper preparation and practice, a little education before hand and proper
set and setting, then the prospect of ego death and dissoultion doesn't sit
well. If a person was very neurotic or psychotic they might could flip out
or have a bad trip--in the same way a troubled person would flip out if they
were dying, There is no "brain damage," no 'chromosone" breakage and all
of that was right wing wacko, paranoid, left wing, nonsense.

A yogin knows to take the middle path at the moment of death. Figure it out
dude. You are going to learn it whether you like it or not amnd all your
talk is based on ignorance and just plain not knowing.
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
And you still owe me one detailed description of the room I am typing
this in, Mr. Fascist Acid-Head Remote Viewer... <<<<<<
"Remote viewing," is a phenomena that usually requires a bunch of people and
its not something I actively care about or pursue, I just offered thsat
one expereicne I had in a legitimate experiemnt-----but if I was to guess I
would say you were at a desk in a Boiler room.

Yoga is not about someone else proving it to you--its about you proving it
to yourself. If you want godly, literalistic parlor tricks then go watch a
Cecil B Demille film.

dc

---
William Ernest "OK A Hint: It Has A Floor AND A Ceiling" Reid
Yelps
2007-01-22 22:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
Overall, in practical, simple terms the objective of existential psychology,
is based on the idea that the person (patient) should be viewed as how THEY
experience the world not as how they are seen to be in the world. In other
words its "put yourself (the therapist) into the other person's shoes and
see things through their eyes, rather then from the eyes of judgemental
norms.
Yes, R.D. Laing's ideas exactly... <<<<<<<<<<<<<


R.D. Laing experimented with LSD. He was not the usual kind of
"existential psychologist" His work had a short lived effort on the mental
health systems and mental hospitals were not shut down, (as Bailey said) but
there was elements from his work that did influence some people in the field
and have a permenent effect.
Post by Yelps
"Humanistic Psychology," essentially came out of "Existential Psychology,"
and is also related to "Transpersonal Psychology." which ends up right back
into Yoga.
You mean nutcases can be "cured" if they tie themselves into pretzels?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<


You are confusing Exercise Pretzel -Yoga with the pure meditation Yoga,
which is my meaning. Single pointed concentration and focus, which can
trigger various levels of visionary events if the brain chemistry is right.
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Also I get the feeling that you, like Tom Cruise, are not a fan of
doping them up, if only to keep them under control... <<<<<<<<<

I do not like it. No--except when it is necessary to sedate someone in
emergency and in the existing system, there is little choice. I never saw
any of it actually do any good, other then as expedient and temporary
measures. It does not deal with the root of the issue. Psychiatry and
Psychology is in a very primitive state and much of it hinges on economic
realities and that many people do not give a damn about mentally ill, and
they cost alot to feed and house and provide medical care for. The average
mentally ill person in a mental helath resident setting, for instance costs
between 30-50,000 a year. more then double that for institutionalized
developmentally disabled--more like $120,000 per year, per client. This is
why there is the swinging pendulum that release them into community care and
back again into large (far more expensive) institutions depending on whether
the state has a republican or democratic party administration, in power at
any given time.

The current level of understanding of pharmacology is incredibly primitive
and becomes a huge money-making thing. But honestly, in terms of
precision--these drugs are like trying to hammer a tiny needle with a sledge
hammer.

BTW, most of the pharmacology in neurotransmitters, came out of what was
learned with the the intitial LSD research and in most cases the
psychoactive molecules in the psyhciatric drugs are plant based and then
synthesized and played with in the lab and have horendous side effects..
The first drug treament for psychosis, came from a certain kind of tree
bark.

So yes, I have to agree with Tom Cruise in this regard--except that
scientology does not advocate further research and has a limited and
mistaken idea about visionary plant/LSD use and unrealistically, promotes
Hubbards very limited understanding of such things.

Hubbard had already begun his Dianetics group, before he had tried LSD.
Scientology was born from changes to his ideas, after his LSD use and at the
same time, LSD became his enemy. I think he had problems with it and his
loss of ego-control caused him to identify "insanity" with the LSD
experience. He was a Sci-Fi writer and my guess is he had a manic condition
of some sort.

LSD can cause a non-centered person, to fixate on extremes with various low
level experiences. Its like giving a person a car without the proper
training and unleashing them on the freeway and then wonder why they
crashed.

He was a example of someone who had his own agenda prior to his LSD
experimentation and it upset his apple cart and showed him things he didn't
want to see--which was common with unprepared LSD use. His LSD use, IMO,
does explain his change from "no natal memory" idea of dianetics, to a
hack-reincarnational idea, switch to a more eastern flavorred dogma, which
is a big change between his early Dianetics and later Scientology. Many of
the original scientologists were drug "burn outs". so the drug rehab aspect
became entrenched in the dogma. Most scientologists I know are good people,
but like all institutionalized religions, attracts people with problems as
well as people who are idealists, that were particualry malleable at the
moment of conversion and tend to lose the open minded attitude they may have
had when they first converted to the new religion. They tend to be
idealistic people who want to change the world, so in that regard I don't
see them as evil, anymore then I think catholics are bad. All religons can
become insulated and cultish and end up with most of their effrots to be
about paying the bills of their churches and centers and then they get into
personal dramas.

Use common sense though......did Moses see god in a burning bush or was he
using well-known visionay plants when he retreated to the mountain into
seclusion, was Jesus really the "Son of god," or was he using welll known
psychoactive plants when he went into the wilderness? Was buddha, not
seeking out the Soma when he went into the forest? Somehow commensense
about this topic cannot be gotten by people who cannot realate because they
can only imagine what it is, or their experience with visionary plants was
brief, ill-prepared, immature and abortive.

The originator of AA, Bill Wilson, also used LSD and it was while using LSD
that he came up with his AA revelation.

Low grade LSD experiences can cause a reaction-formation type of thing and
people with existing mental and drug problems using LSD can end up fixating
on LSD as the problem rather then face that the problem was already there.



LSD and psychoactives of that kind, are like the ultimate "uncovering
therapy" and "uncovering therapy" is frowned upon. in general by the mental
health community involved in a psychiatric setting (including
psycho-analysis, whether Freudian to Jungian or other type) where the
behavioral model holds sway and what is thought to be the more practical
approach of normalization, medication/sedation and economic concerns.



I am not a proponent of general LSD use but I am all for careful research
and free thinking about it, and every aspect of brain chemistry and
psychoactives, by people who know what they are doing, both yogically and
scientifically.



There are still million of people on the planet who KNOW that the visionary
plants and their derivitives are still the best hope for a wide-spread
change to the human ignorance and evil behavior--but know it is not anywhere
near a practical time for such a wide-spread usage. But this thing is the
most powerful and amazing thing on the planet.



And yes, a powerful thing like this can be mis-used by people.



dc



---
William Ernest "Did Spartacus Have Multiple Personalities?" Reid
Don Stockbauer
2007-01-23 11:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
Overall, in practical, simple terms the objective of existential
psychology,
Post by Yelps
is based on the idea that the person (patient) should be viewed as how
THEY
Post by Yelps
experience the world not as how they are seen to be in the world. In
other
Post by Yelps
words its "put yourself (the therapist) into the other person's shoes and
see things through their eyes, rather then from the eyes of judgemental
norms.
Yes, R.D. Laing's ideas exactly... <<<<<<<<<<<<<
R.D. Laing experimented with LSD. He was not the usual kind of
"existential psychologist" His work had a short lived effort on the mental
health systems and mental hospitals were not shut down, (as Bailey said) but
there was elements from his work that did influence some people in the field
and have a permenent effect.
Post by Yelps
"Humanistic Psychology," essentially came out of "Existential Psychology,"
and is also related to "Transpersonal Psychology." which ends up right
back
Post by Yelps
into Yoga.
You mean nutcases can be "cured" if they tie themselves into pretzels?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are confusing Exercise Pretzel -Yoga with the pure meditation Yoga,
which is my meaning. Single pointed concentration and focus, which can
trigger various levels of visionary events if the brain chemistry is right.
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Also I get the feeling that you, like Tom Cruise, are not a fan of
doping them up, if only to keep them under control... <<<<<<<<<
I do not like it. No--except when it is necessary to sedate someone in
emergency and in the existing system, there is little choice. I never saw
any of it actually do any good, other then as expedient and temporary
measures. It does not deal with the root of the issue. Psychiatry and
Psychology is in a very primitive state and much of it hinges on economic
realities and that many people do not give a damn about mentally ill, and
they cost alot to feed and house and provide medical care for. The average
mentally ill person in a mental helath resident setting, for instance costs
between 30-50,000 a year. more then double that for institutionalized
developmentally disabled--more like $120,000 per year, per client. This is
why there is the swinging pendulum that release them into community care and
back again into large (far more expensive) institutions depending on whether
the state has a republican or democratic party administration, in power at
any given time.
The current level of understanding of pharmacology is incredibly primitive
and becomes a huge money-making thing. But honestly, in terms of
precision--these drugs are like trying to hammer a tiny needle with a sledge
hammer.
BTW, most of the pharmacology in neurotransmitters, came out of what was
learned with the the intitial LSD research and in most cases the
psychoactive molecules in the psyhciatric drugs are plant based and then
synthesized and played with in the lab and have horendous side effects..
The first drug treament for psychosis, came from a certain kind of tree
bark.
So yes, I have to agree with Tom Cruise in this regard--except that
scientology does not advocate further research and has a limited and
mistaken idea about visionary plant/LSD use and unrealistically, promotes
Hubbards very limited understanding of such things.
Hubbard had already begun his Dianetics group, before he had tried LSD.
Scientology was born from changes to his ideas, after his LSD use and at the
same time, LSD became his enemy. I think he had problems with it and his
loss of ego-control caused him to identify "insanity" with the LSD
experience. He was a Sci-Fi writer and my guess is he had a manic condition
of some sort.
LSD can cause a non-centered person, to fixate on extremes with various low
level experiences. Its like giving a person a car without the proper
training and unleashing them on the freeway and then wonder why they
crashed.
He was a example of someone who had his own agenda prior to his LSD
experimentation and it upset his apple cart and showed him things he didn't
want to see--which was common with unprepared LSD use. His LSD use, IMO,
does explain his change from "no natal memory" idea of dianetics, to a
hack-reincarnational idea, switch to a more eastern flavorred dogma, which
is a big change between his early Dianetics and later Scientology. Many of
the original scientologists were drug "burn outs". so the drug rehab aspect
became entrenched in the dogma. Most scientologists I know are good people,
but like all institutionalized religions, attracts people with problems as
well as people who are idealists, that were particualry malleable at the
moment of conversion and tend to lose the open minded attitude they may have
had when they first converted to the new religion. They tend to be
idealistic people who want to change the world, so in that regard I don't
see them as evil, anymore then I think catholics are bad. All religons can
become insulated and cultish and end up with most of their effrots to be
about paying the bills of their churches and centers and then they get into
personal dramas.
Use common sense though......did Moses see god in a burning bush or was he
using well-known visionay plants when he retreated to the mountain into
seclusion, was Jesus really the "Son of god," or was he using welll known
psychoactive plants when he went into the wilderness? Was buddha, not
seeking out the Soma when he went into the forest? Somehow commensense
about this topic cannot be gotten by people who cannot realate because they
can only imagine what it is, or their experience with visionary plants was
brief, ill-prepared, immature and abortive.
The originator of AA, Bill Wilson, also used LSD and it was while using LSD
that he came up with his AA revelation.
Low grade LSD experiences can cause a reaction-formation type of thing and
people with existing mental and drug problems using LSD can end up fixating
on LSD as the problem rather then face that the problem was already there.
LSD and psychoactives of that kind, are like the ultimate "uncovering
therapy" and "uncovering therapy" is frowned upon. in general by the mental
health community involved in a psychiatric setting (including
psycho-analysis, whether Freudian to Jungian or other type) where the
behavioral model holds sway and what is thought to be the more practical
approach of normalization, medication/sedation and economic concerns.
I am not a proponent of general LSD use but I am all for careful research
and free thinking about it, and every aspect of brain chemistry and
psychoactives, by people who know what they are doing, both yogically and
scientifically.
There are still million of people on the planet who KNOW that the visionary
plants and their derivitives are still the best hope for a wide-spread
change to the human ignorance and evil behavior--but know it is not anywhere
near a practical time for such a wide-spread usage. But this thing is the
most powerful and amazing thing on the planet.
And yes, a powerful thing like this can be mis-used by people.
dc
---
William Ernest "Did Spartacus Have Multiple Personalities?" Reid
But films are a false reality.
Yelps
2007-01-23 18:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<Snip> Bill Reid...nevermind Bill Reid. You can't discuss anything; You
can't be congruent. All you know is sarcasm and twisting what is said. You
blurt out disconnected remarks, make ridiculous statements and there is no
way to have a conversation about anything with you that you aren't going to
twist. You start "quoting" me, with words I never used and throwing words
around like 'fascist" which is absurd. When I tell you that would be as
absurb as saying the universe is a "fascist,: because we all have to die,
and have no choice in the matter, you cannot even grasps the meaning of that
and then you say I called the universe "fascist." Its just ridiculous for
me to imagine that you can have any congruent discussion. Then you drag
"remote viewing" into it and take my experience of being in a remote viewing
study done by an expert on the topic and you deny that is even remote
viewing as though you are an expert. So I will stop reading your replies on
Google cause I'm just wasting my time. Obviously trying to relate the
ending of 2001 to the core religious experience of meditation and visionary
plant use is over your head and not a part of your experience---which of
course was my point to begin with.

dc
Bill Reid
2007-01-24 00:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
<Snip> Bill Reid...nevermind Bill Reid.
Is it better to have never had a mind at all?
Post by Yelps
You can't discuss anything; You
can't be congruent.
"Congruent"?
Post by Yelps
All you know is sarcasm and twisting what is said.
A lot of what you said was pretty twisted to begin with, and the
sarcasm just comes naturally under those circumstances, I guess...
Post by Yelps
You
blurt out disconnected remarks,
Nope. They are connected to your remarks. As is usually the case
in situations such as yours, it is your own thoughts and words that you
find repellant...
Post by Yelps
make ridiculous statements and there is no
way to have a conversation about anything with you that you aren't going to
twist.
Post by Yelps
The day the reviews
for
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
2001 hit was like a wake up call to acid heads everywhere that they
were
in
Post by Yelps
Post by Yelps
with a bad crowd, being here on this ignoramus planet with such a huge
majority of complete nitwits and programmed machines.
I mean, I admit that I never gave you a chance to either explain
this better/differently or apologize for it, but I just naturally assume
that ANYBODY who would make such a statement is an insane
fascist idiot.
Post by Yelps
You start "quoting" me, with words I never used and throwing words
around like 'fascist" which is absurd.
I just re-printed your words above; previously you had "snipped"
them because at some level even a kook like you realizes they were
the words of an insane fascist idiot. You called every human on the
planet who didn't like "2001" and use LSD an "ignoramus", "nitwit",
and a "programmed machine".
Post by Yelps
When I tell you that would be as
absurb as saying the universe is a "fascist,: because we all have to die,
and have no choice in the matter, you cannot even grasps the meaning of that
and then you say I called the universe "fascist."
Your analogy is the equivalent of saying to somebody who isn't a
Christian to go take their complaints to God. You think that your
beliefs and the "universe" are one and the same because you know
the real truth about the "universe". Therefore if somebody challenges
your "religion" as fascist, you ridiculously assert that it is actually
"God" that is the fascist...
Post by Yelps
Its just ridiculous for
me to imagine that you can have any congruent discussion.
Today is the day for the word "congruent", I guess...I wonder
what chaotic sputtering neuron caused this to happen...
Post by Yelps
Then you drag
"remote viewing" into it and take my experience of being in a remote viewing
study done by an expert on the topic and you deny that is even remote
viewing as though you are an expert.
Well, I did get an A+ in my really major university credited class
in "parapsychology", and did take part in a remote viewing study
(perhaps the most famous one ever) at an even more famous
legendary university, but I wouldn't really call myself an expert...just
that I think you would have missed the question on "remote viewing"
in the final I took from the way you described it, but there were
another 250 questions for you to miss as well...
Post by Yelps
So I will stop reading your replies on
Google cause I'm just wasting my time.
Yeah, heard that before. All the folks on the "Buffy" group were
devestated when you "kill-filed yourself" there, but their gain was
our loss...
Post by Yelps
Obviously trying to relate the
ending of 2001 to the core religious experience of meditation and visionary
plant use is over your head and not a part of your experience---which of
course was my point to begin with.
Well, as you proved in your last post, you're not even a good
guesser, which is too bad because you're absolutely no damn
good at any type of COHERENT thought at all. I gave you a
free shot at "analyzing" me to figure out why I didn't like "Eyes
Wide Shut", which is what you said you wanted to do, and this
is where you wind up, not anywhere near your desired topic,
and with an absurdly factually incorrect and completely
fascistic conclusion.

So what can I say but: Good-Night, Funnyman (at least for now).

---
William Ernest "Jung At Heart, Insane On Top" Reid
Don Stockbauer
2007-01-24 20:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
<Snip> Bill Reid...nevermind Bill Reid.Is it better to have never had a mind at all?
You can't discuss anything; You
can't be congruent."Congruent"?
All you know is sarcasm and twisting what is said.A lot of what you said was pretty twisted to begin with, and the
sarcasm just comes naturally under those circumstances, I guess...
You
blurt out disconnected remarks,Nope. They are connected to your remarks. As is usually the case
in situations such as yours, it is your own thoughts and words that you
find repellant...
make ridiculous statements and there is no
way to have a conversation about anything with you that you aren't going
to
Post by Yelps
The day the reviews
for
Post by Yelps
2001 hit was like a wake up call to acid heads everywhere that theywere
in
Post by Yelps
with a bad crowd, being here on this ignoramus planet with such a huge
majority of complete nitwits and programmed machines.I mean, I admit that I never gave you a chance to either explain
this better/differently or apologize for it, but I just naturally assume
that ANYBODY who would make such a statement is an insane
fascist idiot.
You start "quoting" me, with words I never used and throwing words
around like 'fascist" which is absurd.I just re-printed your words above; previously you had "snipped"
them because at some level even a kook like you realizes they were
the words of an insane fascist idiot. You called every human on the
planet who didn't like "2001" and use LSD an "ignoramus", "nitwit",
and a "programmed machine".
When I tell you that would be as
absurb as saying the universe is a "fascist,: because we all have to die,
and have no choice in the matter, you cannot even grasps the meaning of
that
and then you say I called the universe "fascist."Your analogy is the equivalent of saying to somebody who isn't a
Christian to go take their complaints to God. You think that your
beliefs and the "universe" are one and the same because you know
the real truth about the "universe". Therefore if somebody challenges
your "religion" as fascist, you ridiculously assert that it is actually
"God" that is the fascist...
Its just ridiculous for
me to imagine that you can have any congruent discussion.Today is the day for the word "congruent", I guess...I wonder
what chaotic sputtering neuron caused this to happen...
Then you drag
"remote viewing" into it and take my experience of being in a remote
viewing
study done by an expert on the topic and you deny that is even remote
viewing as though you are an expert.Well, I did get an A+ in my really major university credited class
in "parapsychology", and did take part in a remote viewing study
(perhaps the most famous one ever) at an even more famous
legendary university, but I wouldn't really call myself an expert...just
that I think you would have missed the question on "remote viewing"
in the final I took from the way you described it, but there were
another 250 questions for you to miss as well...
So I will stop reading your replies on
Google cause I'm just wasting my time.Yeah, heard that before. All the folks on the "Buffy" group were
devestated when you "kill-filed yourself" there, but their gain was
our loss...
Obviously trying to relate the
ending of 2001 to the core religious experience of meditation and
visionary
plant use is over your head and not a part of your experience---which of
course was my point to begin with.Well, as you proved in your last post, you're not even a good
guesser, which is too bad because you're absolutely no damn
good at any type of COHERENT thought at all. I gave you a
free shot at "analyzing" me to figure out why I didn't like "Eyes
Wide Shut", which is what you said you wanted to do, and this
is where you wind up, not anywhere near your desired topic,
and with an absurdly factually incorrect and completely
fascistic conclusion.
So what can I say but: Good-Night, Funnyman (at least for now).
---
William Ernest "Jung At Heart, Insane On Top" Reid
I just LOVE people who suffer from ED (Endless Discussion)
kelpzoidzl
2015-01-19 19:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bill, it's 8 years later. Have you rewatched EWS and still have the same opiniion?

Don, ED(endless discussion) without yogic insight is "roof brain chatter"

Ichowhip, are you ready to redeem him? And give him a B-?

Harry, are you still a commie and Lacanisn? Has Padraig cured himself?
h***@gmail.com
2015-01-21 23:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Bill, it's 8 years later. Have you rewatched EWS and still have the same opiniion?
Of course I've TRIED to watch EWS again, but it is virtually
impossible to stay awake during that POS.

Oddly enough, I just watched 2001 again in segments over a
period of days finishing up yesterday, just as part of my
latest surround-sound home theater calibration, and being
sidelined by the flu. Still holds up, particularly with better
bass response (the kettle drum in Thus Spake Zarathrustra is
a lot more present now).
Post by kelpzoidzl
Don, ED(endless discussion) without yogic insight is "roof brain chatter"
Ichowhip, are you ready to redeem him? And give him a B-?
Guy was and is a loser who craps on anybody with an education
and a clue.
Post by kelpzoidzl
Harry, are you still a commie and Lacanisn? Has Padraig cured himself?
Thanks for bringing my words of wisdom forward for a whole
new non-existent generation to enjoy. Unfortunately, the
entire Kubrick legacy has been hopelessly besmirched by
juvenile fan-boys without the first clue. Kubrick probably
killed himself thinking of how idiotic people would appear
trying to defend EWS as a "great" movie...

---
William Ernest "Kidman Was So Traumatized She Dated Fallon" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-01-25 11:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
After 2001 and Clockwork Orange Barry Lyndon was
p
kelpzoidzl
2015-01-25 18:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Whoops my cat knocked over my ipad and posted.What I was beginning to say.. ...was

2001 and Clockwork Orange were no flukes. At the time I was bothered that he left the Syfi genre and said "no more syfi"

BL, FMJ, The Shining and EWS were all furthering his technical, film making vision, each in a different way. It is what it is. He was planning AI, so he WAS returning to syfi, but that was tragically left in other's hands and too visionary for the time he had left. Nevertheless, EWS as his final film, is not a POS by any means. It was a giant red herring and strangely the film is his best film, despite it's mundane surface. I'll admit It took many viewings for me to see it as his "greatest film." It's an even greater comedy than DR. Strangelove and his earlier comedy, Lolita or The Shining. He left Syfi, but never left his twisted Comedy or his technical vision, which is in all his films.

Why you fall asleep in EWS is puzzling, but there must be some reason you hate it so much when there is so much to see and hear. 2001 made many people fall asleep. BL put lots of people to sleep as well. I know I found BL sleep enducing many times I watched it. Hell I was always bothered and confused by his abandonment of syfi snd wide screen after 2001. Why all the 4:3?!? He broke the mold on purpose. With all the great Scifi books available, why bother with BL or another war film after 2001 and ACO? Why do The Shining? It bothered me. Maybe scifi didn't accomodate his COMEDY. Look what he did to The Shining. It was twisted comedy. He turned the book on it's ear.

I have found that today, I can watch EWS over and over again and never stop smiling and soaking it in. On my first few viewings I struggled to like it, but I learned my lesson about judging a Kubrick film after only one or two viewings of The Shining. On my first viewing at Grauman's Chinese, I hated The Shining....for a day or two. Now I love his slap in the face to Stephen King and love the hilarious film. EWS is mesmerizing, even more so then The Shining.
........
On the Jung essay I give you an A- in a Kubrick anal-ysis and I have no great admiration for Jung, after he abandoned his brief, more cosmic period in later life. Too many Jungians like Jung himself, use Jungian thinking to unconsciously defend their own psychosexual obsessions, shallowness and roof brain chatter. EWS is a slap in the face to all the preverts.

Jung's highpoint were his essays on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. His dabbling in Entheogens and meditation was when he got the closest to the truth, but alas, he fell back down, into the lower bardoes like Dr. Bill.

Kubrick saw people as ultimately hanging onto lower life states, even after traveling through the bardoed, without cosmic intervention (2001).
kelpzoidzl
2015-01-25 19:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Years back I wrote on amk about the EWS Bardo Thodol connection. Recently I posted this on the reddit EWS discussion.

Bill's egodeath.
Here is a quote from the Leary, Alpert, Metzner manual based on the Bardo Thodol. (Tibetan Book of the Dead.). Here it refers to the stage of passing through the Bardos (after death / egodeath existence levels) and witnessing sexual images and desires, trying to draw one back to desire driven rebirth.
"O (name), At this time you may see visions of mating couples. You are convinced that an orgy is about to take place. Desire and anticipation seize you, You wonder what sexual performance is expected of you. When these visions occur, Remember to withhold yourself from action or attachment. Humbly exercise your faith. Float with the stream. Trust the process with great fervency. Meditation and trust in the unity of life are the keys. If you attempt to enter into your old personality because you are attracted or repulsed, If you try to join the orgy you are hallucinating, You will be reborn on an animal level. You will experience possessive desire and jealousy, You will suffer stupidity and misery. If you wish to avoid these miseries Listen and recognize. Reject the feelings of attraction or repulsion. Remember the downward pull opposing enlightenment is strong in you. Meditate upon unity with your fellow voyagers. Abandon jealousy, Be neither attracted nor repulsed by your sexual hallucinations. If you are, you will wander in misery a long time. Repeat these words to yourself. And meditate on them."
When I have time I will post some EWS colors that correspond to Bardo stages. I see EWS as Bill essentially walking through the Bardos seeking the Clear light and being waylaid by his animal drives.
These sexual images of the THIRD BARDO are explained:
"V. Sexual Visions Sexual visions are extremely frequent during the Third Bardo. You may see or imagine males and females copulating.
[According to Jung. ("Psychological Commentary" to The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Evans-Wentz edition, p. xiii),
"Freud's theory is the first attempt made in the West to investigate, as if from below, from the animal sphere of instinct the psychic territory that corresponds in Tantric Lamaism to the Sidpa Bardo."
The vision described here, in which the person sees mother and father in sexual intercourse, corresponds to the "primal scene" in psychoanalysis.
At this level, then, we begin to see a remarkable convergence of Eastern and Western psychology. Note also the exact correspondence to the psychoanalytic theory of the Oedipus Complex.] This vision may be internal or it may involve the people around you. You may hallucinate multi-person orgies and experience both desire and shame, attraction and disgust. You may wonder what sexual performance is expected of you and have doubts about your ability to perform at this time."

In EWS, it took Alice smoking a joint
to release her inhibitions to make the confession to Bill.
Freud used Cocaine for twenty years, Schnitzlers writes of characters using Cocaine and no doubt used it himself. Jung used Cocaine and experimented with peyote and magic mushrooms briefly.
Honey, have you seen my wallet?
Isn't it on the bedside table?
(turns off stereo-a. Waltz 2-misidentified on credits and soundtrack--- as “Jazz Suite 2 Waltz2”-a Decca Error--- and turns off light)
says goodnight to daughter And thus begins his journey through the Bardos.
Arrives at party
passes large white light Sun decorations without noticing (does not recognize Clear Light)
“do you know anyone here?”
“not a soul” (except Victor-The Winner or the Taker..)
Traditionally the Bardo Thodol and it's commentaries, including that of Jung's speaks of stages of death and egodeath, with each stage one has a chance to recognize the Clear Light, but if failing on each stage then passes on to the next stage untill one is drawn into a womb of whatever type the karmic proclivities dictate by cause and effect. The Freudian Oedipal ideas and the Bardo Thodol view are closely related, but in the Bardo Thodol the process of rebirth, being attracted or repulsed by either the father or mother, complete with the arising of jealousy in the brute realm, will determine gender and even the type of rebirth, in what kind of form (MASK) as an animal, beast or human, long or short life span, all dictated by karma (cause and effect).

When I first wrote this up some years ago I had included photo links (which are now broken and would take time to recover). Watching EWS with an eye to the colors in the light of the Bardo Thodol document, is an eye opener and uncanny.
"O nobly-born, along with the radiances of Wisdom, the impure illusory lights of the Six Lokas will also come to shine. If it be asked, 'What are they?'
[they are] a dull white light from the devas,-RAPTURE REALM
A dull yellow light from human beings, -HUMAN REALM
A dull green light from the asuras, -ANGER REALM
A dull blue light from the brutes, ---ANIMALITY REALM (see Jikkai Gogu)
A dull reddish light from the pretas, --HUNGER REALM
and A dull smoke-coloured light from a HELLISH REALM
These six thus will come to shine, along with the six radiances of Wisdom; whereupon, be not afraid of nor be attracted towards any, but allow thyself to rest in the non-thought condition."
"If thou art frightened by the pure radiances of Wisdom and attracted by the impure lights of the Six Lokas, then thou wilt assume a body in any of the Six Lokas and suffer sangsaric miseries; and thou wilt never be emancipated from the Ocean of Sangsāra , wherein thou wilt be whirled"
The "Six Lokas," called the SIX LOWER LIFE STATES penetrate one another. (See Mutual Possession of the Ten Life States or Mutual Penetration) There are predominant life States and Changeling Life States.
In EWS we also see the Clear Light, the Peaceful and Wrathful Dieties, the Sexual Visions, the failures to "recognize the Clear light" and resultant wandering in Samsaric existence.
Thus, Bill descends further into the FOURTH BARDO, He tries to reconnect with Domino. He goes to her door, the one with the unexplained baby stroller outside, finds out from Sally, he was saved from getting AIDS. He goes to see Nick's gay desk clerk learns of the violence perpetrated on Nick, goes to the morgue and sees Mandy on the table. He receives the death threat note.
He is then confronted by The Victor who tells him this is all illusion. He returns home, sees his MASK next to Alice's head, breaks into tears and confesses his sins in humiliation. After all is revealed she tells him they have to do one more thing to complete the cycle of the lower 6 realms----to follow the natural animal course to "fuck." She is essentially saying, "You need to enter my Womb," again.
All these events use colors and light, to evoke the changing lifestates he is passing through.

The passage from the Bhagavad Gita that originally was used in the Ceremony scene:
"paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge"
paritranaya--for the deliverance; sadhunam--of the devotees; vinasaya--for the annihilation; ca--also; duskrtam--of the miscreants; dharma--principles of religion; samsthapana-arthaya--to reestablish; sambhavami--I do appear; yuge--millennium; yuge--after millennium.
"For the sake of the pious, to annihilate the mind of the miscreants, I establish the law and appear millenium after millenium." (To save all beings)
Tibetan tantricism directly connects back to the teachings of ancient India. The Bardos were called "antarabhāva" in sanskrit and is the idea of Limbo. In these teachings, living creatures on this earth are essentially in animal limbo life after life until attaining liberation. Clearly Bill in essentially in Limbo due to his ignorance and desires, dragging him into the confused state. At most, Bill (and Alice) reach the REALM OF LEARNING and PRATYEKABUDDA, but fall back down and begin again still ruled by animal drives. In this way Bill and Alice are just like all lower beings in the 6 lower lifestates, again to be tempted, unable as of yet, to reach a stage of recognition of the true nature and a stage of non-retrogression (no backsliding) and eventual liberation.

If one wishes to understand more about the Bardo Thodol I recommend first reading the Manual mentioned esrlier by Leary, Alpert and Metzner.
The complete pdf is here:
http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Timothy-Leary-The-Psychedelic-Experience-The-Tibetan-Book-Of-The-Dead.pdf
After reading this one can read Jungs essay and the original Bardo Thodol edited and translated by Evan-Wentz.
You can be assured that Stanley Kubrick had studied both of these books in the late 60's. They were very well known at that time, in certain circles.
You may also want to watch Gaspar Noe's "Enter the Void" from 2010, a more brutal rendition of the Bardo Thodol.
h***@gmail.com
2015-01-26 23:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Whoops my cat knocked over my ipad and posted.What I was beginning to say.. ...was
Not as interesting as what the cat would say...
Post by kelpzoidzl
2001 and Clockwork Orange were no flukes. At the time I was bothered that he left the Syfi genre and said "no more syfi"
Underlying themes require no particular "genre"...
Post by kelpzoidzl
BL, FMJ, The Shining and EWS were all furthering his technical, film making vision, each in a different way. It is what it is. He was planning AI, so he WAS returning to syfi, but that was tragically left in other's hands and too visionary for the time he had left. Nevertheless, EWS as his final film, is not a POS by any means. It was a giant red herring and strangely the film is his best film, despite it's mundane surface. I'll admit It took many viewings for me to see it as his "greatest film."
Entertainment delayed is entertainment denied...I don't have
the time and inclination to hypnotize myself that a crappy
movie is actually good...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Why you fall asleep in EWS is puzzling, but there must be some reason you hate it so much when there is so much to see and hear.
Yeah, a lot to hear, like Ligeti banging on the one piano
key for 40 friggin' minutes while Cruise wanders around
aimlessly on London sets that look nothing like NYC...sheesh,
what an epic fail before the term even came into existence...
Post by kelpzoidzl
2001 made many people fall asleep.
Doesn't mean anything to me...
Post by kelpzoidzl
BL put lots of people to sleep as well.
Yup, what's your point? Kubrick made a lot of boring
movies?
Post by kelpzoidzl
Hell I was always bothered and confused by his abandonment of syfi snd wide screen after 2001. Why all the 4:3?!?
Well, actually he liked "academy apeture", which is a little
wider than 4:3.

He was a photographic compositional purist from his formative
years using 35mm still film, and ultimately he saw no
artistic advantage to a wider format for most movies. Guess
what? HE WAS RIGHT. "Academy apeture" is the "golden ratio"
for MOST photographic composition, considering the shape and
size of the human head, the most frequently photographed
object in film.

Now, for a movie with a lot of spaceships flying around, sure,
a more expansive "canvas" was appropriate. But the BEST thing
about "Eyes Wide Shut" was him shooting it composed for
"academy apeture", where the true brilliance of the photography
shines (the cropped theatrical presentation was terrible).
Post by kelpzoidzl
He broke the mold on purpose.
Exactly my point, but you don't really get it...
Post by kelpzoidzl
With all the great Scifi books available, why bother with BL or another war film after 2001 and ACO? Why do The Shining?
Geez, he did the films that the business allowed him to do,
like any other director. King was an instant greenlight in
those days, why not?
Post by kelpzoidzl
It bothered me. Maybe scifi didn't accomodate his COMEDY. Look what he did to The Shining. It was twisted comedy. He turned the book on it's ear.
Whatever. I liked "The Shining", but found it lacking as
a horror movie, it did have some funny stuff in it, but again,
I think you're missing the point...
Post by kelpzoidzl
I have found that today, I can watch EWS over and over again and never stop smiling and soaking it in. On my first few viewings I struggled to like it,
Why "struggle"? I take the "middle" road, the easy road,
I don't "struggle" to like things I don't like right off the
bat just because I think "society" dictates I should like
it (I'm like that about food and movies and everything else).
Post by kelpzoidzl
but I learned my lesson about judging a Kubrick film after only one or two viewings of The Shining. On my first viewing at Grauman's Chinese, I hated The Shining....for a day or two.
Oh, sure, blame the theater because you're a racist...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Now I love his slap in the face to Stephen King and love the hilarious film.
I love the fact that the idiot King complained about Kubrick's
movie then made a worse movie (or mini-series) TWICE which made
him look like a complete fool. I'm glad he got hit by that
car, he deserved it for making those horrible unwatchable
versions of "The Shining"...
Post by kelpzoidzl
EWS is mesmerizing, even more so then The Shining.
Isn't the word "mesmerizing" related to sleep? OK, I'm
with you in snooze-ville...
Post by kelpzoidzl
........
On the Jung essay I give you an A- in a Kubrick anal-ysis and I have no great admiration for Jung, after he abandoned his brief, more cosmic period in later life.
Who cares about Jung, just another self-important idiot...you
just will never get the point...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Too many Jungians like Jung himself, use Jungian thinking to unconsciously defend their own psychosexual obsessions, shallowness and roof brain chatter.
OK, so maybe he did have a purpose in life after all...how
else would people defend their "roof brain chatter" without
him and Freud?
Post by kelpzoidzl
EWS is a slap in the face to all the preverts.
As a pervert, maybe that's what really offended me about
the movie, I hated falling asleep during all that super-model
quality nudity...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Jung's highpoint were his essays on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. His dabbling in Entheogens and meditation was when he got the closest to the truth, but alas, he fell back down, into the lower bardoes like Dr. Bill.
I'd like to fall into a Bardo, you know, like a 20 year
old Brigette Bardo...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Kubrick saw people as ultimately hanging onto lower life states, even after traveling through the bardoed, without cosmic intervention (2001).
Uh, yeah, maybe, you might be able to get the point, but
probably not...

---
William Ernest "Fell In The Ocean In Barbados, That Count?" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-01-28 03:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bill, Out of curiosity, what are your favorite films of all time? Your favorite filmmakers?

Are you gona to get a curved screen TV?
h***@gmail.com
2015-01-28 23:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Bill, Out of curiosity, what are your favorite films of all time? Your favorite filmmakers?
"2001"
"Dr. Strangelove"
"A Clockwork Orange"
...
"Touched By Love"
"Harvard Man"
"I Know Who Killed Me"

The last three are some of my favorite bad movies...I actually
changed my mind about the good-badness of "I Know Who Killed
Me" after thinking about it afterwards...I mean, how horribly
good can a movie be where a stripper has her fingers fall off
in the backstage dressing room, and SHE TRIES TO SEW THEM
BACK ON USING NEEDLE AND THREAD AND IT'S NOT A DREAM LIKE I
THOUGHT FOR MOST OF THE MOVIE, THE SCRIPT WAS SO INSANELY
STUPID THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR REAL!!!

Kubrick, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, etc., you know
the usual suspects, just not the idiot who made "The Usual
Suspects" because it sucked...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Are you gona to get a curved screen TV?
Hell no, dumbest idea ever, just when they managed to
flatten out TVs...I've been waiting for an OLED TV then
they made all of those curved, and actually, I'm not
that impressed with the OLED picture...

---
William Ernest "Wait I Have Sew My Ass Back On" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-01-29 07:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I add Spartacus, Lolita and EWS to that list with your three, as my top, top tier Kubrick. When I was young Ben Hur and Spartacus were my favorites films and early on Bridge on the River Kwai. the other David Lean films, Kubrick's The Killing (saw on TV not long after it's release) Hitchcock's North by Northwest, The Birds (his masterpiece). Apocalypse Now The only TV shows i'd ever put at the top of a list, would be Buffy and Married with Children. I rarely watched them during their broadcast, because I was too busy for TV, working in the trenches. Numerous other directors and films in a top 20 list.

The Curved screen appeals to me a little, because I was imprinted by This is Cinerama at 5 years old and obsessed on all Cinerama films. Now they can be gotten on "Smilebox" Bluerays simulating Cinerama shape.

Reviews for the curved screen are very mixed. One reviewer flat out said it's just not any more immersive. I think it would need more curvature, width and and height just like a Cinerama screen. And it would have to be a large one.
kelpzoidzl
2015-01-29 08:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I should mention high on my list is "On the Beach" had a major impact on me. And Solaris grew on me.
h***@gmail.com
2015-01-31 18:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
I should mention high on my list is "On the Beach" had a major impact on me. And Solaris grew on me.
Both pointless snooze-fests...

---
William Ernest "No Wonder He Likes 'Eyes Wide Shut'" Reid
h***@gmail.com
2015-01-31 18:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
I add Spartacus, Lolita and EWS to that list with your three, as my top, top tier Kubrick.
The so bad they're good list? Sorry, EWS is just bad,
not so bad it's good...
Post by kelpzoidzl
When I was young Ben Hur and Spartacus were my favorites films and early on Bridge on the River Kwai.
So you liked gladiator movies? Ever seen a grown man
naked?
Post by kelpzoidzl
the other David Lean films, Kubrick's The Killing (saw on TV not long after it's release) Hitchcock's North by Northwest, The Birds (his masterpiece).
I liked "Psycho" best...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Apocalypse Now
What's the term? Oh yeah, "strained seriousness"...
Post by kelpzoidzl
The only TV shows i'd ever put at the top of a list, would be Buffy and Married with Children.
Can't quibble with those choices, but what about the
lack of Cinerama?
Post by kelpzoidzl
I rarely watched them during their broadcast, because I was too busy for TV, working in the trenches.
OK, so you're Ed Norton, we got it...
Post by kelpzoidzl
The Curved screen appeals to me a little, because I was imprinted by This is Cinerama at 5 years old and obsessed on all Cinerama films. Now they can be gotten on "Smilebox" Bluerays simulating Cinerama shape.
All forms of Cinerama distorted the picture in one way
or another. It was basically just another stupid gimmick
to fight against TV's encroachment into the movie theater
audience, and like all other gimmicks, failed in every
way...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Reviews for the curved screen are very mixed. One reviewer flat out said it's just not any more immersive. I think it would need more curvature, width and and height just like a Cinerama screen. And it would have to be a large one.
And you'd have to rebuild your living room to have a domed
roof...geez. You know, they have never given any kind of
good explanation as to why they started making these goofy
curved TVs, nobody wants them, nobody asked for them, then
all of a sudden, there they are.

All I know, is they started with the OLED TVs. Funny
thing is, I interviewed at a company that made the equipment
for manufacturing OLED TVs, and since I wasn't that
interested in the job, I spent most of my time trying to
get info (despite non-disclosure) pertaining to the REAL
reason they make these goofy curved TVs, something like
"the curve makes it easier to do the vapor deposition"
or something like that. But the dumb bastards were very
tight-lipped and I couldn't even get the names of the
companies they were selling these large-scale OLED panel
manufacturing machines to...

---
William Ernest "Actresses Should Be Curved Not Screen" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-03 20:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I like the doomed roof idea.

No, Cinerama was not a failed gimmick by any means. The immersive experience paved the way for 2001.

No, Spartacus wasn't about naked men. On the Beach was a masterpiece that paved the way for Dr. Strangelove.

As usual I have to conclude you didn't get to see these films in the context of when they first came out. How old are you Bill? Films (and books) are best understood by the context of the year they came out and their effect on young people at the time.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-03 20:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The trenches I worked in were sewers of another kind.
m***@yahoo.com
2015-02-03 20:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I like the doomed roof idea.
'Gravity's Rainbow'

*Coming soon to a theater near you.*

I heard the reason they haven't made the movie is because theaters would refuse to show it.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-13 18:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I like the doomed roof idea.
'Gravity's Rainbow'

*Coming soon to a theater near you.*

I heard the reason they haven't made the movie is because theaters would refuse to show it. >>>>

Colonel Redditbocker would have to roll out LSD flavored popcorn.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-03 23:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
I like the doomed roof idea.
Sounds like an LA-area "home"...
Post by kelpzoidzl
No, Cinerama was not a failed gimmick by any means. The immersive experience paved the way for 2001.
It paved the way for IMAX, which is just the 70mm
film format in "8-perf" or whatever they call it. Isn't
IMAX even more "immersive" than Cinerama DESPITE being
like a 5:3 format not 2.2:1?
Post by kelpzoidzl
No, Spartacus wasn't about naked men.
So, which do YOU prefer, oysters or snails?
Post by kelpzoidzl
On the Beach was a masterpiece that paved the way for Dr. Strangelove.
It was boring and paved the way for "Fail-Safe"
which was stupid...I liked the mini-series on TV
where everybody died of radiation poisoning and
their skin peeled off and their teeth fell out,
now THAT was funny...
Post by kelpzoidzl
As usual I have to conclude you didn't get to see these films in the context of when they first came out.
God, this is like your looney theory about why
people don't like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", they
didn't "binge-watch" it like you...
Post by kelpzoidzl
How old are you Bill?
I've told you before, I'm the only white survivor of
the battle of Little Big Horn...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Films (and books) are best understood by the context of the year they came out and their effect on young people at the time.
Let's see, my favorite novel is "Catch-22", came out
in 1958, I didn't read it until 1970, "Huckleberry
Finn" is way up on my list of greats, came out in
the 1880s or something, read it in 1966 or so (though
I liked it better about ten years later, similar to
my reaction to Hitchcock's "Vertigo")...you lose again,
you're like the Mitt Romney of the newsgroup...

---
William Ernest "I'm Like Friggin' FDR" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-13 18:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
I like the doomed roof idea.
Sounds like an LA-area "home"...
Post by kelpzoidzl
No, Cinerama was not a failed gimmick by any means. The immersive experience paved the way for 2001.
It paved the way for IMAX, which is just the 70mm
film format in "8-perf" or whatever they call it. Isn't
IMAX even more "immersive" than Cinerama DESPITE being
like a 5:3 format not 2.2:1?

IMAX is for people with less peripheral vision.

Original, 3 screen Cinerama was 2.51:1
Post by kelpzoidzl
No, Spartacus wasn't about naked men.
So, which do YOU prefer, oysters or snails? >>>

Neither, I prefer Varinia
Post by kelpzoidzl
On the Beach was a masterpiece that paved the way for Dr. Strangelove.
It was boring and paved the way for "Fail-Safe"
which was stupid...I liked the mini-series on TV
where everybody died of radiation poisoning and
their skin peeled off and their teeth fell out,
now THAT was funny... >>>

No. On the Beach, as a kid, on the big screen was hardcore.
Post by kelpzoidzl
As usual I have to conclude you didn't get to see these films in the context of when they first came out.
God, this is like your looney theory about why
people don't like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", they
didn't "binge-watch" it like you... >>>>

When people are young, they can be more receptive.

The TV sets are just not immersive. Weekly TV shows vs. binge watching. Weekly is for ADD people who watch commercials.
Post by kelpzoidzl
How old are you Bill?
I've told you before, I'm the only white survivor of
the battle of Little Big Horn... <<<<

What year did you first start watchng the Boob Tube? What was you first favorite shows?
Post by kelpzoidzl
Films (and books) are best understood by the context of the year they came out and their effect on young people at the time.
Let's see, my favorite novel is "Catch-22", came out
in 1958, I didn't read it until 1970,<<<<

Books too, are best in the context of the year they come out. It helps understand precedents and influences.


"Huckleberry
Finn" is way up on my list of greats, came out in
the 1880s or something, read it in 1966 or so (though
I liked it better about ten years later, similar to
my reaction to Hitchcock's "Vertigo")...you lose again,
you're like the Mitt Romney of the newsgroup... <<<

Lots of classic books (or film) can be appreciated later, but still understood best, in the time context in which they came out and can take on more meaning later with people as they age, if they needed some developmental forcing.

---
William Ernest "I'm Like Friggin' FDR" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-13 18:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Correction, original Cinerama was 2.59:1, after slight cropping.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-13 19:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
I like the doomed roof idea.
Sounds like an LA-area "home"...
Post by kelpzoidzl
No, Cinerama was not a failed gimmick by any means. The immersive experience paved the way for 2001.
It paved the way for IMAX, which is just the 70mm
film format in "8-perf" or whatever they call it. Isn't
IMAX even more "immersive" than Cinerama DESPITE being
like a 5:3 format not 2.2:1?
IMAX is for people with less peripheral vision.
But greater vision up and down...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Original, 3 screen Cinerama was 2.51:1
Terrific, who cares, it was weird looking at three
films at once all with different colors...then they
went with the curved screen and that made the
spaceship in "2001" look bowed in the middle...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
No, Spartacus wasn't about naked men.
So, which do YOU prefer, oysters or snails? >>>
Neither, I prefer Varinia
God, you're kinky...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
On the Beach was a masterpiece that paved the way for Dr. Strangelove.
It was boring and paved the way for "Fail-Safe"
which was stupid...I liked the mini-series on TV
where everybody died of radiation poisoning and
their skin peeled off and their teeth fell out,
now THAT was funny... >>>
No. On the Beach, as a kid, on the big screen was hardcore.
Sure, you needed a big screen cuz it was such a
big beach...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
As usual I have to conclude you didn't get to see these films in the context of when they first came out.
God, this is like your looney theory about why
people don't like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", they
didn't "binge-watch" it like you... >>>>
When people are young, they can be more receptive.
They are also stupid...
Post by h***@gmail.com
The TV sets are just not immersive. Weekly TV shows vs. binge watching. Weekly is for ADD people who watch commercials.
There's a good one for Carl's Jr. now...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
How old are you Bill?
I've told you before, I'm the only white survivor of
the battle of Little Big Horn... <<<<
What year did you first start watchng the Boob Tube? What was you first favorite shows?
When I was a kid my sisters and friends loved the
"Chunky" commercial. It was for a big candy bar,
just a big block of chocolate, and the commercial
showed a little tugboat hauling this giant block
of chocolate through the Golden Gate Bridge, which
had to expand cartoonishly to let the huge brown
thing get through, and the theme song went "Open
Wide For Chunky" and we would laugh and roll all
over the floor laughing in hysterics every time
we saw it...now THAT was quality TV...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
Films (and books) are best understood by the context of the year they came out and their effect on young people at the time.
Let's see, my favorite novel is "Catch-22", came out
in 1958, I didn't read it until 1970,<<<<
Books too, are best in the context of the year they come out. It helps understand precedents and influences.
You're so uptight and weird...ever heard the term
"timeless classic"?
Post by h***@gmail.com
"Huckleberry
Finn" is way up on my list of greats, came out in
the 1880s or something, read it in 1966 or so (though
I liked it better about ten years later, similar to
my reaction to Hitchcock's "Vertigo")...you lose again,
you're like the Mitt Romney of the newsgroup... <<<
Lots of classic books (or film) can be appreciated later, but still understood best, in the time context in which they came out and can take on more meaning later with people as they age, if they needed some developmental forcing.
As a kid I liked "Vertigo" cuz I thought it was
a movie about being afraid of heights, as an adult
I was blown away by it because it was actually a
movie about sexual guilt, and I consider it to be
a masterpiece...that's the difference a few years
can make in viewing something, but that's about it...

---
William Ernest "Golden Gate Was Better In Chunky" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-16 01:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vertigo is a great film. One of the top Hitchcock films. The Birds, Marnie, Psycho, North by Northwest, Strangers on the Train, Vertigo...my favorites in that order.

Hitchcock ate in my dad's restaurant nearly ever lunch hour when he was working at CBS studio. The restaurant was right there in front of the CBS lot on Ventura Blvd. I worked there from age 13-21, evenings and all day during the summers. Hitchcock always came in around 11:30 (early, before the rush). He sat usually all alone in our big back booth, with instructions to make sure no other studio people bothered him. He was very quiet unless disturbed. I had to fend off people who wanted to see him. He ate liver and onions everyday. Occasionally he would have a meeting in the big booth, with cast and production of Alfred Hitchcock presents.

He was very short and stout. All the CBS TV stars came in. You name it. The studio was formerly Republic Studios. John Wayne and his brother came in a lot. I went to John Wayne's house a couple times. Gene Autry, James Arness, James Garner, George C. Scott and his wife, came in alot. Keenan Wynn, Rod Taylor, Sam Peckinpah, all the Gilligan cast many, many more. Sone of them were hard core drinkers and would come in at night to drink some more. My dad would take me skeet shooting with, Robert Stack numerous times. He was a nice guy.

Monte Hale the old singing cowboy, molested my younger sisters and my dad chased him with a shotgun, but he was long gone. Monte would flirt with my mother and came over during a kid pool party. My dad tapped the phone and heard calls from Monte. He was suspicious of Monte, but it wasn't my mother he was after. At any rate Monty got off scott free.

Some hysterical lady on the internet, till her death, claimed Gene Autry ran a pedo ring. You can still google it. Autry and Hale were buddies. Hale's wife is Chairman of Autry museum. So who knows?

So the Chunky commercial was around 1963, so you must be around 57. No wonder you missed so many great films on the big screen and probably TV too. I did like those Chunkys.
s***@hotmail.com
2015-02-16 09:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hitchcock ate in my dad's restaurant nearly ever lunch hour when he was working at CBS studio. <snip>
SK and Hitchcock are my favourite directors, so thanks for that local history.

Regards,

Steve
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-17 01:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hitchcock ate in my dad's restaurant nearly ever lunch hour when he was working at CBS studio. <snip>
SK and Hitchcock are my favourite directors, so thanks for that local history.

Regards,

Steve >>>>>>

In those years Hitchcock was my number one director idol, till at least Dr. Strangelove, when Kubrick went from number two to number one. It amazes me how I didn't ever ask him questions about his films and offer my self as a gofor or something. I guess I was too shy about it. I would seat him and serve him his Liver and kept him from being interrupted, but never talked anything other then food drink or restaurant talk. He must has known he was reverred.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-19 01:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
In those years Hitchcock was my number one director idol, till at least Dr. Strangelove, when Kubrick went from number two to number one. It amazes me how I didn't ever ask him questions about his films and offer my self as a gofor or something. I guess I was too shy about it. I would seat him and serve him his Liver and kept him from being interrupted, but never talked anything other then food drink or restaurant talk. He must has known he was reverred.
I would have asked him about the rumors he tried
to "get with" his pretty blonde ice princess stars
but they were repulsed by him and thought he was
a giant pervert (at least he didn't pull any "Bill
Cosby's" that we know of)...

I know what women screamed when they WERE with
him:

"OPEN WIDE FOR CHUNKY!!!!"

You know nothing of me or my age just by
Googling(TM) "Chunky", you never ate one in
your life, which to the best of my memory
is true of me as well, we kids just liked
the commercial because our parents couldn't
figure out what was so funny...

---
William Ernest "50 Shades Of Obese" Reid
Don Stockbauer
2015-02-19 02:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wow. Having access to big Hollywood stars. I just never had that here in this cow town.
I feel so deprived.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-19 06:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
In those years Hitchcock was my number one director idol, till at least Dr. Strangelove, when Kubrick went from number two to number one. It amazes me how I didn't ever ask him questions about his films and offer my self as a gofor or something. I guess I was too shy about it. I would seat him and serve him his Liver and kept him from being interrupted, but never talked anything other then food drink or restaurant talk. He must has known he was reverred.
I would have asked him about the rumors he tried
to "get with" his pretty blonde ice princess stars
but they were repulsed by him and thought he was
a giant pervert (at least he didn't pull any "Bill
Cosby's" that we know of)...

I know what women screamed when they WERE with
him: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't buy it. Tippi was wacky anyway, that was why she was perfect for The Birds and Marnie. How obsessed on blondes could he be? The man had no time for anything. Look at how many films he made and TV shows and his magazine. He had zero social life. He was, as I saw, a loner. Never did he come into the restaurant with a girl. Never. He was only obsessed with filmmaking and storytelling. That sleazy bio pic that stomped on him was terrible garbage and totally skewed.
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by h***@gmail.com
"OPEN WIDE FOR CHUNKY!!!!"
You know nothing of me or my age just by
Googling(TM) "Chunky", you never ate one in
your life, which to the best of my memory
is true of me as well, we kids just liked
the commercial because our parents couldn't
figure out what was so funny...

---
William Ernest "50 Shades Of Obese" Reid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you kidding. i ate plenty of Chunky's. So many I can even recall their taste. That commercial was 1963. I was guessing you were an impressionable kid around 10 or 11. I've always had the sense that you missed seeing certain films in the theater, because you were too young or not born yet. But maybe you were in an orphanage for all I know, watching Buffy. A Juvenile delinquent, or maybe you were in a coma from eating too many Chunkys, but no I don't know, maybe you're 46. Time Context is important because seeing a great film needed to be seen in the theater.

When were you born then? I was born in '47. In Hollywood, at Cedars of Lebenon and lived for my first two years right off Hollywood Blvd near Vine, before we moved to the Valley (Studio City). My dad owned The Hollywood Circle nightclub on Hollywood Blvd a few blocks from Highland. when I was a baby. Today it's a Starbucks. My babysitter was Russ Tamblyn's girl friend Dolly and Rusty was around a lot and did the watering.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-20 01:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
In those years Hitchcock was my number one director idol, till at least Dr. Strangelove, when Kubrick went from number two to number one. It amazes me how I didn't ever ask him questions about his films and offer my self as a gofor or something. I guess I was too shy about it. I would seat him and serve him his Liver and kept him from being interrupted, but never talked anything other then food drink or restaurant talk. He must has known he was reverred.
I would have asked him about the rumors he tried
to "get with" his pretty blonde ice princess stars
but they were repulsed by him and thought he was
a giant pervert (at least he didn't pull any "Bill
Cosby's" that we know of)...
I know what women screamed when they WERE with
him: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't buy it. Tippi was wacky anyway, that was why she was perfect for The Birds and Marnie. How obsessed on blondes could he be? The man had no time for anything. Look at how many films he made and TV shows and his magazine. He had zero social life. He was, as I saw, a loner. Never did he come into the restaurant with a girl. Never.
So, you don't think that was because women found
him repulsive?
Post by h***@gmail.com
He was only obsessed with filmmaking and storytelling. That sleazy bio pic that stomped on him was terrible garbage and totally skewed.
And Bill Cosby is being railroaded by 115
women...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by h***@gmail.com
"OPEN WIDE FOR CHUNKY!!!!"
You know nothing of me or my age just by
Googling(TM) "Chunky", you never ate one in
your life, which to the best of my memory
is true of me as well, we kids just liked
the commercial because our parents couldn't
figure out what was so funny...
---
William Ernest "50 Shades Of Obese" Reid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you kidding. i ate plenty of Chunky's. So many I can even recall their taste. That commercial was 1963. I was guessing you were an impressionable kid around 10 or 11.
Gee, you'd think that I would have been at
a more anal-retentive age to laugh about stuff
like that, or at least that's what a person
trained in Psychology would deduce...
Post by h***@gmail.com
I've always had the sense that you missed seeing certain films in the theater, because you were too young or not born yet.
I regret not seeing "Wings" in it's initial
theatrical release...

But maybe you were in an orphanage for all I know, watching Buffy.

Once again, you nothing about nothing...

A Juvenile delinquent, or maybe you were in a coma from eating too many Chunkys, but no I don't know, maybe you're 46. Time Context is important because seeing a great film needed to be seen in the theater.
Yeah, I didn't even see the remake of "Ben-Hur"
until years after its release, but you were so
blessed to see the original with a hopefully
good piano accompaniment...
Post by h***@gmail.com
When were you born then? I was born in '47.
That was a bad year for humans...

In Hollywood, at Cedars of Lebenon and lived for my first two years right off Hollywood Blvd near Vine, before we moved to the Valley (Studio City). My dad owned The Hollywood Circle nightclub on Hollywood Blvd a few blocks from Highland. when I was a baby. Today it's a Starbucks.

That must have been one happenin' 200sq.ft.
club...

My babysitter was Russ Tamblyn's girl friend Dolly and Rusty was around a lot and did the watering.

My baby-sitter was Eleanor Roosevelt...one-upped
you there...

---
William Ernest "Name Picker-Upper" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-20 22:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
In those years Hitchcock was my number one director idol, till at least Dr. Strangelove, when Kubrick went from number two to number one. It amazes me how I didn't ever ask him questions about his films and offer my self as a gofor or something. I guess I was too shy about it. I would seat him and serve him his Liver and kept him from being interrupted, but never talked anything other then food drink or restaurant talk. He must has known he was reverred.
I would have asked him about the rumors he tried
to "get with" his pretty blonde ice princess stars
but they were repulsed by him and thought he was
a giant pervert (at least he didn't pull any "Bill
Cosby's" that we know of)...
I know what women screamed when they WERE with
him: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't buy it. Tippi was wacky anyway, that was why she was perfect for The Birds and Marnie. How obsessed on blondes could he be? The man had no time for anything. Look at how many films he made and TV shows and his magazine. He had zero social life. He was, as I saw, a loner. Never did he come into the restaurant with a girl. Never.
So, you don't think that was because women found
him repulsive? >>>>!!

That was probable, but he had power.
Post by h***@gmail.com
He was only obsessed with filmmaking and storytelling. That sleazy bio pic that stomped on him was terrible garbage and totally skewed.
And Bill Cosby is being railroaded by 115
women... >>>>>>>

That story I believe.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by h***@gmail.com
"OPEN WIDE FOR CHUNKY!!!!"
You know nothing of me or my age just by
Googling(TM) "Chunky", you never ate one in
your life, which to the best of my memory
is true of me as well, we kids just liked
the commercial because our parents couldn't
figure out what was so funny...
---
William Ernest "50 Shades Of Obese" Reid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you kidding. i ate plenty of Chunky's. So many I can even recall their taste. That commercial was 1963. I was guessing you were an impressionable kid around 10 or 11.
Gee, you'd think that I would have been at
a more anal-retentive age to laugh about stuff
like that, or at least that's what a person
trained in Psychology would deduce... >>>>

I started to guess a younger age. Are you anal retentive? Overly Strict potty training?
Post by h***@gmail.com
I've always had the sense that you missed seeing certain films in the theater, because you were too young or not born yet.
I regret not seeing "Wings" in it's initial
theatrical release...

Even I missed that, at least in this life.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by kelpzoidzl
But maybe you were in an orphanage for all I know, watching Buffy.
Once again, you nothing about nothing...

A Juvenile delinquent, or maybe you were in a coma from eating too many Chunkys, but no I don't know, maybe you're 46. Time Context is important because seeing a great film needed to be seen in the theater.
Yeah, I didn't even see the remake of "Ben-Hur"
until years after its release, but you were so
blessed to see the original with a hopefully
good piano accompaniment...

Ha Ha. Srsly you never saw Ben Hur in the 65mm ? It played at The Egyotian theater on opening. I had to wait aouple months reserved seats.
Post by h***@gmail.com
When were you born then? I was born in '47.
That was a bad year for humans... >>>>>

Roswell incident?

In Hollywood, at Cedars of Lebenon and lived for my first two years right off Hollywood Blvd near Vine, before we moved to the Valley (Studio City). My dad owned The Hollywood Circle nightclub on Hollywood Blvd a few blocks from Highland. when I was a baby. Today it's a Starbucks.

That must have been one happenin' 200sq.ft.
club... >>>>>>>>

The StarBucks is just what was the front

Hollywood Circle (i found this vintage photo of the matchbook cover.)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N07/8384012830/in/pool-***@N24

My father sold it after he got a high paying VP job with Seagrams. He was tired of the hours and was no longer a Bachelor and now had an unplanned son. The Black Dahlia had been there a few times. Hollywood was a terrible place for young aspiring actresses.

My mother was at the Biltmore using the restroom and the soon to be murdered girl, complimented her and asked to borrow her lipstick. The looked a lot alike.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by kelpzoidzl
Post by kelpzoidzl
My babysitter was Russ Tamblyn's girl friend Dolly and Rusty was around a lot and did the watering.
My baby-sitter was Eleanor Roosevelt...one-upped
you there... >>>>>>

Did she give good lap?

---
<<<William Ernest "Name Picker-Upper" Reid >>>>
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-21 01:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Gee, you'd think that I would have been at
a more anal-retentive age to laugh about stuff
like that, or at least that's what a person
trained in Psychology would deduce... >>>>
I started to guess a younger age. Are you anal retentive? Overly Strict potty training?
Come now, every Psych grad knows that EVERYBODY
goes through an anal phase at a particular point
in life...get a degree, man...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Yeah, I didn't even see the remake of "Ben-Hur"
until years after its release, but you were so
blessed to see the original with a hopefully
good piano accompaniment...
Ha Ha. Srsly you never saw Ben Hur in the 65mm ? It played at The Egyotian theater on opening. I had to wait aouple months reserved seats.
Forget 65mm, it was in something like a 2.85:1
aspect ratio and they used every frickin' decimal
point of the screen. You must have thrown your
neck out like at a friggin' tennis match watching
the action. Last time I saw it on TV, they
letterboxed it to the point it was just a
horizontal sliver on my 16:9, and there were STILL
scenes you couldn't see (like when the blind
beggar throws away the coins given to him by
Ben-Hur when he hears people screaming "LEPERS!!!").

That's entertainment?

---
William Ernest "Screen So Wide, Hitchcock Would Fit" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-21 06:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No thanks I have 5 degrees and thats enough. Your anal-fixation reveal is safe with me.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-19 06:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Don writes:

Wow. Having access to big Hollywood stars. I just never had that here in this cow town.
I feel so deprived. >>>>>>>

Don't feel too bad. I also met Charlie Manson and the girls, one day when trying to score a lid. Before that I had picked Squeaky Fromm up (before she was infamous), Hitchhiking on Pacific Coast highway and that was a story of pure idiocy.

I had my chance with Tuesday Weld, once but blew that one, cause I was I love with my girlfriend.
Don Stockbauer
2015-02-19 11:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well Kelp that's very impressive to someone who has never run into anyone famous.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-19 19:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well Kelp that's very impressive to someone who has never run into anyone famous. >>>>

Did you know any winner of a Best Pecan Pie contest? Thats the same thing.
Don Stockbauer
2015-02-19 21:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No, in the Pecan Universe what counted the most were the contests involving the pecans themselves, like heaviest pecan, highest percent of kernal, etc. My father would usually win because he had an accurate scale and would weigh hundreds of pecans and then pick the very best ones.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-20 01:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Stockbauer
No, in the Pecan Universe what counted the most were the contests involving the pecans themselves, like heaviest pecan, highest percent of kernal, etc. My father would usually win because he had an accurate scale and would weigh hundreds of pecans and then pick the very best ones.
You know, you're right...you have lead a very
boring life...

---
William Ernest "50 Shades Of Ennui" Reid
Don Stockbauer
2015-02-20 02:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey Kelp - want to send emails? I had forgotten what a fucking peice of shit Reid is. Hopefully his AIDS will get him in a few days and we can go back to this forum.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-20 22:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey Kelp - want to send emails?>>>
if you want. But tell me, so I look, because I don't look at email for weeks on end. Google groups iPad doesn't have the reply to auther button like it use to.
I had forgotten what a fucking peice of shit Reid is. >>>>
You don't like him? He likes you .
He can't help acting like that, all those Chunkys.
Hopefully his AIDS will get him in a few days and we can go back to this forum. <<<<<<
Huh? Chunkys were toxic?
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-21 01:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Stockbauer
Hey Kelp - want to send emails? I had forgotten what a fucking peice of shit Reid is.
You're boring AND forgetful...
Post by Don Stockbauer
Hopefully his AIDS will get him in a few days and we can go back to this forum.
That's a hate crime...THAT'S A HATE CRIME!!!

---
William Ernest "Upping The Ante Bully" Reid
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-20 01:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Stockbauer
Well Kelp that's very impressive to someone who has never run into anyone famous.
One time I ran into Carl Sagan, literally
(when he was still alive). My brother-in-law
worked for NASA and was giving us a tour and
apparently Sagan was filming something there
and he walked out a door right when I was
walking in, and BOOOM!!! billions and
billions of apologies...

Oh, and then there was the time that I gave
Steven Spielberg some advice on how to shoot
certain types of scenes in movies, at his
request, but I didn't run into him
physically...

---
William Ernest "Knocks (Down) Famous People "Reid"
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-20 22:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Stockbauer
Well Kelp that's very impressive to someone who has never run into anyone famous.
One time I ran into Carl Sagan, literally
(when he was still alive). My brother-in-law
worked for NASA and was giving us a tour and
apparently Sagan was filming something there
and he walked out a door right when I was
walking in, and BOOOM!!! billions and
billions of apologies... >>>>>>>

Maybe that was when he got the idea for, his reptilian brainstem book.
Post by Don Stockbauer
Post by h***@gmail.com
Oh, and then there was the time that I gave
Steven Spielberg some advice on how to shoot
certain types of scenes in movies, at his
request, but I didn't run into him
physically... >>>>>>>

Did he use you ideas? Sue him.

---
William Ernest "Knocks (Down) Famous People "Reid"
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-21 01:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Oh, and then there was the time that I gave
Steven Spielberg some advice on how to shoot
certain types of scenes in movies, at his
request, but I didn't run into him
physically... >>>>>>>
Did he use you ideas? Sue him.
The statute of limitations has run out on
"Jurassic Park", but he was a very nice and
thoughtful man and we just talked about the
best way to shoot a very specific type of
scene, exchanged ideas, no stealing involved...

---
William Ernest "But 'The Matrix' WAS Stolen From Me" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-21 06:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dd you work on Jurassic Park?
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-22 01:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Dd you work on Jurassic Park?
No. However, I DID see it, and probably
in a better theater than lonely boring old Don
(this house had real nice seat-shakers for
the dinosaur foot-steps).

And certain scenes reminded me of the
conversation I had with Spielberg 10 years
earlier...

---
William Ernest "Other Scenes Were Ripped Off From 'The Lost World'" Reid
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-20 01:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Stockbauer
Wow. Having access to big Hollywood stars. I just never had that here in this cow town.
I feel so deprived. >>>>>>>
Don't feel too bad. I also met Charlie Manson and the girls, one day when trying to score a lid. Before that I had picked Squeaky Fromm up (before she was infamous), Hitchhiking on Pacific Coast highway and that was a story of pure idiocy.
You're lucky Bruce Jenner wasn't driving behind
you absent-mindedly, you could have been
killed...
Post by Don Stockbauer
I had my chance with Tuesday Weld, once but blew that one, cause I was I love with my girlfriend.
You blew it again, CBS has a new oldies channel
on their O&O stations, they just ran a "Dobie
Gillis" marathon, I watched some of the one where
he goes on a hunger strike and Tuesday force feeds
him pecan pie along with the rest of the town...

---
William Ernest "Tasty Pie You've Got There" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-20 21:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Stockbauer
Wow. Having access to big Hollywood stars. I just never had that here in this cow town.
I feel so deprived. >>>>>>>
Don't feel too bad. I also met Charlie Manson and the girls, one day when trying to score a lid. Before that I had picked Squeaky Fromm up (before she was infamous), Hitchhiking on Pacific Coast highway and that was a story of pure idiocy.
You're lucky Bruce Jenner wasn't driving behind
you absent-mindedly, you could have been
killed...


That was 47 years ago. I'm lucky Squeaky Fromm didn't kill me, but she was passed out on Vodka she bought.
Post by Don Stockbauer
I had my chance with Tuesday Weld, once but blew that one, cause I was I love with my girlfriend.
You blew it again, CBS has a new oldies channel
on their O&O stations, they just ran a "Dobie
Gillis" marathon, I watched some of the one where
he goes on a hunger strike and Tuesday force feeds
him pecan pie along with the rest of the town...

---
William Ernest "Tasty Pie You've Got There" Reid >>>>>>>>>>

What station is it on cable?
Force feeding Pecan Pie?

Apparently my (now 91 yr old) mother worked (she three brief jobs in her life) with Darryl and Dwayne's father at a car dealership, in around 1945-46 at North Star Motors in LA. This revelation came out when I was watching "Leave Her To Heaven," with her on Turner Classics, (great film) with Darryl Hickman.

Isn't there a LA based film noir that has a "North Star Motors," in it? This has been nagging at me for a while. I thought it was that Jennifer Connelly film, Dennis Hoppers's "The Hot Spot," but the script says, Harshaw Motors and that took place in Texas. So where am I getting "North Star Motors" in a film?

I did find a vintage post card photo of the real North Star Motors in Los Angeles.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/autohistorian/6378853211/
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-21 01:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by kelpzoidzl
I had my chance with Tuesday Weld, once but blew that one, cause I was I love with my girlfriend.
You blew it again, CBS has a new oldies channel
on their O&O stations, they just ran a "Dobie
Gillis" marathon, I watched some of the one where
he goes on a hunger strike and Tuesday force feeds
him pecan pie along with the rest of the town...
What station is it on cable?
I don't know, but suspect it is in the low
10,000s...some of the oldies channels I watch
are in the several hundred range...
Post by h***@gmail.com
Apparently my (now 91 yr old) mother worked (she three brief jobs in her life) with Darryl and Dwayne's father at a car dealership, in around 1945-46 at North Star Motors in LA.
You blew it again, they showed "Cat Ballou"
on another oldies station: Dwayne Hickman,
Jane Fonda at her "Barbarella" finest, Lee
Marvin's Academy Award (Oscar(TM)) winning
performance, Nat King Cole and Stubby Kaye
"Greek Chorus", great flick. Plus, they used
a clip of it in "A Clockwork Orange" so it's
kind of like watching four seconds of a Kubrick
movie too...
Post by h***@gmail.com
This revelation came out when I was watching "Leave Her To Heaven," with her on Turner Classics, (great film) with Darryl Hickman.
What the hell is a "Darryl Hickman"? Is that
like a "Jim Belushi" or a "Brian Doyle Murray"?
Post by h***@gmail.com
Isn't there a LA based film noir that has a "North Star Motors," in it?
Yes, it was called "Muholland Drive" except
it didn't have a "North Star Motors" in it, just
a cattle pen near downtown...

---
William Ernest "Didn't Darryl Hickman Vaccuum Cars At The North Star Car Wash on Sunset?" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-21 06:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Darryl Hickman was Duane's older brother. He was in 100 films by the age of. 21.
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-22 01:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Darryl Hickman was Duane's older brother. He was in 100 films by the age of. 21.
Soooo...a porn star?

---
William Ernest "Hey, At Least It's Show Biz" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-21 06:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No, it wasn't Mulholland Drive. I already went through that looking.for it.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-21 07:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Both Hickmans are alive and probably kicking.

"Leave her to Heaven", (1945) is a great film. The look of the film is spectacular technicolor maxed out. it out-Htchcock's Hitchcock., which is rare in a film noir. Darryl Hickman is memorable as the annoying kid.

You know Darryll Hickman of course.
.......
I think we need to do a Jungian Analysis of that Chunky commercial. It's both oral and Anal. The drawbrdge symbolizes the bm evacuating. The Open Wide, suggests unchecjked coprophiikia. Do you think of it often?
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-21 08:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
83 year old Darryl Hickman. That really annoying kid in Leave her to Heaven. Who teaches the Stpanleyclawski method.

Why is his website dark..? .or maybe its just the Eyevopad. www.darrylhickman.net
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-21 22:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kelps:
The entire cultrue of the world was altered by the 1960's. A trickle down
Post by Yelps
effect. A change to the morpho-genetic field. Art film type critics or
those into avante garde or potheads would like it, but even many Sci-fi fans
hated it.
Bill wrote:

Oh sure, I believe that, "sci-fi fans" hated "2001"...man, are you "out
there"...>>>>>

It's true Bill. The Non-psychedelized audience and critics, thought it was technically remarkable, but utterly boring and sleep inducing. This includes the non-psychedelized, Sci-fi fans who were expecting something else entirely that dismissed it as slow moving gibberish. When I saw it, at the Dome in Hollywood, on opening night, the audience was generally young and already psychedelicized. The non-psychedicized masses, were crawling out of their skin and would rather be watching grass grow. The general media opinion was "WTF?"

It did seep into their minds though and as years past, they would recall it much as one would recall a distant dream that made no sense, but was somehow memorable.

Bill, maybe you've said before, but I am curious when and where did you first see 2001?

Hey Don, when and where did you first see it?

Anyone ekse that might read this, when and where did you first see it?

Initial Reactions?
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-22 01:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Bill, maybe you've said before, but I am curious when and where did you first see 2001?
Of course I've said this before, but
nothing sinks in with you, you live in
your own world, your perceptions are
completely ruled by your irrational
beliefs...
Post by kelpzoidzl
Hey Don, when and where did you first see it?
Anyone ekse that might read this, when and where did you first see it?
Initial Reactions?
Kids, this is your mind on acid...any
questions?

---
William Ernest "I Had Never Had Even A Cola Before Seeing '2001' And Still Loved It" Reid
h***@gmail.com
2015-02-22 01:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Both Hickmans are alive and probably kicking.
Trying to get back in show biz...
Post by kelpzoidzl
I think we need to do a Jungian Analysis of that Chunky commercial. It's both oral and Anal. The drawbrdge symbolizes the bm evacuating. The Open Wide, suggests unchecjked coprophiikia. Do you think of it often?
Geez, for a guy who brags about five degrees
you know nothing about Psychology. You would
need to do a Freudian analysis but I already
did that and it flew right over your head...

---
William Ernest "Oedipally Bound To My Baby-Sitter, Eleanor Roosevelt" Reid
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-22 03:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Both Hickmans are alive and probably kicking.
Trying to get back in show biz... >>>>>>

Darryl has a method acting school. Wrote a successful book.
Post by kelpzoidzl
I think we need to do a Jungian Analysis of that Chunky commercial. It's both oral and Anal. The drawbrdge symbolizes the bm evacuating. The Open Wide, suggests unchecjked copraphilia. Do you think of it often? >>>>
Geez, for a guy who brags about five degrees
you know nothing about Psychology. You would
need to do a Freudian analysis but I already
did that and it flew right over your head... >>>>>>>

No I would not need to do a Freudian analysis. It's too basic. Reading you acting like a cantakerous, obnoxious, jerk for fun, is in itself a Chunky Bm redflag. You evade evade evade. Just another split self, bobbing on the surface of samsaric globules.







---
William Ernest "Oedipally Bound To My Baby-Sitter, Eleanor Roosevelt" Reid >>>>>>>>>>>

Yeah uh uh.
Don Stockbauer
2015-02-23 00:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Try to talk to the asshole, Kelp, and he'll just keep shitting on your head. Leave him talking to himself.
Don Stockbauer
2015-02-23 01:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's nice seeing you achieve enlightenment, Kelp. Now, don't relapse and him fuck you around anymore.
kelpzoidzl
2015-02-23 02:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Don, I am not deterred by pirates or rapscallion.

I try to look at people's good points and be aware off their cycles.
MickeyMoop
2015-02-01 02:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
Bill, it's 8 years later. Have you rewatched EWS and still have the same opiniion?
Don, ED(endless discussion) without yogic insight is "roof brain chatter"
Ichowhip, are you ready to redeem him? And give him a B-?
Harry, are you still a commie and Lacanisn? Has Padraig cured himself?
I am ready to redeem this band of of akhem Hominins; the finest specimens from Fargo, East Dakota to Fairlawn, New Golemsey. The Olephaunt is in the Ballpark. Let us have rectification. "Goodbye, my lovers." ZT: Bill is the very model of a Alexanderian. "Let's go home, geoff."
Bill Reid
2007-01-23 17:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Ah yes, I'm having a true "flashback" here: LSD fascism.
Fortunately,
Post by Bill Reid
the storm-troopers for that brand of hatred were so wasted they couldn't
figure out if the "final solution" was to dump acid in the water supply
or herd non-psychotomimetics into camps for "re-education"... <<<<<<<<<
People are afraid of the unknown and they might imagine all kinds of scary
things, But the reality is you are going to die, that could be said to be
fascist--a fascist universe.
Wow, talk about "projection"...
Post by Bill Reid
The proper entheogenic experience is to remove
the fear. people can learn what it all means.
Why? Learn what about what it all means? What's the point?
Who cares?
Post by Bill Reid
If that is "fascist" then you
are paranoid.
No, what's "fascist" is calling people "ignoramuses" because they
didn't like a movie, and filtering all opinions through your rigid belief
system.
Post by Bill Reid
For instance, old Tim Leary's "commandment" was "Thou shalt
not alter they neighbor's consciousness."
Good, so shut up already...
Post by Bill Reid
The power of the proper visionary
experience is that it breaks down false and replaces it with real.
No it doesn't, you just have a rigid fascist belief that it does. Like
all fascists, you think you are smarter than everybody else and have
all the answers.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
You aren't understanding me really---which in itself, is the same thing as
No, I understand you perfectly. You equate being stoned with a
"transcendant experience". You are now laying out a precise set
of fascist procedures for somebody to PROPERLY enjoy a movie. <<<<<<<<<<<<
Thats a totally warped statement. Was Bowman "stoned" in 2001?
What does a character in a movie have to do with your statement
that everybody who didn't like "2001" was an "ignoramus" because
they didn't use LSD?
Post by Bill Reid
Don't be a
numbskull.
THAT'S A HATE CRIME!!!
Post by Bill Reid
You wouldn't call the experience Bowman was having as "being
stoned," because what was happening to him in the story, was a death and
rebirth and a witnessing of the cosmic reality and then becoming
enlightened.
It was just a movie. Nothing happened to him, except the actor
who played him didn't get a lot of work in the decades that followed.
Somebody just made the whole thing up, stuck a "light show" in
their movie, that's all.

You continue to confuse a movie with "real life", but you are
confused about a lot of things...and paradoxically, the more
confused a person becomes, the more rigid and fascistic they
become...
Post by Bill Reid
Equating the proper entheogenic experience with "being stoned" is idiotic.
Everybody who hated "2001" is an "ignoramus", and equating drug
usage with being stoned is "idiotic". Such a sweet gentle Buddhist...
Post by Bill Reid
"Being stoned" is what happens and what DID happen to many people who had no
clue about how to meditate and they just let their ego and mind, block and
interfere with the experience.
Here you are giving instructions again. We must follow your rules, else
you label us "ignoramuses" and "idiots"...
Post by Bill Reid
They would get scared and turn away. It
would be like if Bowman, covered his eyes and starting singing, "this is not
happening, this is not happening" In most cases people just do not know what
to do--they are unprepared.
And you are right there to "prepare" them...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
You loved the movie, but clearly the experience of Bowman at the end of
the movie must be just an abstraction to you.
Step 1 to PROPERLY appreciate "2001": Drop acid. <<<<<<<<<<<<
I didn't say anything about this being a requirement for people to
"appreciating the movie" But to really understand the movie one would have
to have that kind of experience in some way, with or without visionary plant
use.
What experience? If they just went to a laser light show before,
would that be enough? Why do I have to do EXACTLY what YOU
want me to do, believe EXACTLY what YOU want me to believe?
Post by Bill Reid
The visionary plant + yoga experience is far and away the most
efficient and powrful experience, is is pure ego death and dissolutiomn and
rebirth--a non-destructive testing of life of the death process as well as a
recapitulation of the past, present and future. Calling that expereince
"being stoned" is naive, silly and derogatory to the universe.
You just called the universe "fascist", so I thought I could get away
with some casual slander! Other than that, again, you apparently have
all the answers, and have no problem labeling people who don't
follow your "rules" as "ignoramuses" and "idiots"...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
Don't worry about any further steps, because fascists have
very simple minds and their rules are easy to follow, except
when it is impossible, such as the rule about not being a Jew
in Nazi Germany... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are being absurd and nutty. This has about as much to do with this
conversation as "Poynesians."
This "conversation" was about any possible connections between
Jung and Kubrick. But because you like to take acid and think that
you are being "enlightened" by so doing, you changed the topic...at
least it isn't the "Buffy" thing again...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
"2001 would give a little insight into my metaphysical interests," he
explains. "I'd be very surprised if the universe wasn't full of an
intelligence of an order that to us would seem God-like. I find it very
exciting to have a semi-logical belief that there's a great deal to the
universe we don't understand, and that there is an intelligence of an
incredible magnitude outside the Earth. It's something I've become more
and
Post by Yelps
more interested in. I find it a very exciting and satisfying hope"--SK
I like the fact he used the "I" word here, finally, instead of saying
"one" or "people", and I liked the term "semi-logical"...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This phrase "semi-logical" means beyond logic--and is poitning to something
that is beyond logic --but still the reality of life and death.
The actual "reality" of all such types of "semi-logic" is: people just like
to
make up a bunch of dumb crap. He made up a bunch of dumb crap; you
read some book or something with a bunch of dumb crap in it as
"preparation", then you drop acid, and "think" that all the dumb crap
is "enlightenment", and that "2001" was a somehow a representation
of that "enlightenment".
Post by Bill Reid
The idea of
transcending mundane logic is nothing new and is central to the Middle Way
of Buddhist Yoga.
In other words, a bunch of dumb made-up crap.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Yeah, a lot of "dopers" liked the movie, so what? A lot of stone cold
sober people liked it too.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is just wacky. Its as dumb as saying that the universe is a "fascist"
YOU'RE THE ONE THAT SAID THE UNIVERSE IS "FASCIST"!!!
I just said YOU are a fascist...
Post by Bill Reid
because it is beyond your understanding and control in you current state
and a denial of any possible NATURAL, and inherent way to see what it all
means or develop an more enlightened life state.
Again, your "enlightenment" is that there is something wrong with ME...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Secondly LSD, used properly would make a person far more "sober" then the
average person.
Yeah, I'm one of those funny people who can hit a baseball better when
I'm drunk, so I know what you're talking about...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not related.
I actually like "2001" when I'm drunk. I also know people who liked
it, but found it boring when they saw it on acid...now THAT'S "reality"...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Third you are grossly underestimating the hate that was being spewed out
about 2001 at it's release. If it hadn't been for the times which was at
the height of LSD use, the movie would have fallen on entirely deaf ears
and blind eyes.
Wrong. You are grossly underestimating the hate in your own heart,
which is always the blindness of fascists. John Russell Taylor in the
"London Times" wrote of seeing "2001" for a second time: <<<<<<<<<<<
You are being wacky here too.
I like the part where the acidhead burn-out calls everybody else
"wacky"...
Post by Bill Reid
<<<<<<<<"In the audience when I saw the film again, there were lots of
children, especially boys, under 15, generally with fathers and
sometimes mothers in tow...And their reactions were fascinating.
The mother was clearly a trifle restive...she kept asking her
husband, 'sotto voce', what this meant, what was happening...The
boy, on the other hand, obviously loved it all. He shushed his
parents...and kept bubbling 'Isn't it good?...What's there difficult
to understand?'"
You can show me all the quotes you want, I'm sure I've read about all of
them,
Yeah, those are just part of that pesky thing called "reality" that
you are so desperately trying to escape...
Post by Bill Reid
But the simple fact was 2001 was totally panned by most every high
profile critic n the Mr. Normal TV--in virtually the same way EWS was
panned.
You know what the worst thing about seeing a new Kubrick film
in the last 20 years was? Listening to idiots say "you know the critics
gave it bad reviews, but that's what they said about '2001' too".

Guess what, morons, "Eyes Wide Shut" ain't gettin' any more
popular eight years after it was released. It was no "2001", it stunk
then and stinks now and will stink on ice forever. The comparison
wasn't valid then, and history has proved it to be invalid, so you
have to be the most hard-headed of morons to persist in this
thought, a true idiot fascist...
Post by Bill Reid
My younger brother and I saw 2001 and of course loved it--and the next day I
dragged my Mother and younger sisters--they hated it and the conversation
was as above in your quote.
So what? Are you saying they were "ignoramuses" and "idiots"? Did
you slip a little peyote into their milk to "correct" them?
Post by Bill Reid
Since we can presume he was not under the "sober" influence
of an indolaic compound, he must immediately report for "re-education"
because of his faulty perception of the movie...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Its very simple---VERY few people responded favorably when 2001 came out and
it was immediatley related to the LSD experience by the young people who
were using LSD.
So the 15-year-old in the "London Times" article that you summarily
dismissed was using LSD? First you said it would have fallen on
"completely blind eyes and deaf ears", now you allow a few non-stoned
fans, but movie was a major hit and I really don't think all those $millions
came mostly from dopers, though certainly a measurable percentage...
Post by Bill Reid
There is no mystery about this. It is not brain surgery.
I get the idea that just about everything in life is like brain surgery to
you.
Post by Bill Reid
The entire cultrue of the world was altered by the 1960's. A trickle down
effect. A change to the morpho-genetic field. Art film type critics or
those into avante garde or potheads would like it, but even many Sci-fi fans
hated it.
Oh sure, I believe that, "sci-fi fans" hated "2001"...man, are you "out
there"...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
The furor about 2001 was about the same as the hate towards EWS.
Perhaps the critics just forgot to take Viagra(TM) before seeing it?
<<<<<<<<<<<
UGH.
Well then, what drug would you have to be on to actually like that
piece of garbage? Please "correct" all of us who found it juvenile, boring
and stupidly pretentious, help us "appreciate" it...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
A famous guy in the LSD culture named Al Hubbard gave SK some LSD-
Except Stanley Kubrick specifically disclaimed any use of drugs other
than cigarettes...............<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not quite.
No quite. He specifically said he thought drugs would dull his
"artistic" sensibility, so he didn't take them.
Post by Bill Reid
You are being naive. It was made illegal in Oct 1966.
"2001" was started in 1964. What's your point?
Post by Bill Reid
You don't
understand that in those days it was well known amonst the people who were
experimenting.
All I know is that every really stupid hippie who sees "2001" says
"that Kubrick guy was a real stoner, wasn't he?" But I appreciate
your attempt to help me "understand" something outside of that
perception...
Post by Bill Reid
I can assure you that the AL Hubbard story is completly
true.
I can assure you that you don't know your ass from a hole
in the ground in general, so I'm not buying any "assurance"
from you...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
he gave it to many others, including Cary Grant, James Coburn, Jack
Nicholson, Anais Nin and others.
Jack Nicholson in particular was open about using LSD, didn't deny
it. What did you think of the "Monkees" movie he wrote called "Head"?
<<<<<<<<<
The Monkey Movie keeps playing on cable in the last few months Ive seen it
flipping channels--its a dumb movie and like the Monkeys was a Canned
version of the 1960's. Pretty idiotic.
I kind of liked it...no accounting for taste...
Post by Bill Reid
The Movie "Candy," was a better
one and later Groucho did a film --Peyter fonda made "the trip" which was
interesting but still very lame, and their were a few B movies about people
freaking out on LSD--all best seen as camp or historical nonsense.
Don't forget the "acid trip" in "Easy Rider"; man, was THAT stupid...
Post by Bill Reid
Only 2001 is even slightly close. Beyond that you would have to look to
the better Biblical Epics to even be in the same category.
I liked it when Jesus cured Ben-Hur's mother and sister...
Post by Bill Reid
Look plain and simple entheogens is the origins of religion.--that people
forget that and that there is a "Mr. Normal" opposing it in each day and
age is a fact --and you can search as far back into history as you can.
I'm not denying that people have been getting doped up and seeing
"God" throughout history...again, what's your point?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Aldous Huxley had said, "once you open that door......you can't go back."
Didn't they used to have a term for people who couldn't handle
acid? Something like "burn-out", right? They took one trip, and
never came back...and can't you identify them physically by their
oddly-disturbing permanently dialated pupils, the classic medical
symptom of brain damage? <<<<<<<<<<
People who took acid in the 60's were in all different categories.
Yeah, biochemistry is a bitch...
Post by Bill Reid
Without
proper preparation and practice,
All the "preparation and practice" in the world won't change
biochemistry...
Post by Bill Reid
a little education before hand and proper
set and setting, then the prospect of ego death and dissoultion doesn't sit
well.
This has nothing to do with biochemistry...
Post by Bill Reid
There is no "brain damage," no 'chromosone" breakage and all
of that was right wing wacko, paranoid, left wing, nonsense.
By definition, LSD does biochemical brain damage that is known to
have effects long after a single use and possibly causes life-long
effects...
Post by Bill Reid
A yogin knows to take the middle path at the moment of death. Figure it out
dude.
I did figure it out, LSD does biochemical brain damage by definition.
Did you have a question about that?
Post by Bill Reid
You are going to learn it whether you like it or not amnd all your
talk is based on ignorance and just plain not knowing.
Who the hell cares about any of this, and if they do, why the hell
do they always want to "share" it with other people who don't?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
And you still owe me one detailed description of the room I am typing
this in, Mr. Fascist Acid-Head Remote Viewer... <<<<<<
"Remote viewing," is a phenomena that usually requires a bunch of people
????
No it doesn't. What are all these people doing?

Look, if you've truly had a "transcendant" experience, you both
know all and see all...or at least that is what the weirdo I "studied"
under said. So "remote viewing" falls naturally right out of that
TRUE "transcendant" experience, but maybe you have only
experienced "fractional transcendance"...

What you described in another post wasn't even "remote viewing", it
was "telepathy", and they are definitely not the same thing. If you
are relying on a "sender" to "transmit" a location description to you
as a "receiver", that is NOT "remote viewing". For the "remote viewing"
experiments I knew about, quite often NOBODY involved in the
experiment knew what was at the test location, they would check
out the location after the subjects had described it to compare
it to the descriptions...
Post by Bill Reid
and
its not something I actively care about or pursue, I just offered thsat
one expereicne I had in a legitimate experiemnt-----but if I was to guess I
would say you were at a desk in a Boiler room.
You're not even a good guesser. But I'm not surprised that you
are completely unable to demonstrate something that you claimed
absolutely as "real", or even know what it is. It's beginning to sound
like you've never even had anything even remotely resembling a
"transcendant experience", but I do believe you've done a LOT of
dope in your day...
Post by Bill Reid
Yoga is not about someone else proving it to you--its about you proving it
to yourself.
It is actually both of those things.

---
William Ernest "Three Espressos And I Think I'M God" Reid
k***@peacemail.com
2007-01-18 21:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dude, your brain is really messed up. U need to get outta the house and
into nature and get offa the drugs. cuz it has hurt u really. & I don't
want to hear ur crap about poynesian peoples and plants.

Kona
Post by Yelps
Post by Jack Rass
Post by Yelps
Remote viewing is real. I was involved in legitimate experiments run by
Charles Tart, in the early 80's and it did work...although the results
are difficult to use or show numerically. I personally was able to view
locations in a group and then draw the imagery and was right on,
ainstay guests on Coast to Coast AM?
I think I know who you mean...but most anyone on Coast to Coast see, pretty
odd and unreliable. I listen to it sometimes late at night if I am in the
car, mostly for entertainment camp value. If they have that medicated
sounding, whiney voice that almost every guest and listener that calls in
has, ...I just can't get behind it.
But I know that remote viewing has some validity, based on my own experience
and the data from the experiment which followed classical, scientific
methodolgy. In fact I had a course once with Tart on scientific methodology
and psi and he was strict about proper methodology and scientific validity.
The experiment basically had a large group of people picked at random from a
large class, go to one from a list of many possible locations in San Diego
and another large group of people, picked at random, stayed back and focused
on where the first group went. Both groups were to relax and concentrate,
focusing on the sending and recieving of a mental picture of the location.
I was in the stay-back group and we were all to independently draw the
imagery that popped into our mind at a certain time. Then the group came
back with a Photograph of the location--it was pretty amazing stuff...the
people who had strong imagery, such as myself, were spot on, with their
drawings. Although I didnt know where it was, I drew it exactly, as did
about a third of the stay back group. My drawing was exactly the
photograph, but with less detail. What Tart did with the results later, I
don't know.
dc
"PRAISE FOR THE WORK OF CHARLES T. TART
"Tart is the most important writer [on] the scientific study of expanded
consciousness in the world at the moment."
- Colin Wilson
"One of the world's leading experts in the field [of] consciousness
research."
- Frances Vaughn
"If all academic scientists had his open and discriminating mind, progress
would be made exponentially."
- C. Norman Sheely, M.D.
"A pioneer in the integration of ancient wisdom and contemporary science."
- Roger Walsh
Charles T. Tart. Tart pioneered the field of consciousness studies decades
ago, with his classic best-selling anthology Altered States of
Consciousness, in print for more than 20 years and selected by Common
Boundary as one of the one hundred most influential psychology books of the
twentieth century. Tart is credited with almost single-handedly legitimizing
the study of altered states, including hypnosis, meditation, lucid dreaming
and drug-induced states. He initiated several important lines of research in
parapsychology, including teaching ESP and out-of-body experiences. His
resume lists more than 250 articles in leading scientific and professional
journals including Science and Nature, and numerous well-known books. His
Transpersonal Psychologies (Harper & Row, 1975), for example, became the
core text in the then new field of transpersonal psychology.
As one of the world's foremost authorities on the human mind, Dr. Tart is
unique in being tough-minded and rigorous, a creative researcher, and a
critic of "New Agey" nostrums, but also open-minded and courageous in
researching controversial phenomena of the mind. His lifework has been to
identify important core facts vital to understanding human consciousness by
clearly and substantively distinguishing this data from popular
misconceptions or religiously- or scientistically biased beliefs.
Among his many other well-known titles are Waking Up; Open Mind,
Discriminating Mind; and Living the Mindful Life. Currently a Professor
Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Davis, and a core
faculty member of the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, Dr. Tart is a
rare combination of scientist/laboratory researcher, serious student of
spiritual disciplines, and talented educator."
Yelps
2007-01-18 22:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by k***@peacemail.com
Dude, your brain is really messed up. U need to get outta the house and
into nature and get offa the drugs. cuz it has hurt u really. & I don't
want to hear ur crap about poynesian peoples and plants.
Kona
You are a pretty absurd person. I never mentioned no "Poynesian" people.
You can just not open any of my posts. You don't have the vaguest idea what
it is I am talking about. Now go do some Ice.

dc
Post by k***@peacemail.com
Post by Yelps
Post by Jack Rass
Post by Yelps
Remote viewing is real. I was involved in legitimate experiments run by
Charles Tart, in the early 80's and it did work...although the results
are difficult to use or show numerically. I personally was able to view
locations in a group and then draw the imagery and was right on,
ainstay guests on Coast to Coast AM?
I think I know who you mean...but most anyone on Coast to Coast see, pretty
odd and unreliable. I listen to it sometimes late at night if I am in the
car, mostly for entertainment camp value. If they have that medicated
sounding, whiney voice that almost every guest and listener that calls in
has, ...I just can't get behind it.
But I know that remote viewing has some validity, based on my own experience
and the data from the experiment which followed classical, scientific
methodolgy. In fact I had a course once with Tart on scientific methodology
and psi and he was strict about proper methodology and scientific validity.
The experiment basically had a large group of people picked at random from a
large class, go to one from a list of many possible locations in San Diego
and another large group of people, picked at random, stayed back and focused
on where the first group went. Both groups were to relax and concentrate,
focusing on the sending and recieving of a mental picture of the location.
I was in the stay-back group and we were all to independently draw the
imagery that popped into our mind at a certain time. Then the group came
back with a Photograph of the location--it was pretty amazing stuff...the
people who had strong imagery, such as myself, were spot on, with their
drawings. Although I didnt know where it was, I drew it exactly, as did
about a third of the stay back group. My drawing was exactly the
photograph, but with less detail. What Tart did with the results later,
I
don't know.
dc
"PRAISE FOR THE WORK OF CHARLES T. TART
"Tart is the most important writer [on] the scientific study of expanded
consciousness in the world at the moment."
- Colin Wilson
"One of the world's leading experts in the field [of] consciousness
research."
- Frances Vaughn
"If all academic scientists had his open and discriminating mind, progress
would be made exponentially."
- C. Norman Sheely, M.D.
"A pioneer in the integration of ancient wisdom and contemporary science."
- Roger Walsh
Charles T. Tart. Tart pioneered the field of consciousness studies decades
ago, with his classic best-selling anthology Altered States of
Consciousness, in print for more than 20 years and selected by Common
Boundary as one of the one hundred most influential psychology books of the
twentieth century. Tart is credited with almost single-handedly legitimizing
the study of altered states, including hypnosis, meditation, lucid dreaming
and drug-induced states. He initiated several important lines of research in
parapsychology, including teaching ESP and out-of-body experiences. His
resume lists more than 250 articles in leading scientific and
professional
journals including Science and Nature, and numerous well-known books. His
Transpersonal Psychologies (Harper & Row, 1975), for example, became the
core text in the then new field of transpersonal psychology.
As one of the world's foremost authorities on the human mind, Dr. Tart is
unique in being tough-minded and rigorous, a creative researcher, and a
critic of "New Agey" nostrums, but also open-minded and courageous in
researching controversial phenomena of the mind. His lifework has been to
identify important core facts vital to understanding human consciousness by
clearly and substantively distinguishing this data from popular
misconceptions or religiously- or scientistically biased beliefs.
Among his many other well-known titles are Waking Up; Open Mind,
Discriminating Mind; and Living the Mindful Life. Currently a Professor
Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Davis, and a core
faculty member of the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, Dr. Tart is a
rare combination of scientist/laboratory researcher, serious student of
spiritual disciplines, and talented educator."
k***@peacemail.com
2007-01-18 23:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
You don't have the vaguest idea what
it is I am talking about.
dc
you got that right, uncle. and i am happy i don't.

Kona
Bill Reid
2007-01-18 03:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
It's karma. Karma is not a mystical thing. Its simply causation, both
linearly and simultaneous. You want to see it and know it. You'd need
some
Post by Yelps
training, study and practice to do that.
I studied for a while under a disciple of a very famous Indian guru.
But then as a result, the CIA tried to recruit me to do "remote viewing"
inside the Kremlin but that's a whole other story... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Remote viewing is real. I was involved in legitimate experiments run by
Charles Tart, in the early 80's and it did work...although the results are
difficult to use or show numerically. I personally was able to view
locations in a group and then draw the imagery and was right on,
OK, describe the room I am sitting in. Describe the furniture
in detail. There's actually a strange feature to this room, something
that I've never really seen before in a room of this type, describe it.

If you pass that test, I'll see if I can get you in touch with
some people who want to find Osama Bin Laden (as if they
don't actually know exactly where he is).
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Nirvana Sutra: "........once the poison drum is beaten, all those who hear
it will die, even if they are not of the mind to listen to it."
You might reject what I say, but you will still get the effect and
will
Post by Yelps
be glad to listen later.
So, were those "mandalas" on the walls of Ziegler's party in "Eyes
Wide Shut"? You know, those things that were supposed to be like
"Christmas stars", but were more like a set of intersecting triangles
in a circular pattern? Why do you think those things were there? Just
a set designer's "idea" of what might "look good" that Kubrick
just "unconsciously" approved? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Kubrick was playing with this imagery, because of the "Secret
Society"/Illuminati/Satanic connection, in EWS.
Jung wrote extensively about "mandalas" and "yantras" and such...what
do they have to do with the "Illuminati"? So maybe he was really making
a "joke" about the back of the dollar bill?
Post by Bill Reid
But Kubrick was just
playing with it. It wasn't just a "set designers" random "idea" but also
not meant to have serious meaning beyond his little jokes on the world.
Guy was quite the subtle comedian, so subtle that you can't really
say exactly WHAT he was joking about, can you?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
But I'm always willing to learn; could you tell us more
about "existential psychology" and where we might read
up on this "topic"? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Existential psychology" and "gestalt" is very much a school of thought in
historical psychology.
OK, the R.D. Laing reference kind of cleared it up, I'll buy
"existential psychology" but might have bought "gestalt psychology"
even quicker...
Post by Bill Reid
Here is a link that at a glance, look like it explains it briefly.
http://psych.eiu.edu/spencer/Existential.html
Overall, in practical, simple terms the objective of existential psychology,
is based on the idea that the person (patient) should be viewed as how THEY
experience the world not as how they are seen to be in the world. In other
words its "put yourself (the therapist) into the other person's shoes and
see things through their eyes, rather then from the eyes of judgemental
norms.
Yes, R.D. Laing's ideas exactly...
Post by Bill Reid
"Humanistic Psychology," essentially came out of "Existential Psychology,"
and is also related to "Transpersonal Psychology." which ends up right back
into Yoga.
You mean nutcases can be "cured" if they tie themselves into pretzels?

Also I get the feeling that you, like Tom Cruise, are not a fan of
doping them up, if only to keep them under control...

---
William Ernest "Did Spartacus Have Multiple Personalities?" Reid
Yelps
2007-01-17 22:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bill reid wrote:

"Eyes Wide Shut" sucked.
"Dr. Zhivago" sucked. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



I would rather analyze YOU as to why you feel that way or why you don't like
those two utter masterpices and I would entertain, the idea that your issues
with this film arise from some problem with you and or your original imprint
with the films, related to those issues.
Post by Bill Reid
"Buffy" is off-topic here, take it to the "Buffy" group.
Not Off-Topic. Anything related to film is related to SK. Any director
that is much inspired by SK is On topic. Anything done that has a quality
of exotic concepts is related to SK who in many ways inspired many people to
break out of the normal mold of filmaking is On Topic. How ANY Kubrick fan
thinks, is On-topic, since it is related to Sk's influences.

And it should all be conversational---not random bits of griefing.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
You should always be able to evaluate "Buffy" or Kubrick's movies
using some type of existing intellectual framework and not have it labled
as "HORSESTUFF!" or "YOU SUCK!" or "THIS IS WHY YOU
HATED THE MOVIE!" and other similar troglodyte expulsions... >>>>>>>>>>>>

the quality and truthfulness of that framework would first need to rated,
including the validity of "intellectual," thinking as opposed to
experiential.



dc
Yelps
2007-01-17 23:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
"Eyes Wide Shut" sucked.
"Dr. Zhivago" sucked. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I would rather analyze YOU as to why you feel that way or why you don't
like those two utter masterpices and I would entertain, the idea that your
issues with this film arise from some problem with you and or your
original imprint with the films, related to those issues.
Post by Bill Reid
"Buffy" is off-topic here, take it to the "Buffy" group.
Not Off-Topic. Anything related to film is related to SK. Any director
that is much inspired by SK is On topic. Anything done that has a
quality of exotic concepts is related to SK who in many ways inspired many
people to break out of the normal mold of filmaking is On Topic. How ANY
Kubrick fan thinks, is On-topic, since it is related to Sk's influences.
And it should all be conversational---not random bits of griefing.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
You should always be able to evaluate "Buffy" or Kubrick's movies
using some type of existing intellectual framework and not have it labled
as "HORSESTUFF!" or "YOU SUCK!" or "THIS IS WHY YOU
HATED THE MOVIE!" and other similar troglodyte expulsions... >>>>>>>>>>>>
the quality and truthfulness of that framework would first need to rated,
including the validity of "intellectual," thinking as opposed to
experiential.
dc
Further:

As an example: When 2001 came out it was greeted with alot of hate from "Mr.
Normal,"....most critics and many viewers hated it.

Now if-------------the ending of the film, where Bowman passes through the
Stargate and then recapitulates and transcends time and ages into an old
man reaching out to the monolith, and then is reborn as a
Starbaby-----------is outside of the personal experience of the viewer,
then the viewer is either going to hate it, or if they like it they will
like it, it will be understood as an intellectual thing and they might build
up intellectual thoeries about it.

Other people who were properly experienced with Entheogenic plants and
their derivitives, and/or the deepest Yogic experience, saw immediatly what
the scene was and could relate to it---BECAUSE such an event, was within
their own personal experience.

dc.
Bill Reid
2007-01-18 03:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
Post by Bill Reid
"Eyes Wide Shut" sucked.
"Dr. Zhivago" sucked. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I would rather analyze YOU as to why you feel that way or why you don't
like those two utter masterpices and I would entertain, the idea that your
issues with this film arise from some problem with you and or your
original imprint with the films, related to those issues.
As an example: When 2001 came out it was greeted with alot of hate from "Mr.
Normal,"....most critics and many viewers hated it.
I loved the movie, favorite of all time, but I RESPECT their opinion
and have never sought to argue them out of it.
Post by Yelps
Now if-------------the ending of the film, where Bowman passes through the
Stargate and then recapitulates and transcends time and ages into an old
man reaching out to the monolith, and then is reborn as a
Starbaby-----------is outside of the personal experience of the viewer,
then the viewer is either going to hate it, or if they like it they will
like it, it will be understood as an intellectual thing and they might build
up intellectual thoeries about it.
Nah, as was noted at the time, a lot of people loved it, from many
different ages and walks of life. What's the point of trying "shrink"
anybody based on their HONEST reactions to a movie?

I mean, what's the point of this:

"Perhaps there is a certain element of the lumpen literati that is
so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that it
finds the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic
intelligence anathema."
- Stanley Kubrick

Say what?!!??!!
Post by Yelps
Other people who were properly experienced with Entheogenic plants and
their derivitives, and/or the deepest Yogic experience, saw immediatly what
the scene was and could relate to it---BECAUSE such an event, was within
their own personal experience.
Yeah, a lot of "dopers" liked the movie, so what? A lot of stone cold
sober people liked it too. What you're missing is the movie is actually
about the mystery of "yearning" and "searching" and not about seeing
something you've ALREADY "experienced"...you're off-base AGAIN,
keep trying though, you're bound to be right about something someday...

---
William Ernest "I Admit None Of My Orgies Had Masks" Reid
Bill Reid
2007-01-18 03:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
"Eyes Wide Shut" sucked.
"Dr. Zhivago" sucked. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I would rather analyze YOU as to why you feel that way or why you don't like
those two utter masterpices and I would entertain, the idea that your issues
with this film arise from some problem with you and or your original imprint
with the films, related to those issues.
Why do you "think" I must have a PROBLEM if I think they suck?
Many people thought "Eyes Wide Shut" sucked, but I don't think there's
any general pathology or common neurosis that can be identified among
those people.

I would rather analyze why some people are unable to just trust
their own first opinions about a movie, rather than relying on others
to tell them what to think. Of course, I already have, but shall not
breathe a word of it because it is so controversial, so I will allow
you to "psyche" me all you want instead...fire away...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
"Buffy" is off-topic here, take it to the "Buffy" group.
Not Off-Topic.
Yes, it is off-topic.
Post by Bill Reid
Anything related to film is related to SK.
"My Mother The Car"? "CSI: Miami"? WAKE UP AND
SMELL THE HALDOL SPANKY!!!
Post by Bill Reid
Any director
that is much inspired by SK is On topic.
How about all the losers, low-level hangers-on who work in the
grunt periphery of "show business", who are "much inspired by
Stanley Kubrick"? Man, could I tell you some stories...
Post by Bill Reid
Anything done that has a quality
of exotic concepts is related to SK who in many ways inspired many people to
break out of the normal mold of filmaking is On Topic.
You shouldn't cheat on your wife cuz you might get AIDS and die
is an "exotic concept"? How about the "falsies" they used in "Buffy",
were they "exotic concepts"?
Post by Bill Reid
How ANY Kubrick fan
thinks, is On-topic, since it is related to Sk's influences.
This "Kubrick fan" thinks you're off-topic a lot of the time...
Post by Bill Reid
And it should all be conversational---not random bits of griefing.
But that's how I "think"! You just gave me permission, now you
took it away!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
You should always be able to evaluate "Buffy" or Kubrick's movies
using some type of existing intellectual framework and not have it labled
as "HORSESTUFF!" or "YOU SUCK!" or "THIS IS WHY YOU
HATED THE MOVIE!" and other similar troglodyte expulsions... >>>>>>>>>>>>
the quality and truthfulness of that framework would first need to rated,
including the validity of "intellectual," thinking as opposed to
experiential.
Simply, quite simply, no. You don't get to scream "YOU SUCK!"
because you happen to think Jung or Freud sucks, and if you really
think just about everything sucks then consider the possibility that
it is YOU that suck...

---
William Ernest "Ontologically Non-Sucky" Reid
Bill Reid
2007-01-17 04:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yelps
Since Bill Reid is plonked I had to read the post on Google. I guess he is
trying to reform his strategy or maybe it's just bait.
My "strategy" has always been the same: discussing the movies of
Stanley Kubrick in a group named "alt.movies.kubrick". I know that
this is not the goal of the five or so mentally ill never-wases that
populate this group, but I persist regardless...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Doesn't sound very much the "same." Where are your usual, constant,
nasty
Post by Yelps
remarks? Thus the wondering if this was just bait.
You've missed my "Hitler analogy" (perhaps you Godwin-filed it);
I mock and deride bad behavior as much as I wanna...
Post by Yelps
Much can be said about Freud and Jung and much has been said and written.
As far as applying Freudian or Jungian theory to EWS, I'm not into it.
Kubrick was not sitting there thinking about Freudian or Jungian theory,
(or
existential psychology either) except in the context of the backdrop of
the
old novel. He was his own man.
You're unknowledgable on this topic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh? This would be fun to proceed further with-- not only do I hold an
advanced degree on the subject with an emphasis on Jungian and Existential
psychology I had already studied every translated book written by both
Freud and Jung by the time I was 18 years old and dismissed them as
primitive, and for the past 7 years have worked, giving technical help,
with an established, very elderly, Jungian, who has been compiling a
massive (over 20 volumes) Jungian Dictionary which will eventually be
available to the Jungian community on CD. I was also at one time on the
doctoral dissertation approval committee of a Psych school that specialized
in both Jungian and Existential psych.
No, I meant you were unknowledgeable on the topic of Kubrick
using ideas from Jung and Freud in his work, since he certainly was
familiar with their works and specifically encouraged his writing
collaborators to read and consider their work when they were
developing the scripts for "2001", "Full Metal Jacket", and
"The Shining" according to their explicit testimony.

But I'm very impressed with your resume, particularly the
study of "existential psychology", which I never even knew
existed ("existentialism" is a term referring to certain types
of philosophical thought, not psychology).

But I'm always willing to learn; could you tell us more
about "existential psychology" and where we might read
up on this "topic"?
Post by Yelps
I am neither a Freudian or a Jungian, an Existentialist or a
Behaviorist...all of those things to me, although useful and interesting
historically, and all of these things contain some truth----------they
ultimately are childish and primitive theory IMO, lacking in any true or
final usefulness to humanity.
Just about EVERYBODY has the canonical answer...surprising the
world is in such a mess in light of this...
Post by Yelps
"Kubrick clearly and
"consciously" eliminated all references to "Semitism" in his
movie; was this a tacit rejection of Freud in favor of Jung?"
NO
OK, it WAS a rhetorical question... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sounds like you has a motive in saying this and it didn't sound very
"Rhetorical" as written.
Note carefully the concept of a "rhetorical question" involves the
use of this thing called a "question", which of course is exactly how
I phrased it, not as a "statement"...
Post by Yelps
and
".... the profusion of Christian images might be some type
of "ironic" or "sarcastic" comment by Kubrick about the split
between Freud and Jung"
Nonsense
Once again, OK, your opinion, stated simply... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You actually believe Kubrick has this in his mind and was trying to make a
comment on Freud vs. Jung in EWS? I think that's just plain silly.
Well, sometimes when you're wearing "goggles" of particular nature,
things look a little "funny"...
Post by Yelps
I
don't think he could have cared less about the old arguments between Freud
and Jung, although he was doing some parody of sexual dynamics, in EWS and
of course the connection between Schnitzler and Freud is obvious, he was
going way beyond this stuff in EWS and were you to realize this your
understanding and appreciation of the film might change.
I don't have to understand anything to know that the movie sucks...

I am quite sure he was knowledgeable about the "old arguments"
and POSSIBLY was subtly referring to both and other ideas...this
is actually a GOOD thing, since one problem with his later movies
is that they seem like a river that is a hundred miles long and half
and inch deep, with several dry spots...at least you could ponder
this nonsense to alleviate the boredom when watching them...
Post by Yelps
"And there can be no doubt many of the images in "Eyes Wide Shut"
were specifically discussed by Jung."
Thats like saying The Britanica Encyclopedia and Oxford Dictionary
discusses "images in "Eyes Wide Shut""
Right. You're doing well so far...
Jung discussed most everything----he never stopped his categorizing--So
one
can say "The Shaggy Dog," or the Oprah Winfrey show or a Beer commercial
could be Freudian or Jungian if one wants to be silly.
Sounds like fun on a rainy day! <<<<<<<<<<<
Not to me.
Then I'm glad I didn't include my writeup of the Jungian themes
of "The Wizard Of Oz" and "It's A Wonderful Life" then...
Post by Yelps
I might use Jung as reference material as I would a dictionary,
at times, but I know too much about the mess of his students and devotees to
giver any credence to Jung as an analyst.
I also do not rate Jung highly as a practical "psychoanalyst"...
Post by Yelps
To Reid, Jung and Freud are both 'wacky" and EWS sucks and is boring--but
he still wants to pidgin hole EWS as a Jungian manifesto
Wrong. I'm just throwing some ideas out there, not a "manifesto".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Then you should have qualified your remarks. As they stood, they were very
contradictory.
Maybe poorly expressed, and I actually cut out about half of
the whole thing because it was way too long anyway (you'll never
see my comparison of "Psycho" and "The Shining"). Your problem
is you're looking for a "manifesto" and just got some stuff to think
about, and thinking's not what you're good at, Botch...

But the subject title pretty much "qualified" my remarks. I was just
putting on "Jungian" goggles" and viewing Kubrick's movies and work
habits that way, in the same sense I could put on "existential goggles" and
view them that way, or "Holocaust goggles", or "Wisconsin dairy farming
goggles", ad nauseum.
Post by Yelps
and some how
relates it to Anti Semitism of Jung and then at the end throws in some
basic
Sociobiology.
Well, Kubrick hisself used to throw in a lot of "sociobiology" in
his interviews and sometimes explicitly in his movies, so don't we
have to consider what's really there? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sociobiology is another matter altogether and yes Sk was clearly more into
Sociobiological thinking then Freudian or Jungian, whihc he probably looked
as as primitive.
Yeah, probably, I've said as much many times...
Post by Yelps
No where does Reid state his own position.
I kind of skirt around my actual position, thanks for not asking, but
if you did I would tell you. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It would be nice if people on AMK, would just talk like human beings,
conversationally, about their opinions and feelings, rather then constantly
lobbing nasty shit--and then wondering why they get plonked or get a taste
of their own shit. Unlike many on this NG I am quite capable of discussiing
these things without insults and when I write I don't care about trying to
impress or be stuffy, nor do I try to be a flamer. I would just hope people
would try to understand what I might say and stop with the nasty crap. I can
be 1000 times nastier to prove the point, but only after the shit has been
thrown.
OK:

"Eyes Wide Shut" sucked.
"Dr. Zhivago" sucked.
"Buffy" is off-topic here, take it to the "Buffy" group.
You should always be able to evaluate "Buffy" or Kubrick's movies
using some type of existing intellectual framework and not have it labled
as "HORSESTUFF!" or "YOU SUCK!" or "THIS IS WHY YOU
HATED THE MOVIE!" and other similar troglodyte expulsions...
Post by Yelps
he is just using
Jungian mumbo jumbo, as a way to attack EWS.
Nope. I said I didn't like it. I really liked "2001", and used the
same Jungian "mumbo-jumbo" to "analyze" that movie, so you are
just making an unsupported conclusion here... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ok. then.
But it is one thing saying you will discuss these films from a Jungian
viewpoint and another to make an argument that SK was thinking as a Jungian
or in any way promoting Jungian in either film.
He WAS thinking "like a Jungian" in the sense that he made
statements that were ALMOST IDENTICAL to statements
made by Jung, and that certain "symbols" that Jung wrote
about appeared in his movies...I think the problem here
is that some people are unable to handle the concept of
"synchronicity" (also Jung's) or perhaps "fundamental truths
independently discovered and/or accepted" because they
just can't handle any sort of thought more complicated than
"it's ambiguous, man"...

And there is this disturbing behavior that when they see a
guy with a beard reading a book, they have this urge to beat
him to death and rip his "stupid" book to shreds, if only by
screaming retarded insults at "him" on the Internet...which is why
Kubrick carried knives and owned guns and didn't cop to being
a "pacifist". It's beautifully "ironic" but there's precious few here
who can appreciate it...
Post by Yelps
Of course SK was up on these ideas--he was up on many ideas-----but his
own
output was not waving any of these flags.
OK, I buy that. So where's the beef? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The only real beef is how it was presented as though SK really was alluding
to Jungianism and the contradictoy nature of how you wrote the first 2/3's
and then went and called all it kooky, without saying what your point of
view is.
He DID allude to Jung! Maybe it's just time to define his relationship
to Jung as "ambiguous" and call it a day...

---
William Ernest "What I Say?" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-01-17 05:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
But I'm very impressed with your resume, particularly the
study of "existential psychology", which I never even knew
existed ("existentialism" is a term referring to certain types
of philosophical thought, not psychology).
But I'm always willing to learn; could you tell us more
about "existential psychology" and where we might read
up on this "topic"?
You might want to consider one of Britain's leading psychiatrists and
psychoanalysts from the 1960s, the Scottish R. D. Laing (author of The
Divided Self, The Politics of Experience, Self and Others), whose
hugely influencial work (so much so that it led to the eventual closing
of most mental "hospitals" everywhere) drew extensively from
existential and phenomenological literature and philosophy, including
Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, Binswanger, Tillich, among
others (Kafka, Beckett), in addition to Freud and the psychoanalysts.
[Summary of Laing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing].

But I'm a Lacanian ...
Bill Reid
2007-01-17 08:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
But I'm very impressed with your resume, particularly the
study of "existential psychology", which I never even knew
existed ("existentialism" is a term referring to certain types
of philosophical thought, not psychology).
But I'm always willing to learn; could you tell us more
about "existential psychology" and where we might read
up on this "topic"?
You might want to consider one of Britain's leading psychiatrists and
psychoanalysts from the 1960s, the Scottish R. D. Laing (author of The
Divided Self, The Politics of Experience, Self and Others), whose
hugely influencial work (so much so that it led to the eventual closing
of most mental "hospitals" everywhere) drew extensively from
existential and phenomenological literature and philosophy, including
Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, Binswanger, Tillich, among
others (Kafka, Beckett), in addition to Freud and the psychoanalysts.
[Summary of Laing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing].
Well, the name rings a bell from decades past, and I certainly
remember what he was all about, which, in a "nutshell", is that
"insanity" is in the eye of the "be-holder".

But yeah, there were a lot of "existential" ideas in Laing's work,
but it would have quicker for me to make the connection to just
say his name if that's what he really meant by "existential
psychology"...particularly since Laing was more into reforming
psychiatric treatments for full-blown psychoses rather than
more traditional "psychology".
Post by Harry Bailey
But I'm a Lacanian ...
You're a werewolf?

---
William Ernest "I'm OK You're KOO-KOO" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-01-18 12:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
But I'm very impressed with your resume, particularly the
study of "existential psychology", which I never even knew
existed ("existentialism" is a term referring to certain types
of philosophical thought, not psychology).
But I'm always willing to learn; could you tell us more
about "existential psychology" and where we might read
up on this "topic"?
You might want to consider one of Britain's leading psychiatrists and
psychoanalysts from the 1960s, the Scottish R. D. Laing (author of The
Divided Self, The Politics of Experience, Self and Others), whose
hugely influencial work (so much so that it led to the eventual closing
of most mental "hospitals" everywhere) drew extensively from
existential and phenomenological literature and philosophy, including
Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, Binswanger, Tillich, among
others (Kafka, Beckett), in addition to Freud and the psychoanalysts.
[Summary of Laing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing].
Well, the name rings a bell from decades past, and I certainly
remember what he was all about, which, in a "nutshell", is that
"insanity" is in the eye of the "be-holder".
But yeah, there were a lot of "existential" ideas in Laing's work,
but it would have quicker for me to make the connection to just
say his name if that's what he really meant by "existential
psychology"...particularly since Laing was more into reforming
psychiatric treatments for full-blown psychoses rather than
more traditional "psychology".
Post by Harry Bailey
But I'm a Lacanian ...
The principle problem with much of existential psychology, as with
Freudian psychoanalysis, is that they became so twisted and
mis-interpreted by subsequent movements as to become the very thing
that Freud had warned against (in Civilisation and Its Discontents, for
instance) - degenerating into what became known as the narcissistic,
ego-worshipping Human Potential Movement in the 1960s (everything from
Wilheim Reich and his "orgone" [parodied by Woody Allen in Sleepers] to
Perls' "Gestalt" ego-mania at Esalem and all its subsequent offshoots.

Indeed, a brilliant, far-reaching BBC documentary history and critique,
The Century of the Self, chronicles all of this (of how Freud's ideas,
particularly as they relate to the Unconscious, have been
systematically abused since the 1920s to the present, ironically
beginning with his nephew Edward Bernays, inventor of Public
Relations). It is now available on-line - Part III deals with the
creation of the Greedy, all-consuming fantasy Self in the 1960s.


Frankly, I haven't seen a better doc series on this - or practically
any other - topic in years. Simply,it is documentary film at its best
... and all now accessible on-line.

The Century of the Self [4 x 1-hour docs]

Can be downloaded in high-res MPEG2/4 from here:

http://www.archive.org/details/AdaCurtisCenturyoftheSelf_0

http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtisCenturyoftheSelfPart2of4

http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtisCenturyoftheSelfPart3of4

http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtisCenturyoftheSelfPart4of4_0

Summary

Adam Curtis' acclaimed series examines the rise of the all-consuming
self against the backdrop of the Freud dynasty.

How politicians and business learned to create and manipulate
mass-consumer society.

Part I: Happiness Machines

Adam Curtis' The Century of the Self tells the untold and sometimes
controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in
Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created,
by whom, and in whose interests?

Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the
masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full
of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society's belief that
the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man's ultimate goal.

Part II - The Engineering of Consent

Politicians and planners came to believe Freud's underlying premise -
that deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires
and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these
instincts that had led to the barbarism of Nazi Germany.

Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna, and his nephew, Edward Bernays,
provided the centrepiece philosophy. The US government, big business,
and the CIA used their ideas to develop techniques to manage and
control the minds of the American people.

Part III: There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be
Destroyed

The Me Generation.

American corporations realised that self was not a threat but their
greatest opportunity. It was in their interest to encourage people to
feel they were unique individuals and then sell them ways to express
that individuality. To do this they turned to techniques developed by
Freudian psychoanalysts to read the inner desires of the new self.

Part IV: Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

This episode explains how politicians on the left, in both Britain and
America, turned to the techniques developed by business to read and
fulfil the inner desires of the self.

Both New Labour, under Tony Blair, and the Democrats, led by Bill
Clinton, used the focus group, which had been invented by
psychoanalysts, in order to regain power. They set out to mould their
policies to people's inner desires and feelings, just as capitalism had
learnt to do with products.

The politicians believed they were creating a new and better form of
democracy, one that truly responded to the inner feelings of
individual. But what they didn't realise was that the aim of those who
had originally created these techniques had not been to liberate the
people but to develop a new way of controlling them.

================================================

Note: this series received a feature-length 4-hour theatrical release
in the US in 2005. Here are some of the reviews compiled by metamute:

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/centuryoftheself

Dennis Lim's review in The Village Voice:

The Incorporation of Dreams
Freud's Machiavellian public relations relation and how he sold the
world on capitalism

by Dennis Lim
August 9th, 2005

Routinely debunked yet unshakably entrenched, Freud's basic conception
of man as subject to repressed primitive instincts refuses to budge
from the intellectual fault line on which it was birthed. A recent
essay by Lee Siegel in The New York Times Book Review went so far as to
dub this divide "the real culture war, and maybe even the real clash of
civilizations." The Century of the Self, an engrossing quartet of
hour-long films by British documentarian Adam Curtis, doesn't so much
challenge Freud's theories of the unconscious as shadow them through
the corridors of corporate and political power. What emerges is nothing
less than a history of 20th-century social control.
As is true of any account of the period, the dominant narrative in this
remarkable suite of films is the triumph of modern consumer capitalism.
Installing Freud as unwitting godfather, Curtis fingers Edward Bernays,
Freud's American nephew, as the Machiavellian mastermind who first
thought to introduce psychoanalytic techniques into the sphere of big
business. After a stint promoting the overseas image of Woodrow
Wilson's America during World War I (even coming up with the "democracy
exporter" tag that remains so popular today), Bernays transitioned from
wartime propaganda to peacetime "public relations"-a term he
invented. This master pitchman, pioneer of the product placement and
the celeb endorsement, recognized in Uncle Sigmund's ideas about our
hidden emotions the basis for a science of spin. He famously labeled
cigarettes "torches of freedom," linking them to suffragettes, and in
so doing, smashed the social taboo of women smoking and doubled the
tobacco industry's market share. Bernays, whose books included
Crystallizing Public Opinion and Engineering Consent (Goebbels was a
fan), later consulted for the CIA and helped topple the Guzm government
in Guatemala, but his most lasting legacy was in identifying the
necessary conditions for a consumer democracy-a society of what
Herbert Hoover approvingly called "constantly moving happiness
machines."

Curtis, best known for his recent politics- of-fear doc The Power of
Nightmares, presents all this with wit and alacrity, combining
suggestive archival footage, eloquent talking heads, and his own
insinuating narration. Part two outlines the birth of the
psychoanalysis-inspired focus group and links Freudian analysts (and
their forbidding leader Anna Freud) to the social repression of the
post-war years. This is where The Century of the Self is shakiest:
Curtis points to Marilyn Monroe's overdose and to the suicide of the
daughter of Anna Freud's close friend Dorothy Burlingham (in Freud's
London home, no less)-two symbolic tragedies, dubiously deemed
emblematic of the failures of psychoanalysis.

The third part rebounds with an incisive account of the materialist
individualism that sprang from the ruins of '60s counterculture. The
key figure here is Freud's student turned adversary Wilhelm Reich,
orgasm addict and harnesser of mysterious "orgone" energies. From
Reich's claim that the unconscious was a trove of healthful forces to
be unlocked and not repressed came human- potential movements like
Esalen and Werner Erhard's "est" workshops. While their ascendancy
coincided with a spirit of social progress, a belief that personal
change would expand to political action, the dynamic soon turned
inward, spiraling toward an end point that one of Curtis's
interviewees, Stew Albert, a founding Yippie, calls "socialism in one
person." Which is to say, capitalism.

The Century of the Self hits a point of no return in the Me Decade.
Market research in the '70s identified a new class of "inner
directeds," the grasping self-actualizers who were overwhelmingly
focused on personal well-being and who went on to sweep Reagan and
Thatcher into office. The final segment undertakes a scathing analysis
of the incoherent pollster politics that has now fully poisoned the
electoral landscape. The counterintuitive idea of treating voters like
irrational consumers is smilingly expounded as a form of anti-elitist
democracy by Dick Morris, architect of Bill Clinton's depressingly
Faustian 1996 re-election, and Philip Gould, the strategist behind Tony
Blair's landslide win the following year.

It's clear from The Century of the Self and The Power of Nightmares,
which charts the mirror image evolutions of radical Islamism and
neo-conservatism, that Curtis is a skilled essayist and a prodigious
researcher ( Century brims with amazing clips: vintage ads, early focus
groups, primal therapy workshops, hidden-camera footage of WW II vets
in analysis). But more than that, he's a historian of ideas who can
bring them to life, not least because he recognizes how they mutate,
cross-pollinate, and are susceptible to distortion. He's a gifted
storyteller and an unabashed polemicist, guided by a crusading mistrust
of the rich and powerful. His bold, broad-stroke arguments occasionally
iron out nuance and sacrifice detail for the sake of elegant symmetry
and paradox, but Curtis's telescopic vantage ensures that the view is
worth it. For a century now, debates have persisted over whether the
unconscious mind exists as Freud believed (and if so, whether it is to
be tapped or tamed or merely understood). But one thing has stayed
constant: the eagerness and ability of the ruling elite to turn any
given hypothesis of human nature into a profit maximizing strategy. The
true subject of Curtis's lucid, pessimistic film, it turns out, is the
frightening adaptability of consumer capitalism.
Loading...