Discussion:
Book to Film Adaptations - Including TS and EWS
(too old to reply)
Boaz
2007-06-13 15:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.

Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")

http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
kelps
2007-06-13 17:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
That was interesting, especially the James Amory segment,

Interesting how Stephen King's issues weren't mentioned and that Raphael is
still at it with his
"hes the master," and then his subsequent backstabs, pandering to the
critics of EWS.

dc
blue
2007-06-13 19:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
That was interesting, especially the James Amory segment,
Interesting how Stephen King's issues weren't mentioned and that Raphael
is still at it with his
"hes the master," and then his subsequent backstabs, pandering to the
critics of EWS.
dc
Funny you never heard Kubrick bang on and on about the 2001 novelisation
being too literal.
Both King and Raphael have far too big an ego to be screenwriters.
kelps
2007-06-14 10:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by blue
Post by kelps
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
That was interesting, especially the James Amory segment,
Interesting how Stephen King's issues weren't mentioned and that Raphael
is still at it with his
"hes the master," and then his subsequent backstabs, pandering to the
critics of EWS.
dc
Funny you never heard Kubrick bang on and on about the 2001 novelisation
being too literal.
Both King and Raphael have far too big an ego to be screenwriters.
Banging on and on? Thats an exaggeration.

ACC was always gracious and appreciative about SK's unique vision and up
front about his novelization being more literal then the film. No doubt ACC,
who has a great sense of humor, loved Dr. Strangleove and admired SK as a
unique filmmaker.

But here was a case where the novelization was done concurrent with the film
but before the film was completed. In the case of Kubrick and Clarke, it
is Clarke who is the real teacher and Kubrick who is the student, but Clarke
did not lord this over Kubrick in any way and repected his unique ability
and vision and saw him as brilliant, which is a great complement coming from
ACC, one of the most brilliant people alive. He was also quite capable of
learning from SK's ideas and at the same time reigned in some of SK's less
scientific ideas. A collaboration between these two is nothing short of
extraordinary and 2001 stands alone in film history.

The kind of profound ending of 2001, with it's death and transmigration and
Starbaby ending, was already a Clarke trademark, when Sk was still doing
boxing and racetrack robbery films. Clarke suggested the final scene and SK
liked it. Clarke also suggested the core beginning idea of the film to grow
out of his short story, "The Sentinel." and Kubrick was influenced by
"Childhood's End."

Clarke wasn't one to forget his own stories and a couple of times rewrote
and expanded his short stories that he felt needed expanding. For instance,
"Childhood's End was an expansion of his story, "Guardian Angel." And,
"Against the Fall of Night," was rewritten and expanded into "The City and
the Stars."


About the Starbaby ending:

"October 3. Stanley on phone, worried about ending...gave him my latest
ideas, and one of them suddenly clicked -- Bowman will regress to infancy,
and we'll see him at the end as a baby in orbit. Stanley called again later,
still very enthusiastic. Hope this isn't a false optimism: I feel cautiously
encouraged myself. "

In terms of sci-fi or cosmic concepts, and story endings, Kubrick did this
once with 2001, while ACC has done this most everytime. His writing style
is usually very cut and dried through much of it, with flourishes of prose
at the key moments and then leaving the book with profound ideas in a few
sentences. In many ways his style is much like the style Kubrick developed,
where the story and characters are secondary and a vehicle for something
deeper. Both them rely mostly on vision and imagery. Both ACC and SK are
known for a surface kind of objectiive literalization that has behind it
deeper subjective ideas. Both have been criticized for "cold and clinical"
story telling, and surface characterizations. Neither of them are known for
characters and dialogue, but are known for what is behind the dialogue which
is usually very succinct.

ACC uses simple stories and simple characterizations as a vehicle for deep
ideas and profound endings. 2001 the novel was written like a framework for
a constantly changing screenplay and in certain ways differed from his
other novels, because it was secondary to the film when he was writing it.

Clarke is very nonchalant about his working with film producers and
driectors. His work has been optioned so many times and stories stolen, but
he doesn't get his panties in a bunch like Stephen King or Raphael (who must
think HE wrote EWS--ha ha) He has also been lenient with his numerous
co-writers in later years.

Steven Spielberg, following Sk's lead also consulted with ACC ove rthe
years.

"One recent disappointment: although Steven Spielberg optioned The Hammer of
God it received no credit in his Deep Impact. I wept bitterly all the way to
the bank."

Latter when SK contacted ACC for possible other projects, ACC said something
to the effect of, "Once was enough," but I don't interpret this as a rebuff
from ACC. I think the bottom line was Childhood's End was eternally
optioned and tied up and ACC felt he was too old and comforatable, to be
swept up again in SK mania. I always wished the collaboration hadn't ended
with 2001, but for whatever reason SK, declared, after 2001, "I don't want
to make another science fiction movie." ACO, although future based, was
not really sci-fi.

"But they knew in their hearts that once science had declared a thing
possible, there was no escape from its eventual realization..."

Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End


dc
blue
2007-06-14 21:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by blue
Post by kelps
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
That was interesting, especially the James Amory segment,
Interesting how Stephen King's issues weren't mentioned and that
Raphael is still at it with his
"hes the master," and then his subsequent backstabs, pandering to the
critics of EWS.
dc
Funny you never heard Kubrick bang on and on about the 2001
novelisation being too literal.
Both King and Raphael have far too big an ego to be screenwriters.
Banging on and on? Thats an exaggeration.
ACC was always gracious and appreciative about SK's unique vision and
up front about his novelization being more literal then the film. No
doubt ACC, who has a great sense of humor, loved Dr. Strangleove and
admired SK as a unique filmmaker.
But here was a case where the novelization was done concurrent with the
film but before the film was completed. In the case of Kubrick and
Clarke, it is Clarke who is the real teacher and Kubrick who is the
student, but Clarke did not lord this over Kubrick in any way and
repected his unique ability and vision and saw him as brilliant, which
is a great complement coming from ACC, one of the most brilliant people
alive. He was also quite capable of learning from SK's ideas and at the
same time reigned in some of SK's less scientific ideas. A
collaboration between these two is nothing short of extraordinary and
2001 stands alone in film history.
The kind of profound ending of 2001, with it's death and transmigration
and Starbaby ending, was already a Clarke trademark, when Sk was still
doing boxing and racetrack robbery films. Clarke suggested the final
scene and SK liked it. Clarke also suggested the core beginning idea of
the film to grow out of his short story, "The Sentinel." and Kubrick was
influenced by "Childhood's End."
Clarke wasn't one to forget his own stories and a couple of times
rewrote and expanded his short stories that he felt needed expanding.
For instance, "Childhood's End was an expansion of his story, "Guardian
Angel." And, "Against the Fall of Night," was rewritten and expanded
into "The City and the Stars."
"October 3. Stanley on phone, worried about ending...gave him my latest
ideas, and one of them suddenly clicked -- Bowman will regress to
infancy, and we'll see him at the end as a baby in orbit. Stanley called
I feel cautiously encouraged myself. "
In terms of sci-fi or cosmic concepts, and story endings, Kubrick did
this once with 2001, while ACC has done this most everytime. His
writing style is usually very cut and dried through much of it, with
flourishes of prose at the key moments and then leaving the book with
profound ideas in a few sentences. In many ways his style is much like
the style Kubrick developed, where the story and characters are
secondary and a vehicle for something deeper. Both them rely mostly on
vision and imagery. Both ACC and SK are known for a surface kind of
objectiive literalization that has behind it deeper subjective ideas.
Both have been criticized for "cold and clinical" story telling, and
surface characterizations. Neither of them are known for characters and
dialogue, but are known for what is behind the dialogue which is usually
very succinct.
ACC uses simple stories and simple characterizations as a vehicle for
deep ideas and profound endings. 2001 the novel was written like a
framework for a constantly changing screenplay and in certain ways
differed from his other novels, because it was secondary to the film
when he was writing it.
Clarke is very nonchalant about his working with film producers and
driectors. His work has been optioned so many times and stories stolen,
but he doesn't get his panties in a bunch like Stephen King or Raphael
(who must think HE wrote EWS--ha ha) He has also been lenient with his
numerous co-writers in later years.
Steven Spielberg, following Sk's lead also consulted with ACC ove rthe
years.
"One recent disappointment: although Steven Spielberg optioned The
Hammer of God it received no credit in his Deep Impact. I wept bitterly
all the way to the bank."
Latter when SK contacted ACC for possible other projects, ACC said
something to the effect of, "Once was enough," but I don't interpret
this as a rebuff from ACC. I think the bottom line was Childhood's End
was eternally optioned and tied up and ACC felt he was too old and
comforatable, to be swept up again in SK mania. I always wished the
collaboration hadn't ended with 2001, but for whatever reason SK,
declared, after 2001, "I don't want to make another science fiction
movie." ACO, although future based, was not really sci-fi.
"But they knew in their hearts that once science had declared a thing
possible, there was no escape from its eventual realization..."
Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End
dc
Thanks for all that. I completely agree. I really don't see why 'those
two' can't appreciate the film for what it is, rather than what they
wante it to be.

One of my favorite lines of Kubrick dialogue is "What are you doing down
here?" From The Shining. The look on Shelley Duval's face says it all.
A totally unanswerable question. It has so many different meanings you
could make of it what you want.

Balls to Raphael and his 'specific' dialogue.
kelps
2007-06-15 00:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by blue
Post by kelps
Post by blue
Post by kelps
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
That was interesting, especially the James Amory segment,
Interesting how Stephen King's issues weren't mentioned and that
Raphael is still at it with his
"hes the master," and then his subsequent backstabs, pandering to the
critics of EWS.
dc
Funny you never heard Kubrick bang on and on about the 2001 novelisation
being too literal.
Both King and Raphael have far too big an ego to be screenwriters.
Banging on and on? Thats an exaggeration.
ACC was always gracious and appreciative about SK's unique vision and
up front about his novelization being more literal then the film. No
doubt ACC, who has a great sense of humor, loved Dr. Strangleove and
admired SK as a unique filmmaker.
But here was a case where the novelization was done concurrent with the
film but before the film was completed. In the case of Kubrick and
Clarke, it is Clarke who is the real teacher and Kubrick who is the
student, but Clarke did not lord this over Kubrick in any way and
repected his unique ability and vision and saw him as brilliant, which is
a great complement coming from ACC, one of the most brilliant people
alive. He was also quite capable of learning from SK's ideas and at the
same time reigned in some of SK's less scientific ideas. A collaboration
between these two is nothing short of extraordinary and 2001 stands alone
in film history.
The kind of profound ending of 2001, with it's death and transmigration
and Starbaby ending, was already a Clarke trademark, when Sk was still
doing boxing and racetrack robbery films. Clarke suggested the final
scene and SK liked it. Clarke also suggested the core beginning idea of
the film to grow out of his short story, "The Sentinel." and Kubrick was
influenced by "Childhood's End."
and expanded his short stories that he felt needed expanding. For
instance, "Childhood's End was an expansion of his story, "Guardian
Angel." And, "Against the Fall of Night," was rewritten and expanded
into "The City and the Stars."
"October 3. Stanley on phone, worried about ending...gave him my latest
ideas, and one of them suddenly clicked -- Bowman will regress to
infancy, and we'll see him at the end as a baby in orbit. Stanley called
again later, still very enthusiastic. Hope this isn't a false optimism: I
feel cautiously encouraged myself. "
In terms of sci-fi or cosmic concepts, and story endings, Kubrick did
this once with 2001, while ACC has done this most everytime. His
writing style is usually very cut and dried through much of it, with
flourishes of prose at the key moments and then leaving the book with
profound ideas in a few sentences. In many ways his style is much like
the style Kubrick developed, where the story and characters are secondary
and a vehicle for something deeper. Both them rely mostly on vision and
imagery. Both ACC and SK are known for a surface kind of objectiive
literalization that has behind it deeper subjective ideas. Both have been
criticized for "cold and clinical" story telling, and surface
characterizations. Neither of them are known for characters and dialogue,
but are known for what is behind the dialogue which is usually very
succinct.
ACC uses simple stories and simple characterizations as a vehicle for
deep ideas and profound endings. 2001 the novel was written like a
framework for a constantly changing screenplay and in certain ways
differed from his other novels, because it was secondary to the film
when he was writing it.
Clarke is very nonchalant about his working with film producers and
driectors. His work has been optioned so many times and stories stolen,
but he doesn't get his panties in a bunch like Stephen King or Raphael
(who must think HE wrote EWS--ha ha) He has also been lenient with his
numerous co-writers in later years.
Steven Spielberg, following Sk's lead also consulted with ACC ove rthe
years.
"One recent disappointment: although Steven Spielberg optioned The Hammer
of God it received no credit in his Deep Impact. I wept bitterly all the
way to the bank."
Latter when SK contacted ACC for possible other projects, ACC said
something to the effect of, "Once was enough," but I don't interpret
this as a rebuff from ACC. I think the bottom line was Childhood's End
was eternally optioned and tied up and ACC felt he was too old and
comforatable, to be swept up again in SK mania. I always wished the
collaboration hadn't ended with 2001, but for whatever reason SK,
declared, after 2001, "I don't want to make another science fiction
movie." ACO, although future based, was not really sci-fi.
"But they knew in their hearts that once science had declared a thing
possible, there was no escape from its eventual realization..."
Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End
dc
Thanks for all that. I completely agree. I really don't see why 'those
two' can't appreciate the film for what it is, rather than what they wante
it to be.
One of my favorite lines of Kubrick dialogue is "What are you doing down
here?" From The Shining. The look on Shelley Duval's face says it all. A
totally unanswerable question. It has so many different meanings you could
make of it what you want.
Balls to Raphael and his 'specific' dialogue.
Someday there should be a Redux of the Academy Awards from the hindsight
perspective.

Peter Sellers should get Oscars, same with James Mason, Both Jack Nicolson
and Shelley Duvall should get Oscars--British ones too. Of course Dr.
Strangleove, 2001, ACO should win Best Picture awards and SK should have
gotten Best Director nearly everytime. But for EWS, the Screenplay award
should go to Sk, omitting that back stabbing Raphael except as a typist. But
such is life.

dc
Harry Bailey
2007-06-14 01:51:57 UTC
Permalink
[Google being erratic; apologies if this appears twice].
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
Yes, its quite extraordinary, if not incredulously mind-boggling, how
Raphael STILL DOESN'T GET IT, still has no clue as to what Kubrick was
getting at in EWS [much as was the case with King vis-a-vis The
Shining]. Lets' just see where Raphael once again resides on another
cinematic planet:

Raphael: "The orgy scene, for manifest example, is presented quite
tersely by Schnitzler: He relies on the reader's fanciful complicity
when it comes to sexual transgression. Kubrick wanted to shock, but in
the context of the market, he felt obliged to put on a naughty show. "

Kubrick, unlike Schnitzler, was not interested in manipulating the
viewer into "fanciful complicity" . Quite the opposite: Kubrick
distanced us from any such transgressive complicity, or pornographic
enjoyment, by putting on a "naughty show" that was anything but a
"naughty show", that was instead realised on screen in a manner that
was as repulsive as it was alluring. That was the shock.


"He dared not do what Bergman did in Persona: rely on one character
simply telling another what happened. In Eyes Wide Shut, even when
Nicole Kidman is telling Tom Cruise of her sexual experience with a
stranger, Kubrick felt obliged (not on my suggestion) to cut away to a
flashback."

It's as if Raphael never even watched the film. Talk about BASIC
factual errors! First, Kidman did not tell Cruise - in her story about
the naval officer - of any sexual experience, but stated that she was
for one moment willing to run away with the officer. Second, there was
no flashback cutaway. All of the later monchrome flashbacks we see
(about half-a-dozen of them) are visualisations of BILL'S FANTASY of
Alice having sex with the naval officer. [Indeed, it is such
fantasising by Bill, his reimaginings of Alice's desires, that propels
the whole narrative of the film, Bill's 'adventures': Alice's desires
jealously awaken Bill's desires, and a need to act them out]

Maybe, like Bill imagining Alice with the sailor, Raphael imagined
himself watching the film!!


"Illustration does not always illustrate; it can also deprive the
audience of the urge to imagine."

But Kubrick didn't want us to IMAGINE the orgy sequences: rather, what
the orgy scenes demonstrate is that in the absence of fantasy (of
sexual imaginings) there can be no sexual relation, as Lacan argued.
Kubrick's directs these scenes in such a way as to interrupt OUR
FANTASISING ABOUT THEM, so de-eroticising them, rendering them
mechanical, seedy, disturbing, 'dehumanised' - sexuality stripped of
desire.

"The essence of the erotic in cinema is the seduction of the viewer
into complicity. Kubrick's literalism excludes the audience; balked
from dreaming along with the spirit of Dream Novella, critics woke up
to its implausibility and absurdity"

Raphael has a distinctly classical view of cinema, completely blind to
Kubrick's modernism, in particular to Kubrick's refusal to let the
viewer be complicit, to interrupt and distance the viewer from such
complicity, to question such complicity itself, to dispassionately see
its miserable destructiveness (as he did with Alex in ACO, Barry in
BL, Jack in TS, Joker in FMJ).

I wonder is Raphael referring to those 'critics' who went along to the
film expecting a no-holds-barred, Hollywood marital couple in steamy
sex movie?


"Since Kubrick did not wish his film to be stained, as one might say,
by my contribution, he weakened the dialogue and hampered its
possibilities, by recourse, when it came to the married couple's
exchanges, to the most unreliable of all "realistic" methods:
improvisation by actors who do their brave best to be revealingly
loquacious but have nothing of interest to say."

An ACTUAL married couple's improvised exchanges an 'unreliable'
method? That's news. Not sufficient classical 'romantic' stylised
humanism, eh Freddy? Not sufficient Ovidian marital 'deception'?

IF YOU CLASSICISTS ONLY KNEW!
Boaz
2007-06-14 04:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
[Google being erratic; apologies if this appears twice].
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
Yes, its quite extraordinary, if not incredulously mind-boggling, how
Raphael STILL DOESN'T GET IT, still has no clue as to what Kubrick was
getting at in EWS [much as was the case with King vis-a-vis The
Shining]. Lets' just see where Raphael once again resides on another
Raphael: "The orgy scene, for manifest example, is presented quite
tersely by Schnitzler: He relies on the reader's fanciful complicity
when it comes to sexual transgression. Kubrick wanted to shock, but in
the context of the market, he felt obliged to put on a naughty show. "
Kubrick, unlike Schnitzler, was not interested in manipulating the
viewer into "fanciful complicity" . Quite the opposite: Kubrick
distanced us from any such transgressive complicity, or pornographic
enjoyment, by putting on a "naughty show" that was anything but a
"naughty show", that was instead realised on screen in a manner that
was as repulsive as it was alluring. That was the shock.
"He dared not do what Bergman did in Persona: rely on one character
simply telling another what happened. In Eyes Wide Shut, even when
Nicole Kidman is telling Tom Cruise of her sexual experience with a
stranger, Kubrick felt obliged (not on my suggestion) to cut away to a
flashback."
It's as if Raphael never even watched the film. Talk about BASIC
factual errors! First, Kidman did not tell Cruise - in her story about
the naval officer - of any sexual experience, but stated that she was
for one moment willing to run away with the officer. Second, there was
no flashback cutaway. All of the later monchrome flashbacks we see
(about half-a-dozen of them) are visualisations of BILL'S FANTASY of
Alice having sex with the naval officer. [Indeed, it is such
fantasising by Bill, his reimaginings of Alice's desires, that propels
the whole narrative of the film, Bill's 'adventures': Alice's desires
jealously awaken Bill's desires, and a need to act them out]
Maybe, like Bill imagining Alice with the sailor, Raphael imagined
himself watching the film!!
"Illustration does not always illustrate; it can also deprive the
audience of the urge to imagine."
But Kubrick didn't want us to IMAGINE the orgy sequences: rather, what
the orgy scenes demonstrate is that in the absence of fantasy (of
sexual imaginings) there can be no sexual relation, as Lacan argued.
Kubrick's directs these scenes in such a way as to interrupt OUR
FANTASISING ABOUT THEM, so de-eroticising them, rendering them
mechanical, seedy, disturbing, 'dehumanised' - sexuality stripped of
desire.
"The essence of the erotic in cinema is the seduction of the viewer
into complicity. Kubrick's literalism excludes the audience; balked
from dreaming along with the spirit of Dream Novella, critics woke up
to its implausibility and absurdity"
Raphael has a distinctly classical view of cinema, completely blind to
Kubrick's modernism, in particular to Kubrick's refusal to let the
viewer be complicit, to interrupt and distance the viewer from such
complicity, to question such complicity itself, to dispassionately see
its miserable destructiveness (as he did with Alex in ACO, Barry in
BL, Jack in TS, Joker in FMJ).
I wonder is Raphael referring to those 'critics' who went along to the
film expecting a no-holds-barred, Hollywood marital couple in steamy
sex movie?
"Since Kubrick did not wish his film to be stained, as one might say,
by my contribution, he weakened the dialogue and hampered its
possibilities, by recourse, when it came to the married couple's
improvisation by actors who do their brave best to be revealingly
loquacious but have nothing of interest to say."
An ACTUAL married couple's improvised exchanges an 'unreliable'
method? That's news. Not sufficient classical 'romantic' stylised
humanism, eh Freddy? Not sufficient Ovidian marital 'deception'?
IF YOU CLASSICISTS ONLY KNEW!
Raphael continues with his "sackcloth and ashes" approach of being
"martyred" by Kubrick with EWS, as his way of avoiding it becoming an
albatross around his neck. Yet, with every published account of his
sour grapes recollection the latter description always dominates the
image of him rather than the former.

I loved it when Raphael said, "Since my classical education was based
on translating chunks of English classics into the styles of great
Greek and Roman writers and translating the latter into English, I was
inadvertently schooled in some of the skills needed to go from
original text to screenplay." LOL!!! Oh, Bog! He is such a hurt puppy
as to constantly remind us (and perhaps himself) that he is this "boy
genius" who could translate the Classics before he ever sprouted any
hair between his legs, working it into his thesis about writing
screenplays. Bog! Then he adds, "Vladimir Nabokov, of all people,
argued for literal equivalence as the only honest form of
translation." Unfortunately, Nabokov got it wrong. It's why only
"ragged odds and ends" of his own adaptation of "Lolita" was used by
Kubrick. It was basically unfilmable. It was a good read, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that it would translate into something that
will be as engaging on the screen. And then Raphael hits us with what
must be the winner of the Stating the Obvious Award: "The logic of a
picture language is essentially different from that of print." No...
shit... Sherlock.

One of these days, perhaps in some far flung future, the general
public will wise up to the fact that films have nothing to do with
literature. They are neither extensions of that medium nor of theater.
The paradox that exists, however, is that one needs to know writing,
to know story structure and to know how to basically tell a story in
order to be able to write a screenplay. Yet a screenplay is not a work
of literature like a novel, short story or a play. Because the first
step in making a film (whether it is an original or an adaptation) is
the maddeningly frustrating process of putting it down on paper in
word form the assumption is that filmmaking is part and parcel to
literature or theater. But a film is in a constant state of revision
into its final state from the time the cameras roll through the
editing and even the sound mix. It begins with the script, but it
doesn't end there.

This article doesn't go into how some films change, not so much via
the director or screenwriter's whims, but through those whims of the
producer, the executives who feel compelled to justify their jobs by
giving the writer notes on how to change the script ("make so-and-so
more sympathetic," is one of their general requests), and the "focus
groups" -- people of a select "demographic" that the film may be aimed
at. To quote Jimmy Durante, "Everybody's tryin' to get in on de act!"
That would take up another article -- if not a whole book.

I know a lot of writers out here who act as though their scripts were
the Holy Writ. I can understand the anger when such material is
"dumbed down," but many of these writers write for TV. 'Nuff said.

One of my classmates at AFI once boasted to me with a smug look on his
face that his latest effort was "director proof." It also turned out
to be producer proof, actor proof and financing proof. It never got
made. I didn't take the time to ask what he meant by "director proof";
I already had a headache that day and I didn't need it turning into a
migraine by listening to how he made his script tamper proof for
directors' hands.

Boaz
("I'll come back later with a couple of sandwiches for you and...
maybe you'll let me read something then.")
blue
2007-06-14 09:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boaz
Raphael continues with his "sackcloth and ashes" approach of being
"martyred" by Kubrick with EWS, as his way of avoiding it becoming an
albatross around his neck. Yet, with every published account of his
sour grapes recollection the latter description always dominates the
image of him rather than the former.
I loved it when Raphael said, "Since my classical education was based
on translating chunks of English classics into the styles of great
Greek and Roman writers and translating the latter into English, I was
inadvertently schooled in some of the skills needed to go from
original text to screenplay." LOL!!! Oh, Bog! He is such a hurt puppy
as to constantly remind us (and perhaps himself) that he is this "boy
genius" who could translate the Classics before he ever sprouted any
hair between his legs, working it into his thesis about writing
screenplays. Bog! Then he adds, "Vladimir Nabokov, of all people,
argued for literal equivalence as the only honest form of
translation." Unfortunately, Nabokov got it wrong. It's why only
"ragged odds and ends" of his own adaptation of "Lolita" was used by
Kubrick. It was basically unfilmable. It was a good read, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that it would translate into something that
will be as engaging on the screen. And then Raphael hits us with what
must be the winner of the Stating the Obvious Award: "The logic of a
picture language is essentially different from that of print." No...
shit... Sherlock.
One of these days, perhaps in some far flung future, the general
public will wise up to the fact that films have nothing to do with
literature. They are neither extensions of that medium nor of theater.
The paradox that exists, however, is that one needs to know writing,
to know story structure and to know how to basically tell a story in
order to be able to write a screenplay. Yet a screenplay is not a work
of literature like a novel, short story or a play. Because the first
step in making a film (whether it is an original or an adaptation) is
the maddeningly frustrating process of putting it down on paper in
word form the assumption is that filmmaking is part and parcel to
literature or theater. But a film is in a constant state of revision
into its final state from the time the cameras roll through the
editing and even the sound mix. It begins with the script, but it
doesn't end there.
This article doesn't go into how some films change, not so much via
the director or screenwriter's whims, but through those whims of the
producer, the executives who feel compelled to justify their jobs by
giving the writer notes on how to change the script ("make so-and-so
more sympathetic," is one of their general requests), and the "focus
groups" -- people of a select "demographic" that the film may be aimed
at. To quote Jimmy Durante, "Everybody's tryin' to get in on de act!"
That would take up another article -- if not a whole book.
I know a lot of writers out here who act as though their scripts were
the Holy Writ. I can understand the anger when such material is
"dumbed down," but many of these writers write for TV. 'Nuff said.
One of my classmates at AFI once boasted to me with a smug look on his
face that his latest effort was "director proof." It also turned out
to be producer proof, actor proof and financing proof. It never got
made. I didn't take the time to ask what he meant by "director proof";
I already had a headache that day and I didn't need it turning into a
migraine by listening to how he made his script tamper proof for
directors' hands.
Boaz
("I'll come back later with a couple of sandwiches for you and...
maybe you'll let me read something then.")
I once worked with a writer who told me that a writers job was to do his
work, get payed and fuck off. He was a wise man, a great writer and
understood the craft perfectly. It's a job.
You don't hear architects moaning about the person who bought the house
or how they decorated it. I think all these people are actually a bit
deranged if they think that they take precidence over the hundreds of
other people working on a film.
ichorwhip
2007-06-16 03:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
[Google being erratic; apologies if this appears twice].
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
Yes, its quite extraordinary, if not incredulously mind-boggling, how
Raphael STILL DOESN'T GET IT, still has no clue as to what Kubrick was
getting at in EWS [much as was the case with King vis-a-vis The
Shining]. Lets' just see where Raphael once again resides on another
Raphael: "The orgy scene, for manifest example, is presented quite
tersely by Schnitzler: He relies on the reader's fanciful complicity
when it comes to sexual transgression. Kubrick wanted to shock, but in
the context of the market, he felt obliged to put on a naughty show. "
Kubrick, unlike Schnitzler, was not interested in manipulating the
viewer into "fanciful complicity" . Quite the opposite: Kubrick
distanced us from any such transgressive complicity, or pornographic
enjoyment, by putting on a "naughty show" that was anything but a
"naughty show", that was instead realised on screen in a manner that
was as repulsive as it was alluring. That was the shock.
"He dared not do what Bergman did in Persona: rely on one character
simply telling another what happened. In Eyes Wide Shut, even when
Nicole Kidman is telling Tom Cruise of her sexual experience with a
stranger, Kubrick felt obliged (not on my suggestion) to cut away to a
flashback."
It's as if Raphael never even watched the film. Talk about BASIC
factual errors!
Yes, exactly!
Post by Harry Bailey
First, Kidman did not tell Cruise - in her story about
the naval officer - of any sexual experience, but stated that she was
for one moment willing to run away with the officer. Second, there was
no flashback cutaway. All of the later monchrome flashbacks we see
(about half-a-dozen of them) are visualisations of BILL'S FANTASY of
Alice having sex with the naval officer. [Indeed, it is such
fantasising by Bill, his reimaginings of Alice's desires, that propels
the whole narrative of the film, Bill's 'adventures': Alice's desires
jealously awaken Bill's desires, and a need to act them out]
Maybe, like Bill imagining Alice with the sailor, Raphael imagined
himself watching the film!!
But watching the film would be far too obvious a thing to do! We must
_imagine_ what the film is like without actually seeing it. Ovid
never saw a film, but he could imagine one better than most....
pfffft

Really enjoying this thread btw...
Post by Harry Bailey
"Illustration does not always illustrate; it can also deprive the
audience of the urge to imagine."
But Kubrick didn't want us to IMAGINE the orgy sequences: rather, what
the orgy scenes demonstrate is that in the absence of fantasy (of
sexual imaginings) there can be no sexual relation, as Lacan argued.
Kubrick's directs these scenes in such a way as to interrupt OUR
FANTASISING ABOUT THEM, so de-eroticising them, rendering them
mechanical, seedy, disturbing, 'dehumanised' - sexuality stripped of
desire.
"The essence of the erotic in cinema is the seduction of the viewer
into complicity. Kubrick's literalism excludes the audience; balked
from dreaming along with the spirit of Dream Novella, critics woke up
to its implausibility and absurdity"
Raphael has a distinctly classical view of cinema, completely blind to
Kubrick's modernism, in particular to Kubrick's refusal to let the
viewer be complicit, to interrupt and distance the viewer from such
complicity, to question such complicity itself, to dispassionately see
its miserable destructiveness (as he did with Alex in ACO, Barry in
BL, Jack in TS, Joker in FMJ).
I wonder is Raphael referring to those 'critics' who went along to the
film expecting a no-holds-barred, Hollywood marital couple in steamy
sex movie?
"Since Kubrick did not wish his film to be stained, as one might say,
by my contribution, he weakened the dialogue and hampered its
possibilities, by recourse, when it came to the married couple's
improvisation by actors who do their brave best to be revealingly
loquacious but have nothing of interest to say."
An ACTUAL married couple's improvised exchanges an 'unreliable'
method? That's news. Not sufficient classical 'romantic' stylised
humanism, eh Freddy? Not sufficient Ovidian marital 'deception'?
IF YOU CLASSICISTS ONLY KNEW!
Harry Bailey
2007-06-17 00:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Harry Bailey
[Google being erratic; apologies if this appears twice].
Post by Boaz
Just saw this article today. It is quite interesting; directors,
screenwriters and novelists discussing the process of adapting a
literary work to the screen. James Ivory's comments are a good object
lesson in not thinking something through properly. Alexander Payne's
comments are dead-on about how one adapts a book to the screen (no
doubt to the chagrin of many readers). Then there is a small piece on
Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining." And what is under that? Our ol'
buddy, Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
Boaz
("I'm outlining a new writing project...")
http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/200703/256
Yes, its quite extraordinary, if not incredulously mind-boggling, how
Raphael STILL DOESN'T GET IT, still has no clue as to what Kubrick was
getting at in EWS [much as was the case with King vis-a-vis The
Shining]. Lets' just see where Raphael once again resides on another
Raphael: "The orgy scene, for manifest example, is presented quite
tersely by Schnitzler: He relies on the reader's fanciful complicity
when it comes to sexual transgression. Kubrick wanted to shock, but in
the context of the market, he felt obliged to put on a naughty show. "
Kubrick, unlike Schnitzler, was not interested in manipulating the
viewer into "fanciful complicity" . Quite the opposite: Kubrick
distanced us from any such transgressive complicity, or pornographic
enjoyment, by putting on a "naughty show" that was anything but a
"naughty show", that was instead realised on screen in a manner that
was as repulsive as it was alluring. That was the shock.
"He dared not do what Bergman did in Persona: rely on one character
simply telling another what happened. In Eyes Wide Shut, even when
Nicole Kidman is telling Tom Cruise of her sexual experience with a
stranger, Kubrick felt obliged (not on my suggestion) to cut away to a
flashback."
It's as if Raphael never even watched the film. Talk about BASIC
factual errors!
Yes, exactly!
Post by Harry Bailey
First, Kidman did not tell Cruise - in her story about
the naval officer - of any sexual experience, but stated that she was
for one moment willing to run away with the officer. Second, there was
no flashback cutaway. All of the later monchrome flashbacks we see
(about half-a-dozen of them) are visualisations of BILL'S FANTASY of
Alice having sex with the naval officer. [Indeed, it is such
fantasising by Bill, his reimaginings of Alice's desires, that propels
the whole narrative of the film, Bill's 'adventures': Alice's desires
jealously awaken Bill's desires, and a need to act them out]
Maybe, like Bill imagining Alice with the sailor, Raphael imagined
himself watching the film!!
But watching the film would be far too obvious a thing to do! We must
_imagine_ what the film is like without actually seeing it. Ovid
never saw a film, but he could imagine one better than most....
pfffft
Really enjoying this thread btw...
Young Woman: Have you been enjoying yourself?
Bill Reid: Well, I've had a very interesting look around.
Young Woman: Do you want to go somewhere a little more private?
Bill Reid: Private? That might be a good idea.
Mysterious Woman: Oh, there you are! I've been looking all over the
overlook for you. Where did you go? Excuse me Mrs Torrance, may I
borrow him for just a few minutes? I promise to bring him right back.
Bill Reid: "I pwameese to bwing him wight byack!". And how maybe to
you pwameese to bling me wight black?
Mysterious Woman: Well, unless you want to wind up all by yourself,
crying your eyes OUT in some place with a very bad climate ...
Bill Reid: I'M not going ANYWHERE!
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-16 01:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boaz
Frederic Raphael, who has turned down the heat a bit here but
still has to get a few more digs in at Kubrick over their
"collaboration" on EWS.
FR: "The difficulty was that film does not leave the same room for
imagination as text. The orgy scene, for manifest example, is
presented quite tersely by Schnitzler: He relies on the reader's
fanciful complicity when it comes to sexual transgression."

Here, Raphael obviously fails to understand Schnitzler's and Kubrick's
focus. First of all, the so-called "orgy scene", isn't about "an
orgy". Secondly, it isn't about "sexual transgression". The "orgy
scene" in Eyes Wide Shut, as well as in Traumnovelle, isn't even about
"sex". If Raphael really, truly, would understand any of his Greek
classics, or Greek mythology, he should know about Theseus and the
confrontation with the Minotaur. In later versions, or dramatic
interpretations of this myth, the Minotaur was replaced by a mirror.
In Eyes Wide Shut, Bill 'faces the Minotaur', 'faces the mirror', is
'confronted with himself': the "orgy scene", of course, is all about
self-confrontation, about Bill 'being unmasked', like he said so
himself, when he tells Alice that he 'needs to show his face', right
before he starts his labyrinthian quest for his inner self. He is
constantly trying to "wake up", and not, like Raphael wants us to
believe, "to have sex". In my opinion, Kubrick succeeds in more than
one way, to find the cinematic equivalent of Schnitzler's story. (I go
as far as to say that Bill follows, unconsciously, Ariadne's thread;
it's as if he first journeys towards the 'center' of his dreamlike
self-confrontation, the center being the moment he is requested to
take off his mask. And then, after that very moment, tries to find
logic, when he's following his own footsteps, trying to find the
reality of his dreamlike journey, confronting other 'nightmarish'
truths about himself: the truth being the lies about himself.)

FR: "Kubrick wanted to shock, but in the context of the market, he
felt obliged to put on a naughty show. He dared not do what Bergman
did in Persona: rely on one character simply telling another what
happened."

Clearly, it is Raphael that can only see 'a naughty show'. That's
because he was just playing a Peeping Tom, instead of a writer willing
to follow Kubrick's very precise cinematic translation of Schnitzler's
Traumnovelle. Raphael wasn't 'seeing' at all, he was just looking. He
fails to see, let alone 'grasp', Schnitzler's psychological layers and
his talent not to "explain", which happens to be just one great talent
of Kubrick, but to trigger the imagination, Schnitzler using
literature as his tool, Kubrick using pure cinema as his. Furthermore,
I do not believe that Kubrick "wanted to shock". Raphael just isn't
sensitive enough to understand that Kubrick was after 'unmasking' a
very human character, not a flat-character-hero, but someone who
struggles with himself. If there is a 'shock', it is the result of
what Alice tells him, how it creates inner chaos within Bill; a shock
because Alice's 'confession' is NOT about physical sex, but much more
about 'sex in the mind', about opportunity, rather than 'given fact'.
The fact that Raphael comes up with Bergman's Persona, in this
context, is silly. First of all, Kubrick DID DARE TO DO what Bergman
did in Persona: Kubrick indeed DOES RELY on one character simply
telling another what happened. Secondly, Kubrick even goes beyond
that. Alice tells Bill about her dream, which adds another step in
Bill's own journey. The great thing about that scene is it's conflict,
not only the conflict between two characters, but the fact that
there's a very cinematic collision that, again, triggers the
imagination: Alice's dream has a reality-like urgency for her
character, whereas we, the audience, are 'with Bill', knowing that his
reality, at the same time, has a dreamlike urgency for his character.
Bill isn't ready yet, for 'truth': telling Alice all about himself. He
isn't really awake yet, and 'chooses' to withold his confession for
Alice. He doesn't fully realise, how Alice unknowingly presents him a
'mirror'.
The relationship between the two female characters in Persona, and the
importance of both their monologues (their self-"confessions") don't
serve the same goal, as is the case in Eyes Wide Shut. The whole basic
concept of the dramatic confrontation in Persona is different from the
one Schnitzler and Kubrick use. It is unwise, and manipulative, plain
wrong, to compare Persona with Eyes Wide Shut, the way Raphael does.

FR: "In Eyes Wide Shut, even when Nicole Kidman is telling Tom Cruise
of her sexual experience with a stranger, Kubrick felt obliged (not on
my suggestion) to cut away to a flashback. Illustration does not
always illustrate; it can also deprive the audience of the urge to
imagine. The essence of the erotic in cinema is the seduction of the
viewer into complicity."

Here, Raphael clearly lost his mind. There's not one flashback in Eyes
Wide Shut; there's only 'inner projection', where Raphael "sees"
flashbacks. He even fails to reproduce the concept of Kubrick's film.
Nicole Kidman never tells Tom Cruise of "her sexual experience with a
stranger"; she tells him about the 'teases' of her own sexual fantasy,
of sexual "opportunity", rather than sexual experience (which suggests
a physical act). The black-and-white (monochrome) shots of Alice
'having a sexual experience' with a naval officer, is Bill's
imagination. Kubrick, like Leon Vitali has mentioned, is being very
focused, very concentrated here: it is EXACTLY what is going on in
Bill's troubled mind. Besides that, it is NOT something that needed to
be produced by OUR imagination. Raphael completely misses the essence
of Schnitzler's Traumnovelle; there is importance within sexual
fantasies and sexual obessession, which, in Bill's case, merely starts
his journey and fuels his first 'step'. What Bill 'sees', already is
his 'mis-interpretion' of what Alice has told him. He is unable to SEE
the NEED of the journey that he has begun, because he isn't "even
looking", or: he isn't yet "SEEING" within himself. Whenever he tries,
at these moments, all he "sees" is what he FEARS.
Then, Raphael comes up with another proof of his own failure to
understand or express Schnitzler's goals, as well as Schnitzler's and
Kubrick's fascination with the themes and motives of both the story
and the characters. The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself. There is not one moment in Eyes Wide Shut,
that Raphael could come up with, that Bill truly reveals sexual
hunger: never, ever. Bill, unconsciously, 'knows' that he is a masked
'role player'; fidelity is the pass word, yet Raphael's impotence is
way beyond Bill's... For Raphael, there's only the 'erotic'; he'll
never meet the Minotaur.

Poor fellow, this Frederic Raphael.

gR.
Bill Reid
2007-06-16 16:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@chello.nl
Here, Raphael obviously fails to understand Schnitzler's and Kubrick's
focus. First of all, the so-called "orgy scene", isn't about "an
orgy". Secondly, it isn't about "sexual transgression". The "orgy
scene" in Eyes Wide Shut, as well as in Traumnovelle, isn't even about
"sex". If Raphael really, truly, would understand any of his Greek
classics, or Greek mythology, he should know about Theseus and the
confrontation with the Minotaur. In later versions, or dramatic
interpretations of this myth, the Minotaur was replaced by a mirror.
Uh-oh, look out...
Post by R***@chello.nl
In Eyes Wide Shut, Bill 'faces the Minotaur', 'faces the mirror', is
'confronted with himself': the "orgy scene", of course, is all about
self-confrontation, about Bill 'being unmasked', like he said so
himself, when he tells Alice that he 'needs to show his face', right
before he starts his labyrinthian quest for his inner self.
Where have I heard all this before? Oh yeah, around 1/4/07:

---
...the mask that Tom Cruise wears appears to be a
derivation of the "mandala" symbol that I've described before,
which Jung found in Eastern cultures that corresponded to the
"labyrinth" symbol in other cultures, which represents the
"unconscious self-discovery archetype".
...
Notably, we see Tom Cruise wearing this mask as he "explores"
the "labyrinth" of the mansion orgy, which Kubrick
even more notably accompanies with Eastern mystical
"non-verbal" music.
...
The final resolution of the movie
seems to less about "psychoanalysis", and more about
the Cruise character successfully "integrating" his conflicting
negative and positive feminine "shadow" traits after a
potentially deadly journey through the "labyrinth" of
his "unconscious mind". The final key to his success was
the acceptance of his feminine traits, as opposed to the
disaster depicted in "The Shining".
---
Post by R***@chello.nl
He is
constantly trying to "wake up", and not, like Raphael wants us to
believe, "to have sex". In my opinion, Kubrick succeeds in more than
one way, to find the cinematic equivalent of Schnitzler's story. (I go
as far as to say that Bill follows, unconsciously, Ariadne's thread;
it's as if he first journeys towards the 'center' of his dreamlike
self-confrontation, the center being the moment he is requested to
take off his mask. And then, after that very moment, tries to find
logic, when he's following his own footsteps, trying to find the
reality of his dreamlike journey, confronting other 'nightmarish'
truths about himself: the truth being the lies about himself.)
Earlier, on 1/3/07, concerning "The Shining":

---
In these terms, "The Shining" can be seen as a series
of many different classic Jungian concepts and symbols
where a man ultimately fails to integrate his feminine side.
The story is told in the minimal: a man, and a mother
and child. Thus, the entire movie strips away the
element of societal projection of personality, and
reduces the symbols to those seen in those three
characters, and environment they occupy.

This "environment" is of course the significantly
named "Overlook Hotel"; in Jungian terms, Jack Torrance
is literally "overlooking" the feminine unconscious
"feeling/intuition" portion of his personality in favor
of the masculine conscious "thinking/sensation" portion.
To Jung, this is a recipe for disaster, if Jack chooses
not to properly interpret the negative images of
his feminine "anima" that are revealed to him within
the environment of the hotel.

This hotel is thus itself a significant classic Jungian
"symbol", the "maze" or "labyrinth", representing the
"self-discovery archetype". Not only does the hotel itself
consist of numerous long, winding, and branching hallways
(which Kubrick emphasized with long tracking shots), the
hotel also prominently features the infamous "hedge maze".

Jung said that myths and images about "mazes" and
"labyrinths" are found in cultures around the world
throughout history, and represent the difficulty of
man's conscious mind to comprehend his unconscious
emotions. In Greek mythology, a "hero" famously enters a
"labyrinth" to slay a "monster"; in Eastern cultures,
there is the symbol of the "mandala", a circular
representation of a maze-like structure, representing
to Jung both the unity but complexity of the "unconscious
mind".

We can note that Kubrick actually used the "labyrinth"
symbol in several movies, and it was actually one of
several visual motifs that strikingly distinguish his
movies. Kubrick was known for "tracking shots" though
maze-like structures, such as the General's inspection
of the troops in the trenches in "Paths of Glory", Tom
Cruise exploring the various rooms of orgiers in "Eyes
Wide Shut", and the "light show" at the end of "2001".
But the symbol was never quite so didactically and
visually explicitly used in Jungian terms as in "The Shining",
which even included a scene of Jack Torrance "overlooking" a
model of the hotel hedge maze with a blank stare on his
face, which dissolved to a shot of nuturing mother/child
successfully navigating the maze!

Thus the "Overlook Hotel" is a symbolic metaphor for
Jack's literal personality "disintegration", as he
figuratively is unable to slay the "monster" in the "maze".
---
Post by R***@chello.nl
Clearly, it is Raphael that can only see 'a naughty show'. That's
because he was just playing a Peeping Tom, instead of a writer willing
to follow Kubrick's very precise cinematic translation of Schnitzler's
Traumnovelle. Raphael wasn't 'seeing' at all, he was just looking. He
fails to see, let alone 'grasp', Schnitzler's psychological layers and
his talent not to "explain", which happens to be just one great talent
of Kubrick, but to trigger the imagination, Schnitzler using
literature as his tool, Kubrick using pure cinema as his.
To continue:

---
He also notably "overlooks" his other encounters with
irrational "ghosts" as he wrestles with his nagging
feminine "guilt", as he excuses in his mind the incident
in which he injured his son with a "masculine/rational"
mathematical equation: "it was only a few feet/seconds
per square inch too much pressure, but SHE won't let ME
ever forget it!"

He also "overlooks" the positive anima image right before
him of the nuturing mother, his wife, who is shown happily
caring for and joyfully playing with her son. He instead
retreats into his "verbal/thinking" world of ostensible "writing",
totally unaware of the futility of this to deal with his own
unconscious nature and the "monster" in the "maze within".
---
Post by R***@chello.nl
Furthermore,
I do not believe that Kubrick "wanted to shock". Raphael just isn't
sensitive enough to understand that Kubrick was after 'unmasking' a
very human character, not a flat-character-hero, but someone who
struggles with himself. If there is a 'shock', it is the result of
what Alice tells him, how it creates inner chaos within Bill; a shock
because Alice's 'confession' is NOT about physical sex, but much more
about 'sex in the mind', about opportunity, rather than 'given fact'.
---
Then she does it, she confronts Tom with the startling
admission that she not only WOULD cheat on him, she had
been strongly impelled to do so once just by the sight
of a "Naval officer". This causes Tom to exhibit the
classic "Kubrick stare", a wordless seemingly primitive
unblinking facial expression that we see in many Kubrick
movies at crucial times, indicating that he is confounded
beyond words by her revelation. And this is how Kubrick
depicts this crucial turning point in the movie. The
remainder of the movie is clearly nothing more than
a series of events and images that dramatize and symbolize
Cruise's attempt to "resolve" his mental state and
his "relationship" with his "significant other".
---
Post by R***@chello.nl
The fact that Raphael comes up with Bergman's Persona, in this
context, is silly. First of all, Kubrick DID DARE TO DO what Bergman
did in Persona: Kubrick indeed DOES RELY on one character simply
telling another what happened. Secondly, Kubrick even goes beyond
that. Alice tells Bill about her dream, which adds another step in
Bill's own journey. The great thing about that scene is it's conflict,
not only the conflict between two characters, but the fact that
there's a very cinematic collision that, again, triggers the
imagination: Alice's dream has a reality-like urgency for her
character, whereas we, the audience, are 'with Bill', knowing that his
reality, at the same time, has a dreamlike urgency for his character.
Bill isn't ready yet, for 'truth': telling Alice all about himself. He
isn't really awake yet, and 'chooses' to withold his confession for
Alice. He doesn't fully realise, how Alice unknowingly presents him a
'mirror'.
Ah yes:

---
From a Jungian standpoint, he just got the shock of his
life, to his previously "well-integrated" personality. His
comfortable acceptance of his positive feminine "anima", as
evidenced by a loving mother image for his wife, was replaced
with a new "obsessive" image of his wife as a "whore". He is
completely confounded as to how to "integrate" this new "symbol"
of his wife as BOTH a "whore" AND a "mother".

Note that there is another pivotal scene later in the
movie, where Cruise again exhibits the "Kubrick stare"
while watching his wife nuture her child by helping her
with her homework. In this case, Kubrick (or perhaps
somebody at Warner Brother's after his death) provides
a voice-over of his "thoughts" as he recalls her words
describing a dream she had about having sex with multiple
men. This sets Cruise off again in search of the same
prostitute he had seen the night before.
---
Post by R***@chello.nl
Here, Raphael clearly lost his mind. There's not one flashback in Eyes
Wide Shut; there's only 'inner projection', where Raphael "sees"
flashbacks. He even fails to reproduce the concept of Kubrick's film.
Nicole Kidman never tells Tom Cruise of "her sexual experience with a
stranger"; she tells him about the 'teases' of her own sexual fantasy,
of sexual "opportunity", rather than sexual experience (which suggests
a physical act). The black-and-white (monochrome) shots of Alice
'having a sexual experience' with a naval officer, is Bill's
imagination. Kubrick, like Leon Vitali has mentioned, is being very
focused, very concentrated here: it is EXACTLY what is going on in
Bill's troubled mind. Besides that, it is NOT something that needed to
be produced by OUR imagination. Raphael completely misses the essence
of Schnitzler's Traumnovelle; there is importance within sexual
fantasies and sexual obessession, which, in Bill's case, merely starts
his journey and fuels his first 'step'. What Bill 'sees', already is
his 'mis-interpretion' of what Alice has told him. He is unable to SEE
the NEED of the journey that he has begun, because he isn't "even
looking", or: he isn't yet "SEEING" within himself. Whenever he tries,
at these moments, all he "sees" is what he FEARS.
And later, on 1/10/07:

---
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".
...
"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".
---
Post by R***@chello.nl
Then, Raphael comes up with another proof of his own failure to
understand or express Schnitzler's goals, as well as Schnitzler's and
Kubrick's fascination with the themes and motives of both the story
and the characters. The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself. There is not one moment in Eyes Wide Shut,
that Raphael could come up with, that Bill truly reveals sexual
hunger: never, ever. Bill, unconsciously, 'knows' that he is a masked
'role player'; fidelity is the pass word, yet Raphael's impotence is
way beyond Bill's... For Raphael, there's only the 'erotic'; he'll
never meet the Minotaur.
Again, concerning the fate of the of the "writer" in "The Shining":

---
Jung of course felt that the key to successful non-neurotic
personality development was to be in touch with your "irrational"
non-verbal "unconscious" emotions. He felt that children
and "primitives" were more able to acheive this type of
personality integration; he also saw it as a one of the
opposing traits of the masculine/feminine dichotomy, as
part of the "thinking vs. feeling" and "sensation vs.
intuition" distinguishing traits of men and women. So it
seems significant in Jungian terms that the child "shines",
that is, he could "feel" the emotional events of the hotel's
past as revealed to him in images, and relay these images
to his mother, especially of course since the hotel itself
is a symbol of his father's neurotic personality, while
Jack himself never could comprehend or speak of his
own encounter with the "ghosts".
...
Jack is
ultimately shown dying of exhaustion in the hedge maze
(the classic Jungian "labyrinth" symbol of the unconscious
personality) as a result of his attempt to "kill" the
positive "nuturing mother/child" anima aspect of his
personality.
---
Post by R***@chello.nl
Poor fellow, this Frederic Raphael.
I predict ice crystals on his face...

---
William Ernest "Don't Just Re-Cycle, Re-Use" Reid
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-18 02:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Where have I heard all this before?
Would be the perfect statement on your gravestone. It quite sums you
up.

gR.
Bill Reid
2007-06-18 14:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by Bill Reid
Where have I heard all this before?
Would be the perfect statement on your gravestone. It quite sums you
up.
Perfect. Short, nonsensical, veiled death wish. A "10".

You could do this professionally, at the top pay grade of
$0/hr (actual taxpayers support the free Internet access
at the library, but they're not gonna pay you). In any event,
welcome to the newsgroup!

However, should you wish to parrot a somewhat lengthier
practitioner of abusive Usenet non-sequiturs, here's something
for you cut and paste for your next entry in the competition
(I personally think this loses points for "looking desperate"
Post by R***@chello.nl
Billy Reidiot(TM) aka Lil' Seizure... You've no doubt read the
dossier.
Billy can't stand the word "ambiguous". It's like RAID on a
cockroach. This is a component of his overall Will to Vacuousness...
this Nietzsche pretender with no talent and no sense of humor beyond
his intimate relationship with himself and his Kleenex(TM).
"Leave him be, Joe. It's the treatment...(Buffy)"
He definitely exhibits this wholy narcissistic tendency.... What
kills me about Billy often is his utter hypocrisy in regards to the
way he represents himself and the things he says. In a word,
disingenuous... You'd be better off talking to a gabby maggot, but
Reidiot(TM) does have his kicks especially when he verbally abuses
himself whilst so unaware. Makes my big Bowzer NES BWA-HA-HA's come
out.
Of course he is! I've been pointing this out for months on to
years... This bizarre, imbalanced person....
I think it makes him smile. It's prolly the only enjoyment Fake Billy
gets in his pathetic life... The total giveaway is that he never
gives much of a hint of his true veracity... William Ernest Reid aka
John Douche... Such a big shot::complete loser, especially terrible
at chess... To Billy's state: Mood now: Squirming with my genitals in
a wad Listening to: Circlejerks, "Golden Shower of Hits"
But what about his big Jung tome (seemingly copped mostly from
Wikipedia?) Ha! He totally tried to pin plagiarism (in his snarky
way) on Hendricks' earlier for what he had to say. That killed me!
Funny that Reidiot(TM) will carry on forever about EWS as it suits
him, but yet he hates it so much and even now in "detail". I think he
prolly really hates it because the only sex he has had has been with
his hand and Autosuck(TM)("It swallows!") Furthermore, his "knowing"
what EWS was before seeing it all the way through just from Bill's
wallet and so forth is clearly another bit of contrivance fit to his
fancy that he actually can figure things out ahead of time. Wasn't
everybody impressed? PPFFFFTttttttt! Then why art thou so dense
otherwise, ya know?
You're wasting your time with no one except stupid disingenuous
Reidiot... As I've said before, Billy's primarily here to disrupt
things. That's how he gets his rocks off. He's not as successful at
this as he might be if only certain people didn't stand up to this
pathetic loner self and try and minister to him and talk to him as if
he had something human within. Of course he cries like a little baby
when ever this happens, which is so bittersweet.... I don't believe
who he is, that's my conclusion. A major phony and a source of
endless harassment, that's Reidiot(TM).
All lost on the idiots who live to ignore any kind of rational thought
beyond what simmers to the top of their own pisspot of a brain's, but
I liked it! Thanks so much!
---
William Ernest "Xeroxes Butt-Heads" Reid
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-18 16:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by Bill Reid
Where have I heard all this before?
Would be the perfect statement on your gravestone. It quite sums you
up.
Perfect. Short, nonsensical, veiled death wish. A "10".
Nah, "Short. Nonsensical." would indeed be a better statement.
Or just: "0". Bonus: a smaller gravestone!

Ofcourse, it's not a "veiled" death wish. It's just a death wish.
Keep improving yourself!

gR.
Bill Reid
2007-06-19 01:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by Bill Reid
Where have I heard all this before?
Would be the perfect statement on your gravestone. It quite sums you
up.
Perfect. Short, nonsensical, veiled death wish. A "10".
Nah, "Short. Nonsensical." would indeed be a better statement.
Or just: "0". Bonus: a smaller gravestone!
Ofcourse, it's not a "veiled" death wish. It's just a death wish.
Keep improving yourself!
I'd say the same to you, but how can you improve on what you've
accomplished in such a short time here? Even "Icky-Whipped" DENIED
his impulsive death wish, and he could claim he was "provoked" because
I said a movie he liked was laughably bad (not even a Kubrick movie!).
You're more like one of those guys that just goes beserk one day and
starts shooting up a mall, and he didn't even get fired or anything!

---
William Ernest "In This Case, 'Postal' Rates Actually Went Down" Reid
ichorwhip
2007-06-19 23:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by Bill Reid
Where have I heard all this before?
Would be the perfect statement on your gravestone. It quite sums you
up.
Perfect. Short, nonsensical, veiled death wish. A "10".
Nah, "Short. Nonsensical." would indeed be a better statement.
Or just: "0". Bonus: a smaller gravestone!
Ofcourse, it's not a "veiled" death wish. It's just a death wish.
Keep improving yourself!
I'd say the same to you, but how can you improve on what you've
accomplished in such a short time here?
Oh dear look at the baby filling his diaper again.... He wants to
live in his "widdle" world where he can make poopies free of any
constriction, and then he gets all offended when others decide they
can't stand him... BWAHAHAHA!!!! There! there! Reidiot(TM) dry your
puffy eyes....
Post by Bill Reid
Even "Icky-Whipped" DENIED
his impulsive death wish,
I wasn't really going to break into this somewhat interesting thread
with much, but here I have to clarify for all but vacuous Reidiot(TM)
what really transpired: Reidiot(TM) said that Zhivago's death scene
was LOL hysterical to him along with a mocking rendition just to show
how classy he is. A totally inappropriate remark designed to enrage
and provoke, his M.O. in short. I replied a wish that he laugh
himself to death watching it a further time, a bit out of line
perhaps, but certainly not a deathwish per se, but NO! This fool has
tried to keep this going forever as a means to "ward me off"
apparently. The truth is I wish death on no one, not even lowly
creatures like Reidiot(TM). It's my will to be like Jesus said to be,
although that's damned hard isn't it? Since Reidiot(TM) seems like a
fireant to me was it wrong to wish for that mound that popped up in my
yard to be obliterated? I wasn't thinking that when I poured a
cauldron of boiling water on it, oh me!
Post by Bill Reid
and he could claim he was "provoked" because
I said a movie he liked was laughably bad (not even a Kubrick movie!).
You're more like one of those guys that just goes beserk one day and
starts shooting up a mall, and he didn't even get fired or anything!
---
William Ernest "In This Case, 'Postal' Rates Actually Went Down" Reid
If he so offended and frightened you Billy, why didn't you report him
for abuse? Why not get your crack team of legal advisors on the hump,
they got some sueing to do! BWAHAHA!!! Neah, you'd rather
pathetically display your so-called indignation and "play the
victim." Baby needs a pacifier... and a baby wipe! PU!!!
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-20 00:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by R***@chello.nl
Post by Bill Reid
Where have I heard all this before?
Would be the perfect statement on your gravestone. It quite sums you
up.
Perfect. Short, nonsensical, veiled death wish. A "10".
Nah, "Short. Nonsensical." would indeed be a better statement.
Or just: "0". Bonus: a smaller gravestone!
Ofcourse, it's not a "veiled" death wish. It's just a death wish.
Keep improving yourself!
I'd say the same to you, but how can you improve on what you've
accomplished in such a short time here? Even "Icky-Whipped" DENIED
his impulsive death wish, and he could claim he was "provoked" because
I said a movie he liked was laughably bad (not even a Kubrick movie!).
He might be "provoked", indeed, and if so: to show pity, mercy, on
your behalf.
Makes sense alright, since your lack of talent, of any talent,
although especially the talent to insult, is a sad reality.
Anyway, even a stone bursts out in laughter, really, once you start to
"provoke", and it would certainly melt, if it had the eyes to read
your "analysis" on..., hell, on anything.
You and "provoking". That'll be the day. Good night, and good luck.
Post by Bill Reid
You're more like one of those guys that just goes beserk one day and
starts shooting up a mall, and he didn't even get fired or anything!
In that case, it would be more effective, if I would start handing out
your "Jungian Analysis" on Kubrick.
It would certainly destroy any mall within seconds, but without
transforming it into your kind of bloody mess.

Come to think of it: I've changed my mind.
I want you to live for years, forever and ever and ever.
As for your gravestone, forget about the statements.
Try to see it as a Jungian symbol.
Ehm, make that: your symbol.
Then listen carefully. And hear it's laughter.

gR.
Bill Reid
2007-06-20 02:00:58 UTC
Permalink
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex and some insect politics...

Sorry, better luck next time...and congratulations to "Yucky"!
If we can project constant improvements in your writing style based
on your last attempt, you'll only be a copy editor for another 10
years or so!

For those keeping score at home, here are the latest entries
Post by ichorwhip
Oh dear look at the baby filling his diaper again.... He wants to
live in his "widdle" world where he can make poopies free of any
constriction, and then he gets all offended when others decide they
can't stand him... BWAHAHAHA!!!! There! there! Reidiot(TM) dry your
puffy eyes....
I wasn't really going to break into this somewhat interesting thread
with much, but here I have to clarify for all but vacuous Reidiot(TM)
what really transpired: Reidiot(TM) said that Zhivago's death scene
was LOL hysterical to him along with a mocking rendition just to show
how classy he is. A totally inappropriate remark designed to enrage
and provoke, his M.O. in short. I replied a wish that he laugh
himself to death watching it a further time, a bit out of line
perhaps, but certainly not a deathwish per se, but NO! This fool has
tried to keep this going forever as a means to "ward me off"
apparently. The truth is I wish death on no one, not even lowly
creatures like Reidiot(TM). It's my will to be like Jesus said to be,
although that's damned hard isn't it? Since Reidiot(TM) seems like a
fireant to me was it wrong to wish for that mound that popped up in my
yard to be obliterated? I wasn't thinking that when I poured a
cauldron of boiling water on it, oh me!
If he so offended and frightened you Billy, why didn't you report him
for abuse? Why not get your crack team of legal advisors on the hump,
they got some sueing to do! BWAHAHA!!! Neah, you'd rather
pathetically display your so-called indignation and "play the
victim." Baby needs a pacifier... and a baby wipe! PU!!!
He might be "provoked", indeed, and if so: to show pity, mercy, on
your behalf.
Makes sense alright, since your lack of talent, of any talent,
although especially the talent to insult, is a sad reality.
Anyway, even a stone bursts out in laughter, really, once you start to
"provoke", and it would certainly melt, if it had the eyes to read
your "analysis" on..., hell, on anything.
You and "provoking". That'll be the day. Good night, and good luck.
In that case, it would be more effective, if I would start handing out
your "Jungian Analysis" on Kubrick.
It would certainly destroy any mall within seconds, but without
transforming it into your kind of bloody mess.
Come to think of it: I've changed my mind.
I want you to live for years, forever and ever and ever.
As for your gravestone, forget about the statements.
Try to see it as a Jungian symbol.
Ehm, make that: your symbol.
Then listen carefully. And hear it's laughter.
---
William Ernest "Competition Improves The Brayed" Reid
ichorwhip
2007-06-20 02:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex
We're starting to zero in on what makes you such a vile entity with
this... How then does showing a little tolerance and being forgiving
constitute a "Messiah complex?" Can't wait for this! Who knows? You
might even learn a thing or two about your disgusting self... "Go to
the mirror boy!"
Post by Bill Reid
and some insect politics...
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Post by Bill Reid
Sorry, better luck next time...and congratulations to "Yucky"!
If we can project constant improvements in your writing style based
on your last attempt, you'll only be a copy editor for another 10
years or so!
Except I'm not a copy editor you numbnut.

"He seems to be completely unreceptive.
The tests I gave him show no sense at all.
His eyes react to light the dials detect it.
He hears but cannot answer to your call."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-06-20 05:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Sorry, better luck next time...and congratulations to "Yucky"!
If we can project constant improvements in your writing style based
on your last attempt, you'll only be a copy editor for another 10
years or so!
Except I'm not a copy editor you numbnut.
SO YOU'RE A COPY "BOY"??!??!! I didn't think they even
existed any more, I thought they had installed pneumatic tubes or
sumpin'...

---
William Ernest "Monkeys Look Cute In 'Pressman Hats'?" Reid
ichorwhip
2007-06-20 21:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Sorry, better luck next time...and congratulations to "Yucky"!
If we can project constant improvements in your writing style based
on your last attempt, you'll only be a copy editor for another 10
years or so!
Except I'm not a copy editor you numbnut.
SO YOU'RE A COPY "BOY"??!??!! I didn't think they even
existed any more, I thought they had installed pneumatic tubes or
sumpin'...
---
William Ernest "Monkeys Look Cute In 'Pressman Hats'?" Reid
Felt compelled to snip out the question about the "Messiah complex"
etcetera I see, hmmmmmmm..... noted. That's the only thing I really
cared to hear from you Reidiot(TM). As to my employment, hey at
least I've got a job and don't get "paid" just once a month. Copy-
boy? BWAHAHA!!! Good one. No, we really have no need for them
anymore...

"Stop the presses!"
i
"piop"
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-20 09:23:21 UTC
Permalink
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for...........
Butterlike words. Don't play a puppy. Try again.

gR.
kelps
2007-06-20 20:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex and some insect politics...
The bare minimum of life support systems needed to contain the brilliance of
this NG.

The inability to discuss anything without nasty sarcasm and shouting is
exactly what Sk was parodying in the War Room. Anyone who cannot discuss
things regardless of the topic, without speaking in trollspeak are mentally
and behaviorally challenged.

Valid humor is good but there is nothing funny or sensible, about constant
flaming and pissing contests.

In regards to the recurring theme of these threads regarding Freud, Lacan
and Jung, all I have to add, is , none of them did a thing to relieve
suffering from the world. There is a difference between theory and
practice, and piling up words and theories, means nothing, especially since
their insights were the product of cocaine use---ya you heard me.

In truth all the theory they expounded was just old ground, previously
covered. Shallow and lacking in direct experience of anything beyond wordy
eurekas, egoic oceanic consciousness and manic cocaine regurgitations,
complete with nonsense word coinage. Not a one of them helped anyone. They
were ultimately quacks that had a good game and did alot of reading.






dc
ichorwhip
2007-06-20 22:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex and some insect politics...
The bare minimum of life support systems needed to contain the brilliance of
this NG.
The inability to discuss anything without nasty sarcasm and shouting is
exactly what Sk was parodying in the War Room. Anyone who cannot discuss
things regardless of the topic, without speaking in trollspeak are mentally
and behaviorally challenged.
Either that or they are continuously parodying (and outright
parroting) Kubrick on his own newsgroup... Imagine that! Reidiot(TM)
is valuable in that he can be studied continuously through a
"Kubrickscope." And he never knows when to shut up, and he can be
thanked for that in this regard.
Post by kelps
Valid humor is good but there is nothing funny or sensible, about constant
flaming and pissing contests.
I beg to differ. There is a lot funny about it depending on your
POV.
Post by kelps
In regards to the recurring theme of these threads regarding Freud, Lacan
and Jung, all I have to add, is , none of them did a thing to relieve
suffering from the world.
Okay fine, but WHO did?
Post by kelps
There is a difference between theory and
practice, and piling up words and theories, means nothing, especially since
their insights were the product of cocaine use---ya you heard me.
Low blow... ya get it?
Post by kelps
In truth all the theory they expounded was just old ground, previously
covered. Shallow and lacking in direct experience of anything beyond wordy
eurekas, egoic oceanic consciousness and manic cocaine regurgitations,
complete with nonsense word coinage. Not a one of them helped anyone. They
were ultimately quacks that had a good game and did alot of reading.
Maybe they should have just stuck to marijuana and LSD?

"We study the problem. We've been studying it for damn well near a
century, yes, but we get no further with our studies."
i
"piop"
blue
2007-06-22 10:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex and some insect politics...
The bare minimum of life support systems needed to contain the
brilliance of this NG.
The inability to discuss anything without nasty sarcasm and shouting is
exactly what Sk was parodying in the War Room. Anyone who cannot
discuss things regardless of the topic, without speaking in trollspeak
are mentally and behaviorally challenged.
Valid humor is good but there is nothing funny or sensible, about
constant flaming and pissing contests.
In regards to the recurring theme of these threads regarding Freud,
Lacan and Jung, all I have to add, is , none of them did a thing to
relieve suffering from the world. There is a difference between theory
and practice, and piling up words and theories, means nothing,
especially since their insights were the product of cocaine use---ya
you heard me.
This is a serious question not a goad just to get a reaction but I have
to ask what is it about drug use that annoys you or makes you think that
it isn't valid? Is it that it's not playing by 'the rules' (or what you
were born with)? Or is it the fact that they are illegal?

Several 'genius' states have been attributed to malfunctions in brain
chemistry, altered levels of dopemine which is in effect what drugs can
do to you. People are born with differing levels and some suffer harshly
for it. Epileptic states, autism etc. have all been linked to
extraordinary work simply because they are rare and in art rareness is
valued above the norm.

80 percent of people on the planet use coffee daily, coffee is a drug
and if you've seen what it does to spider webs (and human brains), in
comparison to other drugs you might wonder exactly why it's beneficial,
apart from keeping us all awake.

Interestingly the time when Frued was alive almost everybody was using
drugs of some sort:

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

Does that mean that you think the period between 1870 and 1914 were
complete writeoffs? Surely you can't, that's when film was being pioneered?

I'd really be interested to hear your thoughts.
kelps
2007-06-22 17:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex and some insect politics...
The bare minimum of life support systems needed to contain the brilliance
of this NG.
The inability to discuss anything without nasty sarcasm and shouting is
exactly what Sk was parodying in the War Room. Anyone who cannot discuss
things regardless of the topic, without speaking in trollspeak are
mentally and behaviorally challenged.
Valid humor is good but there is nothing funny or sensible, about
constant flaming and pissing contests.
In regards to the recurring theme of these threads regarding Freud, Lacan
and Jung, all I have to add, is , none of them did a thing to relieve
suffering from the world. There is a difference between theory and
practice, and piling up words and theories, means nothing, especially
since their insights were the product of cocaine use---ya you heard me.
This is a serious question not a goad just to get a reaction but I have to
ask what is it about drug use that annoys you or makes you think that it
isn't valid? Is it that it's not playing by 'the rules' (or what you were
born with)? Or is it the fact that they are illegal?
The word, "drug" is a very general word that lumps alot of things into the
same boat, that are not in the same boat.

Very moderate and occasional wine/alcohol use or moderate marijuana use is
fine for a little recreational use or to help one relax and can be
positive. Caffeine also can have some positive use, although more positive
with teas then coffees.

Alcohol, cocaine, methedrine, heroin/opiates and some others, are extremely
destructive drugs, when used with any consistency at all. They are like
fatal seductions and end up depleting neurotramsitters and cause serious
imbalances and physical addiction and withdrawl. They can produce brief
periods of altered states of consciousness that has influenced some
academic theorizing, art and music, but end up talking the user down a very
dark and evil path. All of these, can take a normal, non-psychotic person
and make them psychotic and in many cases, irreversibly psychotic. None of
these drugs can be called Visionary plants, even though some of them may
produce a state of increased awareness and freed inhibitions when first used
but with consistent use, can cause addictions, delusion and
hallucinations, mania, and real psychosis, including permenent, negative
changes. They are not useful to proper yogic meditation.

True Visionary Plants and their derivitives, are in an entirely different
category. They do not have the addictive quality. They can assist
meditation and can produce very profound. life-changing, "religious
experience," and valid cosmic experience.

Psychopharmacology is still a very primitive science.
Several 'genius' states have been attributed to malfunctions in brain
chemistry, altered levels of dopemine which is in effect what drugs can do
to you. People are born with differing levels and some suffer harshly for
it. Epileptic states, autism etc. have all been linked to extraordinary
work simply because they are rare and in art rareness is valued above the
norm.
Altering consciousness by any means, momentarily can produce a limited kind
of insight. Anything that can break the chain of habitual, patterning
forces, can result in various levels of awakening. Understanding of
imbalances in brain chemistry and the mechanisms of neurotransmitters is
still very vague. The history of using "drug" substances goes back into
prehistory. A body of Wisdom about the use of these things, does exist.
Even ancient people's knew the difference between the bad and good
substances, but even in ancient times, prohibitions against the bad drugs
has also lumped the true visionary substances, inot the same category. Some
institutionalized religions also controlled the use of visionary
plants--allowing only those who they ordained, to legally use the visionary
substances.
80 percent of people on the planet use coffee daily, coffee is a drug and
if you've seen what it does to spider webs (and human brains), in
comparison to other drugs you might wonder exactly why it's beneficial,
apart from keeping us all awake.
Interestingly the time when Frued was alive almost everybody was using
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Binge
Does that mean that you think the period between 1870 and 1914 were
complete writeoffs? Surely you can't, that's when film was being pioneered?
I'd really be interested to hear your thoughts.
It's not all a write off, but it has obfustacated the real truth about
things.

dc
blue
2007-06-24 12:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by blue
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex and some insect politics...
The bare minimum of life support systems needed to contain the
brilliance of this NG.
The inability to discuss anything without nasty sarcasm and shouting
is exactly what Sk was parodying in the War Room. Anyone who cannot
discuss things regardless of the topic, without speaking in
trollspeak are mentally and behaviorally challenged.
Valid humor is good but there is nothing funny or sensible, about
constant flaming and pissing contests.
In regards to the recurring theme of these threads regarding Freud,
Lacan and Jung, all I have to add, is , none of them did a thing to
relieve suffering from the world. There is a difference between
theory and practice, and piling up words and theories, means
nothing, especially since their insights were the product of cocaine
use---ya you heard me.
This is a serious question not a goad just to get a reaction but I
have to ask what is it about drug use that annoys you or makes you
think that it isn't valid? Is it that it's not playing by 'the rules'
(or what you were born with)? Or is it the fact that they are illegal?
The word, "drug" is a very general word that lumps alot of things into
the same boat, that are not in the same boat.
Very moderate and occasional wine/alcohol use or moderate marijuana use
is fine for a little recreational use or to help one relax and can be
positive. Caffeine also can have some positive use, although more
positive with teas then coffees.
Alcohol, cocaine, methedrine, heroin/opiates and some others, are
extremely destructive drugs, when used with any consistency at all.
They are like fatal seductions and end up depleting neurotramsitters and
cause serious imbalances and physical addiction and withdrawl. They can
produce brief periods of altered states of consciousness that has
influenced some academic theorizing, art and music, but end up talking
the user down a very dark and evil path. All of these, can take a
normal, non-psychotic person and make them psychotic and in many cases,
irreversibly psychotic. None of these drugs can be called Visionary
plants, even though some of them may produce a state of increased
awareness and freed inhibitions when first used but with consistent
use, can cause addictions, delusion and hallucinations, mania, and
real psychosis, including permenent, negative changes. They are not
useful to proper yogic meditation.
True Visionary Plants and their derivitives, are in an entirely
different category. They do not have the addictive quality. They can
assist meditation and can produce very profound. life-changing,
"religious experience," and valid cosmic experience.
Psychopharmacology is still a very primitive science.
Post by blue
Several 'genius' states have been attributed to malfunctions in brain
chemistry, altered levels of dopemine which is in effect what drugs
can do to you. People are born with differing levels and some suffer
harshly for it. Epileptic states, autism etc. have all been linked to
extraordinary work simply because they are rare and in art rareness is
valued above the norm.
Altering consciousness by any means, momentarily can produce a limited
kind of insight. Anything that can break the chain of habitual,
patterning forces, can result in various levels of awakening.
Understanding of imbalances in brain chemistry and the mechanisms of
neurotransmitters is still very vague. The history of using "drug"
substances goes back into prehistory. A body of Wisdom about the use
of these things, does exist. Even ancient people's knew the difference
between the bad and good substances, but even in ancient times,
prohibitions against the bad drugs has also lumped the true visionary
substances, inot the same category. Some institutionalized religions
also controlled the use of visionary plants--allowing only those who
they ordained, to legally use the visionary substances.
Post by blue
80 percent of people on the planet use coffee daily, coffee is a drug
and if you've seen what it does to spider webs (and human brains), in
comparison to other drugs you might wonder exactly why it's
beneficial, apart from keeping us all awake.
Interestingly the time when Frued was alive almost everybody was using
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Binge
Does that mean that you think the period between 1870 and 1914 were
complete writeoffs? Surely you can't, that's when film was being pioneered?
I'd really be interested to hear your thoughts.
It's not all a write off, but it has obfustacated the real truth about
things.
dc
Was that just a cut a paste? I'm not sure why yoga is relevant? I'd
argue that anything done to excess is going to have negative effects. I
don't see how they make the 'positive' effects you might recieve
negative through association though.
kelps
2007-06-24 19:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by blue
Post by kelps
Post by blue
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
OK, "R(I)P", I'm going to have to give the prize for this
latest volley of insults to..."Icky"!!! Made me LOL several
times, while yours, well...yours was just kinda dull. And it really
didn't have much of a coherent unifying theme, while "Master
Whipped" provided a laser-like critique of pure bile that
fairly skillfully worked through a theme of infantile evacuation,
though he got sidetracked briefly with an embarrassing Messiah
complex and some insect politics...
The bare minimum of life support systems needed to contain the
brilliance of this NG.
The inability to discuss anything without nasty sarcasm and shouting is
exactly what Sk was parodying in the War Room. Anyone who cannot
discuss things regardless of the topic, without speaking in trollspeak
are mentally and behaviorally challenged.
Valid humor is good but there is nothing funny or sensible, about
constant flaming and pissing contests.
In regards to the recurring theme of these threads regarding Freud,
Lacan and Jung, all I have to add, is , none of them did a thing to
relieve suffering from the world. There is a difference between theory
and practice, and piling up words and theories, means nothing,
especially since their insights were the product of cocaine use---ya
you heard me.
This is a serious question not a goad just to get a reaction but I have
to ask what is it about drug use that annoys you or makes you think that
it isn't valid? Is it that it's not playing by 'the rules' (or what you
were born with)? Or is it the fact that they are illegal?
The word, "drug" is a very general word that lumps alot of things into
the same boat, that are not in the same boat.
Very moderate and occasional wine/alcohol use or moderate marijuana use
is fine for a little recreational use or to help one relax and can be
positive. Caffeine also can have some positive use, although more
positive with teas then coffees.
Alcohol, cocaine, methedrine, heroin/opiates and some others, are
extremely destructive drugs, when used with any consistency at all. They
are like fatal seductions and end up depleting neurotramsitters and cause
serious imbalances and physical addiction and withdrawl. They can
produce brief periods of altered states of consciousness that has
influenced some academic theorizing, art and music, but end up talking
the user down a very dark and evil path. All of these, can take a
normal, non-psychotic person and make them psychotic and in many cases,
irreversibly psychotic. None of these drugs can be called Visionary
plants, even though some of them may produce a state of increased
awareness and freed inhibitions when first used but with consistent use,
can cause addictions, delusion and hallucinations, mania, and real
psychosis, including permenent, negative changes. They are not useful to
proper yogic meditation.
True Visionary Plants and their derivitives, are in an entirely different
category. They do not have the addictive quality. They can assist
meditation and can produce very profound. life-changing, "religious
experience," and valid cosmic experience.
Psychopharmacology is still a very primitive science.
Post by blue
Several 'genius' states have been attributed to malfunctions in brain
chemistry, altered levels of dopemine which is in effect what drugs can
do to you. People are born with differing levels and some suffer harshly
for it. Epileptic states, autism etc. have all been linked to
extraordinary work simply because they are rare and in art rareness is
valued above the norm.
Altering consciousness by any means, momentarily can produce a limited
kind of insight. Anything that can break the chain of habitual,
patterning forces, can result in various levels of awakening.
Understanding of imbalances in brain chemistry and the mechanisms of
neurotransmitters is still very vague. The history of using "drug"
substances goes back into prehistory. A body of Wisdom about the use of
these things, does exist. Even ancient people's knew the difference
between the bad and good substances, but even in ancient times,
prohibitions against the bad drugs has also lumped the true visionary
substances, inot the same category. Some institutionalized religions also
controlled the use of visionary plants--allowing only those who they
ordained, to legally use the visionary substances.
Post by blue
80 percent of people on the planet use coffee daily, coffee is a drug
and if you've seen what it does to spider webs (and human brains), in
comparison to other drugs you might wonder exactly why it's beneficial,
apart from keeping us all awake.
Interestingly the time when Frued was alive almost everybody was using
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Binge
Does that mean that you think the period between 1870 and 1914 were
complete writeoffs? Surely you can't, that's when film was being pioneered?
I'd really be interested to hear your thoughts.
It's not all a write off, but it has obfustacated the real truth about
things.
dc
Was that just a cut a paste?
In this quoted post? no not a cut and paste.
Post by blue
I'm not sure why yoga is relevant?
Yoga is relevent in the same way that intelligence, concentration, common
sense, consciousness, or purpose of life is relevent. Toss out the word
yoga and replace it with focus or practicing how to focus.
Post by blue
I'd argue that anything done to excess is going to have negative effects.
And some things should not be done at all.
Post by blue
I don't see how they make the 'positive' effects you might recieve
negative through association though.
Not sure what you mean.

The concensus mind operates at the lowest common denominator. It works by
habituation and associations and labels things accordingly.

dc
Harry Bailey
2007-06-16 23:46:51 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 16, 2:34 am, ***@chello.nl wrote:

"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries
to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."

AMK's past revisited ("Is that you Dutch Angle? Is This Me!").

Inner soul? Mental truth? Confirm? Um ...

"But isn't it a question of accepting that what he imagined to be his
'inner' self is nothing but a spectre? That there is nothing at all
behind the mask? That his being always was split from the
beginning.... "

"What I find puzzling is your insistence on separating out the
(inevitably failed) search to recover the always illusory and only
ever imaginary 'unity' of the self from the issue of sexual revenge.
From a Lacanian point of view, the idea of a 'unified' self that
became broken is a narcissistic fantasy (the defence and recovery of
which lead us into all manner of atrocious acts). What Alice says
disrupts Bill's fantasy, which, as the quote you cite above reveals
so clearly, depends upon his being 'sure of her.' But the problem
with
making it all about Bill's 'self-discovery' (or the discovery of the
vacancy of his self) is that this, precisely, echoes Bill's
male-centric POV, and makes Alice/woman a bitpart player in his
psychodrama. "

"The assumption in many interpretations of EWS is that Bill is
shaken out of his complacency into some kind of revelation. But the
revelation seems to be essentially negative ---- i.e. Bill, his
marriage, and the social milieu in which he moves are _not_ what he
thought they were ---- however, he seems to be no closer to
understanding what they _are_. "

"I'm not sure, however, that I agree with the idea that the film ends
on the positive note you suggest. There's certainly a closure, but it
strikes me as profoundly ambiguous: what is being kept out, what in,
by this (final) act of closure? Is this the reconcilation of desire
with love? Or the acceptance of their inevitable estrangement? Far
from being a journey towards revelation, does the film in fact end in
a willed refusal to see? A deliberate turning away both from what is
beneath/beyond their relationship, and from the corrupt (even
homicidal) social scene in which they move. Is such a willed
blindness
the price that must be paid for the maintenance of their marriage,
their 'love'? Is it, then, only at the end that the Harfords' eyes
are
wide shut? "

"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
Bill Reid
2007-06-17 17:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."
"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
It's worth noting that people project their obsessions onto
everything they encounter in life; a member of NAMBLA
might very well say, "Stanley Kubrick would have loved
Michael Jackson."

Likewise, a person consumed with the seizure of power for
themself, that is, a "politician", will see all aspects of life, including
"art", through that prism. One way or another, every film they
see will just be reduced to some form of supporting "evidence"
to be co-opted for their rhetoric as they "struggle" to assume
"power" over others.

For the truly thoughtful person, a "serious" film might be seen
as "multi-layered" (hopefully not "ambiguous"), that examines
several inter-related instances of overall common themes, played
out at different levels. They might even consider the idea put
forward by some that "society" can just be considered the
projection of "struggles" within each individual.

But you're right, that might be giving "Eyes Wide Shut" too much
credit. Everybody knows that politicians are BORING, and "Eyes
Wide Shut" is one of the most BORING films ever made, and as
you stumble through your frustrated powerless life, you may have
hit on the reason why.

I still vividly recall seeing the film the first time. I remember sitting
there in the almost entirely-unpopulated theater a couple days after
the film's much-hyped release, and hearing Tom Cruise utter the
first line of the movie, "Honey, have you seen my wallet?", and
feeling my heart sink in my chest.

I KNEW at that moment what I was in for, and I knew it was
going to be like three hours of living death. I KNEW Tom was
gonna be flashing that wallet throughout the movie, I KNEW
what every boring plot "twist" was going to be, I KNEW what
every tedious line of dialog was going to be. And I dreaded
having to sit through it, but resisted the strong urge to just get
up and walk out...and I came to muchly regret that resolve...

"MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!
MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
little Stanley screamed at me in his swan song for seeming
centuries of ennui, until at one point I thought my soul actually
left my body and was looking down at my corpse, crumpled
over after having the life crushed out of it through sheer
boredom.

So yes, it is quite possible that Kubrick's quite hardened
brain arteries reduced him to dull shrill polemic by the end
of his life, but you gotta lotta nerve to disparage Kafka by
comparing him to "Eyes Wide Shut", you rotten stinking
BORING bastard...

---
William Ernest "MONEY! SEX! POWER!" Reid
kelps
2007-06-17 20:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."
"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
It's worth noting that people project their obsessions onto
everything they encounter in life; a member of NAMBLA
might very well say, "Stanley Kubrick would have loved
Michael Jackson."
Likewise, a person consumed with the seizure of power for
themself, that is, a "politician", will see all aspects of life, including
"art", through that prism. One way or another, every film they
see will just be reduced to some form of supporting "evidence"
to be co-opted for their rhetoric as they "struggle" to assume
"power" over others.
For the truly thoughtful person, a "serious" film might be seen
as "multi-layered" (hopefully not "ambiguous"), that examines
several inter-related instances of overall common themes, played
out at different levels. They might even consider the idea put
forward by some that "society" can just be considered the
projection of "struggles" within each individual.
But you're right, that might be giving "Eyes Wide Shut" too much
credit. Everybody knows that politicians are BORING, and "Eyes
Wide Shut" is one of the most BORING films ever made, and as
you stumble through your frustrated powerless life, you may have
hit on the reason why.
I still vividly recall seeing the film the first time. I remember sitting
there in the almost entirely-unpopulated theater a couple days after
the film's much-hyped release, and hearing Tom Cruise utter the
first line of the movie, "Honey, have you seen my wallet?", and
feeling my heart sink in my chest.
I KNEW at that moment what I was in for, and I knew it was
going to be like three hours of living death. I KNEW Tom was
gonna be flashing that wallet throughout the movie, I KNEW
what every boring plot "twist" was going to be, I KNEW what
every tedious line of dialog was going to be. And I dreaded
having to sit through it, but resisted the strong urge to just get
up and walk out...and I came to muchly regret that resolve...
"MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!
MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
little Stanley screamed at me in his swan song for seeming
centuries of ennui, until at one point I thought my soul actually
left my body and was looking down at my corpse, crumpled
over after having the life crushed out of it through sheer
boredom.
So yes, it is quite possible that Kubrick's quite hardened
brain arteries reduced him to dull shrill polemic by the end
of his life, but you gotta lotta nerve to disparage Kafka by
comparing him to "Eyes Wide Shut", you rotten stinking
BORING bastard...
---
William Ernest "MONEY! SEX! POWER!" Reid
I think you need to have that looked at.

You are sitting in the theater, with "Stanley" yelling, ""MONEY! SEX!
POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"

The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to see
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.

The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade and instead were met with a film about their own mundane GUILT and
PARANOID fears, that tapped into and probed, the unconscious aspects of
their own guilt and sexual repressions, in a hysterically funny and
sarcastic way, and left them feeling empty, because their ability to see
themselves and laugh at it, is already so tenuous that they cannot face it.

Although you have posted you are a fan of 2001, I would submit that had
you not seen 2001 until the late 90's. you would have been sitting in the
theater with "Stanley yelling" at you again.

Were you to have never seen 2001 originally, and saw it in your current
state of consciousness, you would be calling it boring and yelling at you,
"APES,SPACE,COMPUTERS, ALIENS"
and you would be equally dismissive, elaborating on how BORING it was.

SO I think the hardened arteries in your brain, might be to blame and not
"Stanley's"

dc
Bill Reid
2007-06-17 23:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."
"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
I still vividly recall seeing the film the first time. I remember sitting
there in the almost entirely-unpopulated theater a couple days after
the film's much-hyped release, and hearing Tom Cruise utter the
first line of the movie, "Honey, have you seen my wallet?", and
feeling my heart sink in my chest.
I KNEW at that moment what I was in for, and I knew it was
going to be like three hours of living death. I KNEW Tom was
gonna be flashing that wallet throughout the movie, I KNEW
what every boring plot "twist" was going to be, I KNEW what
every tedious line of dialog was going to be. And I dreaded
having to sit through it, but resisted the strong urge to just get
up and walk out...and I came to muchly regret that resolve...
"MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!
MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
little Stanley screamed at me in his swan song for seeming
centuries of ennui, until at one point I thought my soul actually
left my body and was looking down at my corpse, crumpled
over after having the life crushed out of it through sheer
boredom.
So yes, it is quite possible that Kubrick's quite hardened
brain arteries reduced him to dull shrill polemic by the end
of his life, but you gotta lotta nerve to disparage Kafka by
comparing him to "Eyes Wide Shut", you rotten stinking
BORING bastard...
You are sitting in the theater, with "Stanley" yelling, ""MONEY! SEX!
POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to see
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Post by kelps
and instead were met with a film about their own mundane GUILT and
PARANOID fears, that tapped into and probed, the unconscious aspects of
their own guilt and sexual repressions,
Again, he appears to "psyching" some imaginary folks that exist only
in his head...also, note that he is in conflict with "Bailey's Hairy" as to
the
TRUE theme of the movie (at least in the diatribe according to
"Tomentose Bailey")...
Post by kelps
in a hysterically funny and
sarcastic way,
Oh yeah, "Eyes Wide Shut" was a friggin' laugh riot...man, you
don't have to know this guy is a major doper to realize it when he
writes stuff like this...
Post by kelps
and left them feeling empty, because their ability to see
themselves and laugh at it, is already so tenuous that they cannot face it.
OK, that's them, now what about ME? I wanna know about
ME, ME, ME!!!
Post by kelps
Although you have posted you are a fan of 2001, I would submit that had
you not seen 2001 until the late 90's. you would have been sitting in the
theater with "Stanley yelling" at you again.
Submitted for your approval, the fantasies of a brain-damaged acid-head...

REJECTED!!!

Reason: Failure to state even a shred of supporting evidence.
Attempted proof by assertion and whack-o conjecture.
Post by kelps
Were you to have never seen 2001 originally, and saw it in your current
state of consciousness, you would be calling it boring and yelling at you,
"APES,SPACE,COMPUTERS, ALIENS"
and you would be equally dismissive, elaborating on how BORING it was.
I've always said that I can see the "other side" of people who claim it
was a tremendously boring movie. Just because it didn't strike ME that
way doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate their self-worth like you
do when somebody criticizes something you like...
Post by kelps
SO I think the hardened arteries in your brain, might be to blame and not
"Stanley's"
OK, there it is, bottom line, he got me good. His brilliant analysis, with
all his psychoanalytical training, boils down to:

"I KNOW KUBRICK IS, BUT WHAT ARE YOU?!??!!!"

This must be the most sobering anti-drug message imaginable, and
should run as a PSA with a picture of his 60-year-old straggly face
on all children's programming to "scare them straight"...

---
William Ernest "Neither Stupid Nor Stoned" Reid
kelps
2007-06-18 00:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."
"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
I still vividly recall seeing the film the first time. I remember
sitting
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
there in the almost entirely-unpopulated theater a couple days after
the film's much-hyped release, and hearing Tom Cruise utter the
first line of the movie, "Honey, have you seen my wallet?", and
feeling my heart sink in my chest.
I KNEW at that moment what I was in for, and I knew it was
going to be like three hours of living death. I KNEW Tom was
gonna be flashing that wallet throughout the movie, I KNEW
what every boring plot "twist" was going to be, I KNEW what
every tedious line of dialog was going to be. And I dreaded
having to sit through it, but resisted the strong urge to just get
up and walk out...and I came to muchly regret that resolve...
"MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!
MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
little Stanley screamed at me in his swan song for seeming
centuries of ennui, until at one point I thought my soul actually
left my body and was looking down at my corpse, crumpled
over after having the life crushed out of it through sheer
boredom.
So yes, it is quite possible that Kubrick's quite hardened
brain arteries reduced him to dull shrill polemic by the end
of his life, but you gotta lotta nerve to disparage Kafka by
comparing him to "Eyes Wide Shut", you rotten stinking
BORING bastard...
You are sitting in the theater, with "Stanley" yelling, ""MONEY! SEX!
POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to see
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
and instead were met with a film about their own mundane GUILT and
PARANOID fears, that tapped into and probed, the unconscious aspects of
their own guilt and sexual repressions,
Again, he appears to "psyching" some imaginary folks that exist only
in his head...also, note that he is in conflict with "Bailey's Hairy" as to
the
TRUE theme of the movie (at least in the diatribe according to
"Tomentose Bailey")...
Post by kelps
in a hysterically funny and
sarcastic way,
Oh yeah, "Eyes Wide Shut" was a friggin' laugh riot...man, you
don't have to know this guy is a major doper to realize it when he
writes stuff like this...
When you attempt to categorize me as a "major doper" you are simply
destroying any possibility of credibility. I have never been a "major
doper." Even in the 60's I was never a "major doper." My experience with
meditation and visionary plant substances in the 60's was stretched out over
a 2 year period and I have written about the importance of these
very-different-from-"drugs" substances for research, as do many smart
people, even when their usage of these things was 40 years ago.

But completely stupid, thinking-he's-hip, people like you, usually have a
history of major alcohol, cocaine and maybe some vicodan use, which would
qualify you as a major doper. I've never been into such things. You will
deny your are a drunken fool, this will be a lie. Chances are you are a
habitual drinker who has been killing your brain cell for a good part of
your life.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
and left them feeling empty, because their ability to see
themselves and laugh at it, is already so tenuous that they cannot face
it.
OK, that's them, now what about ME? I wanna know about
ME, ME, ME!!!
Post by kelps
Although you have posted you are a fan of 2001, I would submit that had
you not seen 2001 until the late 90's. you would have been sitting in the
theater with "Stanley yelling" at you again.
Submitted for your approval, the fantasies of a brain-damaged acid-head...
No matter how many times, moronic fools like you, say things connecting LSD
with "brain damage" does not make it true. There have never been any
evidence of any "brain damage" from LSD use, except in cases of extreme
dosages given to rodents that would be many thousands of times any users
dose. But the realiyt of thisis any substance given in such a large quatity
would cause those kind of effects to rodents.

LSD used by schizophrenics or other kinds of severely disturbed people
could have disasterous effects, but caffeine, alchohol marihuana or even
some vitimin supplements and certain prescription medications, could have
disasterous effects
Post by Bill Reid
REJECTED!!!
Reason: Failure to state even a shred of supporting evidence.
Attempted proof by assertion and whack-o conjecture.
It is obvious to me that you are not the same person that once enjoyed 2001.
Call it conjecture if you like, but you are very sick person. That is not
conjecture, but just based on your habit of being a total ass on the
internet.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Were you to have never seen 2001 originally, and saw it in your current
state of consciousness, you would be calling it boring and yelling at you,
"APES,SPACE,COMPUTERS, ALIENS"
and you would be equally dismissive, elaborating on how BORING it was.
I've always said that I can see the "other side" of people who claim it
was a tremendously boring movie. Just because it didn't strike ME that
way doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate their self-worth like you
do when somebody criticizes something you like...
And what would that "other side" that you see be? that those people were
just dumb and lacked concentration? the same is true of your hatred of EWS,
whihc is a singular work of pure filmaking genius.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
SO I think the hardened arteries in your brain, might be to blame and not
"Stanley's"
OK, there it is, bottom line, he got me good. His brilliant analysis, with
"I KNOW KUBRICK IS, BUT WHAT ARE YOU?!??!!!"
No. I never said "Kubrick is"---I said you are. You are not the same person
who saw 2001, back when you saw it. Today you are a gambling addict, imaging
you understand probability. You have also pretended you have a
understanding of Jungianism, yet have no real background in it or know it's
sources, but you attempt making serious posts ahbout Jungianism, to
compensate for your diminished comprehension of your own consciousness and
how things really work.

There is never any point to your posts other then flaming and being
obnoxious or trying to assert the few remaining shreds of intelliginece you
may at one time had.

dc
Post by Bill Reid
This must be the most sobering anti-drug message imaginable, and
should run as a PSA with a picture of his 60-year-old straggly face
on all children's programming to "scare them straight"...
---
William Ernest "Neither Stupid Nor Stoned" Reid
Bill Reid
2007-06-19 16:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to see
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
How about doing something for once for the sake of REALITY?
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
and instead were met with a film about their own mundane GUILT and
PARANOID fears, that tapped into and probed, the unconscious aspects of
their own guilt and sexual repressions,
in a hysterically funny and
sarcastic way,
Oh yeah, "Eyes Wide Shut" was a friggin' laugh riot...man, you
don't have to know this guy is a major doper to realize it when he
writes stuff like this...
When you attempt to categorize me as a "major doper" you are simply
destroying any possibility of credibility. I have never been a "major
doper." Even in the 60's I was never a "major doper." My experience with
meditation and visionary plant substances in the 60's was stretched out over
a 2 year period and I have written about the importance of these
very-different-from-"drugs" substances for research, as do many smart
people, even when their usage of these things was 40 years ago.
You're such a brain-damaged doper you even claimed that the
reason some people didn't like "2001" is that they didn't previously
damage THEIR brains with LSD, and that failure to do so made
them "automotans"...
Post by kelps
But completely stupid, thinking-he's-hip, people like you, usually have a
history of major alcohol, cocaine and maybe some vicodan use, which would
qualify you as a major doper. I've never been into such things. You will
deny your are a drunken fool, this will be a lie.
I'm still waiting for you to describe my home office, since you claimed
to be so good at ESP. While you're at it, why don't you tell me just how
much alcohol I've consumed in say the last month, since you just called
me a "drunken fool"...don't worry that you really DON'T have any
ESP, just make crap up as you go along in your drug-damaged
state as always...
Post by kelps
Chances are you are a
habitual drinker who has been killing your brain cell for a good part of
your life.
Another person who hates Americans...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
and left them feeling empty, because their ability to see
themselves and laugh at it, is already so tenuous that they cannot face
it.
OK, that's them, now what about ME? I wanna know about
ME, ME, ME!!!
Post by kelps
Although you have posted you are a fan of 2001, I would submit that had
you not seen 2001 until the late 90's. you would have been sitting in the
theater with "Stanley yelling" at you again.
Submitted for your approval, the fantasies of a brain-damaged acid-head...
No matter how many times, moronic fools like you, say things connecting LSD
with "brain damage" does not make it true.
It is absolutely true, I've already corrected you on this but you are
too brain-damaged to understand. LSD is known to cause "flashbacks"
weeks, months, even years after a single use. The UNDAMAGED
human brain does NOT have "flashbacks", or spontaneous
"hallucinogenic" experiences. The brain DAMAGED by LSD
DOES.

Simple enough for you, Spanky? LSD apparently permanently
alters brain chemistry. That's DAMAGE.
Post by kelps
There have never been any
evidence of any "brain damage" from LSD use, except in cases of extreme
dosages given to rodents that would be many thousands of times any users
dose.
You're re-defining their heads exploding or something as evidence of
"brain damage". You're disingenuous at best.
Post by kelps
LSD used by schizophrenics or other kinds of severely disturbed people
could have disasterous effects, but caffeine, alchohol marihuana or even
some vitimin supplements and certain prescription medications, could have
disasterous effects
Now you're mucking up the concepts of "disasterous" effects and
conflating all distinguishable effects of other substances. Why not
throw aspirin in there as well?
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
REJECTED!!!
Reason: Failure to state even a shred of supporting evidence.
Attempted proof by assertion and whack-o conjecture.
It is obvious to me that you are not the same person that once enjoyed 2001.
Call it conjecture if you like, but you are very sick person.
I just call it "name-calling", because that is what it is.

Your brilliant "analysis" of why I didn't like a movie is that
I am a "sick person". Why not just call me a "poopy-head"
and be done with it?
Post by kelps
That is not
conjecture, but just based on your habit of being a total ass on the
internet.
OH YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE A POOPY-HEAD, BUT
WHAT AM I?
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Were you to have never seen 2001 originally, and saw it in your current
state of consciousness, you would be calling it boring and yelling at you,
"APES,SPACE,COMPUTERS, ALIENS"
and you would be equally dismissive, elaborating on how BORING it was.
I've always said that I can see the "other side" of people who claim it
was a tremendously boring movie. Just because it didn't strike ME that
way doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate their self-worth like you
do when somebody criticizes something you like...
And what would that "other side" that you see be? that those people were
just dumb and lacked concentration?
No, that they just didn't like it, and frankly, it is a long movie that
consists of a lot of repetitive shots of spaceships flying around. Again,
I don't feel the need that you and the other "borderline" personalities
here (actually well over the "line") to call people names and wish
death on them just because they don't share MY opinion.

It's called being an adult, it's called getting along with other
humans, it's called being a decent human being, look into it;
I mean, you've still got maybe five years left in your pathetic
life, you could still change it around and have a few months
of normal adult living in your life...
Post by kelps
the same is true of your hatred of EWS,
whihc is a singular work of pure filmaking genius.
And everybody who doesn't agree with your opinion
about this is a "poopy-head", right?
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
SO I think the hardened arteries in your brain, might be to blame and not
"Stanley's"
OK, there it is, bottom line, he got me good. His brilliant analysis, with
"I KNOW KUBRICK IS, BUT WHAT ARE YOU?!??!!!"
No. I never said "Kubrick is"---I said you are.
CORRECTION:

I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?!!??!!
Post by kelps
You are not the same person
who saw 2001, back when you saw it. Today you are a gambling addict, imaging
you understand probability. You have also pretended you have a
understanding of Jungianism, yet have no real background in it or know it's
sources, but you attempt making serious posts ahbout Jungianism, to
compensate for your diminished comprehension of your own consciousness and
how things really work.
Yes, and I drive a car now too, just not a cool car like a 23-year-old
Honda Accord...
Post by kelps
There is never any point to your posts other then flaming and being
obnoxious or trying to assert the few remaining shreds of intelliginece you
may at one time had.
This is a lie, but thankfully it is the last lie and insult in this idiotic
post...

---
William Ernest "Unbroken" Reid
kelps
2007-06-19 19:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
How about doing something for once for the sake of REALITY?
The only reality about you, is that you are a internet troll.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
and instead were met with a film about their own mundane GUILT and
PARANOID fears, that tapped into and probed, the unconscious aspects
of
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
their own guilt and sexual repressions,
in a hysterically funny and
sarcastic way,
Oh yeah, "Eyes Wide Shut" was a friggin' laugh riot...man, you
don't have to know this guy is a major doper to realize it when he
writes stuff like this...
When you attempt to categorize me as a "major doper" you are simply
destroying any possibility of credibility. I have never been a "major
doper." Even in the 60's I was never a "major doper." My experience
with
Post by kelps
meditation and visionary plant substances in the 60's was stretched out
over
Post by kelps
a 2 year period and I have written about the importance of these
very-different-from-"drugs" substances for research, as do many smart
people, even when their usage of these things was 40 years ago.
You're such a brain-damaged doper you even claimed that the
reason some people didn't like "2001" is that they didn't previously
damage THEIR brains with LSD, and that failure to do so made
them "automotans"...
Post by kelps
But completely stupid, thinking-he's-hip, people like you, usually have
a
Post by kelps
history of major alcohol, cocaine and maybe some vicodan use, which would
qualify you as a major doper. I've never been into such things. You will
deny your are a drunken fool, this will be a lie.
I'm still waiting for you to describe my home office, since you claimed
to be so good at ESP. While you're at it, why don't you tell me just how
much alcohol I've consumed in say the last month, since you just called
me a "drunken fool"...don't worry that you really DON'T have any
ESP, just make crap up as you go along in your drug-damaged
state as always...
On the wagon? Thats good.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Chances are you are a
habitual drinker who has been killing your brain cell for a good part of
your life.
Another person who hates Americans...
I hate loudmouth jerks like you, but it's your behavior I hate not you.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
and left them feeling empty, because their ability to see
themselves and laugh at it, is already so tenuous that they cannot face
it.
OK, that's them, now what about ME? I wanna know about
ME, ME, ME!!!
Post by kelps
Although you have posted you are a fan of 2001, I would submit that
had
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
you not seen 2001 until the late 90's. you would have been sitting in
the
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
theater with "Stanley yelling" at you again.
Submitted for your approval, the fantasies of a brain-damaged
acid-head...
Post by kelps
No matter how many times, moronic fools like you, say things connecting
LSD
Post by kelps
with "brain damage" does not make it true.
It is absolutely true, I've already corrected you on this but you are
too brain-damaged to understand. LSD is known to cause "flashbacks"
weeks, months, even years after a single use. The UNDAMAGED
human brain does NOT have "flashbacks", or spontaneous
"hallucinogenic" experiences. The brain DAMAGED by LSD
DOES.
You are a fool. As Leary once said, "Flashbacks? Gee I wish I had some."
Post by Bill Reid
Simple enough for you, Spanky? LSD apparently permanently
alters brain chemistry. That's DAMAGE.
You are a kook spouting nonsense.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
There have never been any
evidence of any "brain damage" from LSD use, except in cases of extreme
dosages given to rodents that would be many thousands of times any users
dose.
You're re-defining their heads exploding or something as evidence of
"brain damage". You're disingenuous at best.
I've spent 40 years studying this stuff. You haven't a clue and are just
spouting old, dim, propaganda, created by people wanting to control people.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
LSD used by schizophrenics or other kinds of severely disturbed people
could have disasterous effects, but caffeine, alchohol marihuana or even
some vitimin supplements and certain prescription medications, could have
disasterous effects
Now you're mucking up the concepts of "disasterous" effects and
conflating all distinguishable effects of other substances. Why not
throw aspirin in there as well?
You know nothing about the subject.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
REJECTED!!!
Reason: Failure to state even a shred of supporting evidence.
Attempted proof by assertion and whack-o conjecture.
It is obvious to me that you are not the same person that once enjoyed
2001.
Post by kelps
Call it conjecture if you like, but you are very sick person.
I just call it "name-calling", because that is what it is.
OH BILL REID COMPLAINS ABOUT NAME CALLING....BOO HOO
Post by Bill Reid
Your brilliant "analysis" of why I didn't like a movie is that
I am a "sick person". Why not just call me a "poopy-head"
and be done with it?
Quiet Poopy-head.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
That is not
conjecture, but just based on your habit of being a total ass on the
internet.
OH YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE A POOPY-HEAD, BUT
WHAT AM I?
Go flame your pet dog.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Were you to have never seen 2001 originally, and saw it in your
current
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
state of consciousness, you would be calling it boring and yelling at you,
"APES,SPACE,COMPUTERS, ALIENS"
and you would be equally dismissive, elaborating on how BORING it was.
I've always said that I can see the "other side" of people who claim it
was a tremendously boring movie. Just because it didn't strike ME that
way doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate their self-worth like you
do when somebody criticizes something you like...
And what would that "other side" that you see be? that those people were
just dumb and lacked concentration?
No, that they just didn't like it, and frankly, it is a long movie that
consists of a lot of repetitive shots of spaceships flying around. Again,
I don't feel the need that you and the other "borderline" personalities
here (actually well over the "line") to call people names and wish
death on them just because they don't share MY opinion.
And so other's opinion about EWS being a great film makes them morons and
makes SK brain damaged.?

What I said is true. Were you to have not seen 2001 till later years, you'd
hate it today.
Post by Bill Reid
It's called being an adult, it's called getting along with other
humans, it's called being a decent human being, look into it;
I mean, you've still got maybe five years left in your pathetic
life, you could still change it around and have a few months
of normal adult living in your life...
Yeah being an internet troll, and shouting and flaming is adult?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
the same is true of your hatred of EWS,
whihc is a singular work of pure filmaking genius.
And everybody who doesn't agree with your opinion
about this is a "poopy-head", right?
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
SO I think the hardened arteries in your brain, might be to blame and
not
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
"Stanley's"
OK, there it is, bottom line, he got me good. His brilliant analysis, with
"I KNOW KUBRICK IS, BUT WHAT ARE YOU?!??!!!"
No. I never said "Kubrick is"---I said you are.
I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?!!??!!
Post by kelps
You are not the same person
who saw 2001, back when you saw it. Today you are a gambling addict,
imaging
Post by kelps
you understand probability. You have also pretended you have a
understanding of Jungianism, yet have no real background in it or know
it's
Post by kelps
sources, but you attempt making serious posts ahbout Jungianism, to
compensate for your diminished comprehension of your own consciousness
and
Post by kelps
how things really work.
Yes, and I drive a car now too, just not a cool car like a 23-year-old
Honda Accord...
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
There is never any point to your posts other then flaming and being
obnoxious or trying to assert the few remaining shreds of intelliginece
you
Post by kelps
may at one time had.
This is a lie, but thankfully it is the last lie and insult in this idiotic
post...
---
William Ernest "Unbroken" Reid
You are a loudmouth jerk Bill. Now go find a card game.

dc
m***@gmail.com
2007-06-20 00:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
How about doing something for once for the sake of REALITY?
The only reality about you, is that you are a internet troll.
Hey, what's wrong with trolls? They've always been some of my favorite
personalities on the net.
kelps
2007-06-20 04:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
How about doing something for once for the sake of REALITY?
The only reality about you, is that you are a internet troll.
Hey, what's wrong with trolls? They've always been some of my favorite
personalities on the net.
Funny ones are fine, but loudmouths typing in caps--not by mistake--who
throw tantrums are absurd and not funny or interesting.

dc
m***@gmail.com
2007-06-20 16:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the
average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the
films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
How about doing something for once for the sake of REALITY?
The only reality about you, is that you are a internet troll.
Hey, what's wrong with trolls? They've always been some of my favorite
personalities on the net.
Funny ones are fine, but loudmouths typing in caps--not by mistake--who
throw tantrums are absurd and not funny or interesting.
dc
I DISAGREE MOTHERFUCK,ER!!!!!!!!!!!!111
kelps
2007-06-20 19:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by kelps
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the
average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and
inability
to
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the
films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
How about doing something for once for the sake of REALITY?
The only reality about you, is that you are a internet troll.
Hey, what's wrong with trolls? They've always been some of my favorite
personalities on the net.
Funny ones are fine, but loudmouths typing in caps--not by mistake--who
throw tantrums are absurd and not funny or interesting.
dc
I DISAGREE MOTHERFUCK,ER!!!!!!!!!!!!111
How did I know that would be your reply.

But when you do it it has a certain charm.

dc
m***@gmail.com
2007-06-20 21:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by kelps
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the
average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of
their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and
inability
to
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the
films.
Well, this can't be the reason, I've spoken at length about
metaphor in "Eyes Wide Shut"...but don't they give out the
Oscars(TM) for "technical superiority" at a separate daytime
ceremony hosted by a "D-list" actor/actress? I mean, nobody
cares about "technical superiority" except some technical
geeks, right?
Post by kelps
The average person went into EWS, apparently expecting to see a
wild
sexcapade
Well, this can't be the reason, because I never said I expected
anything
of the sort...
Ok so I will except that you had no expectations for the sake of
appeasement.
How about doing something for once for the sake of REALITY?
The only reality about you, is that you are a internet troll.
Hey, what's wrong with trolls? They've always been some of my favorite
personalities on the net.
Funny ones are fine, but loudmouths typing in caps--not by mistake--who
throw tantrums are absurd and not funny or interesting.
dc
I DISAGREE MOTHERFUCK,ER!!!!!!!!!!!!111
How did I know that would be your reply.
But when you do it it has a certain charm.
dc
GOOD TO KNOW
Bill Reid
2007-06-20 02:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Whenever I read stuff like this on the 'net, the most amazing thing
is it's coming from A GUY IN HIS SIXTIES...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of their
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability to
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
And they all appreciate your opinion of them, every man Jack of them...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
You
will
deny your are a drunken fool, this will be a lie.
While you're at it, why don't you tell me just how
much alcohol I've consumed in say the last month, since you just called
me a "drunken fool"...don't worry that you really DON'T have any
ESP, just make crap up as you go along in your drug-damaged
state as always...
On the wagon? Thats good.
Yup, just make it up as you go along, say whatever you want,
THAT'S the "middle way" allright...first you assert without possibility
of contradiction that I am "a drunken fool", now turn me into a
recovering alcoholic in your rich hallucinogenic fantasy life...
Post by kelps
I hate loudmouth jerks like you, but it's your behavior I hate not you.
So if I said I liked "Eyes Wide Shut" you wouldn't call me names?

TOO HIGH A PRICE TO PAY!!!
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Although you have posted you are a fan of 2001, I would submit that
had
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
you not seen 2001 until the late 90's. you would have been sitting in
the
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
theater with "Stanley yelling" at you again.
Submitted for your approval, the fantasies of a brain-damaged
acid-head...
Post by kelps
No matter how many times, moronic fools like you, say things connecting
LSD
Post by kelps
with "brain damage" does not make it true.
It is absolutely true, I've already corrected you on this but you are
too brain-damaged to understand. LSD is known to cause "flashbacks"
weeks, months, even years after a single use. The UNDAMAGED
human brain does NOT have "flashbacks", or spontaneous
"hallucinogenic" experiences. The brain DAMAGED by LSD
DOES.
You are a fool. As Leary once said, "Flashbacks? Gee I wish I had some."
I hope you aren't trying to deny the reality of acid "flashbacks"
here...but I wouldn't put it past you and your tenuous grip on reality...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
LSD apparently permanently
alters brain chemistry. That's DAMAGE.
You are a kook spouting nonsense.
Well, that settles THAT...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
There have never been any
evidence of any "brain damage" from LSD use, except in cases of extreme
dosages given to rodents that would be many thousands of times any users
dose.
You're re-defining their heads exploding or something as evidence of
"brain damage". You're disingenuous at best.
I've spent 40 years studying this stuff. You haven't a clue and are just
spouting old, dim, propaganda, created by people wanting to control people.
And yet you never heard of acid "flashbacks"? Or you never considered
the implications of them? Or the fact that nobody knows how LSD works?
Or the fact that another name for the "psychedelics" is "psychotomemetics"
due to the similarities between the "hallucinogenic" state and a psychotic
"break"? Or that there are people in mental institutions to this day that
suffered their breakdown after ingesting LSD? (I know, that's full
employment for you, Orderly "Weed", but still...)
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
It is obvious to me that you are not the same person that once enjoyed
2001.
Post by kelps
Call it conjecture if you like, but you are very sick person.
I just call it "name-calling", because that is what it is.
OH BILL REID COMPLAINS ABOUT NAME CALLING....BOO HOO
The "names" I call people are based on their actual demonstrated
behavior. You just make crap up, and sling a lot of childish insults...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Your brilliant "analysis" of why I didn't like a movie is that
I am a "sick person". Why not just call me a "poopy-head"
and be done with it?
Quiet Poopy-head.
SEE, WHAT'D I SAY!??!?!!
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
That is not
conjecture, but just based on your habit of being a total ass on the
internet.
OH YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE A POOPY-HEAD, BUT
WHAT AM I?
Go flame your pet dog.
MY DOG DIED, YOU BASTARD!!!
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Were you to have never seen 2001 originally, and saw it in your
current
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
state of consciousness, you would be calling it boring and yelling
at
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
you,
"APES,SPACE,COMPUTERS, ALIENS"
and you would be equally dismissive, elaborating on how BORING it was.
I've always said that I can see the "other side" of people who claim it
was a tremendously boring movie. Just because it didn't strike ME that
way doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate their self-worth like you
do when somebody criticizes something you like...
And what would that "other side" that you see be? that those people were
just dumb and lacked concentration?
No, that they just didn't like it, and frankly, it is a long movie that
consists of a lot of repetitive shots of spaceships flying around.
Again,
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
I don't feel the need that you and the other "borderline" personalities
here (actually well over the "line") to call people names and wish
death on them just because they don't share MY opinion.
And so other's opinion about EWS being a great film makes them morons and
makes SK brain damaged.?
I've NEVER said that somebody's positive opinion about "Eyes
Wide Shut" (or ANY movie) make them a moron! That's another
of your damnable brain-damaged lies!

As far a Kubrick is concerned, he smoked several packs of cigarettes
a day for years, which contain one of the most necrotic substances known
to man: nicotine. I am quite sure that he had extensive cardio-vascular
and other damage throughout his body, including his brain, that
probably led to his relatively early death...and there is no question
that his film output fell dramatically in the last years of his life, and
in my opinion, the quality as well as the quantity...
Post by kelps
What I said is true. Were you to have not seen 2001 till later years, you'd
hate it today.
You have no way of knowing that and zero basis for saying it. You're
just an abusive freak who lives in a brain-damaged fantasy world.
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
It's called being an adult, it's called getting along with other
humans, it's called being a decent human being, look into it;
I mean, you've still got maybe five years left in your pathetic
life, you could still change it around and have a few months
of normal adult living in your life...
Yeah being an internet troll, and shouting and flaming is adult?
Yeah, you should try to stop that too...but I was thinking just
about any possible shred of a personal life you might actually have.
Telling people they are "programmed robots" and "drunken fools"
because they don't like the same movies as you is not going to
win you many friends...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
the same is true of your hatred of EWS,
whihc is a singular work of pure filmaking genius.
And everybody who doesn't agree with your opinion
about this is a "poopy-head", right?
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
SO I think the hardened arteries in your brain, might be to blame and
not
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
"Stanley's"
OK, there it is, bottom line, he got me good. His brilliant
analysis,
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
with
"I KNOW KUBRICK IS, BUT WHAT ARE YOU?!??!!!"
No. I never said "Kubrick is"---I said you are.
I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?!!??!!
Post by kelps
You are not the same person
who saw 2001, back when you saw it. Today you are a gambling addict,
imaging
Post by kelps
you understand probability. You have also pretended you have a
understanding of Jungianism, yet have no real background in it or know
it's
Post by kelps
sources, but you attempt making serious posts ahbout Jungianism, to
compensate for your diminished comprehension of your own consciousness
and
Post by kelps
how things really work.
Yes, and I drive a car now too, just not a cool car like a 23-year-old
Honda Accord...
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one time
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
There is never any point to your posts other then flaming and being
obnoxious or trying to assert the few remaining shreds of intelliginece
you
Post by kelps
may at one time had.
That's a lie...sometimes I tell stories about ever-lasting obscure
German cars, YOU ROTTEN STINKING HEARTLESS
LYING BASTARD!!!

---
William Ernest "If Only Borgward Made A Hybrid" Reid
ichorwhip
2007-06-20 03:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Whenever I read stuff like this on the 'net, the most amazing thing
is it's coming from A GUY IN HIS SIXTIES...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, "Senile Stoned Sargasso" is finally gonna "psych" me
and reveal the true reason I didn't like "Eyes Wide Shut" as he
failed to do months ago. Let's see how well he does this time...
Post by kelps
The evidence that certain types of people, hated EWS, and that the average
person, hated EWS, is overwhelming. But then
lots of people hated 2001 and ACO for blinded reasons, most of
their
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
dislike being based in a weak ability to concentrate and inability
to
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
see
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
metaphor and even appreciation for the technical superiority of the films.
And they all appreciate your opinion of them, every man Jack of them...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
You
will
deny your are a drunken fool, this will be a lie.
While you're at it, why don't you tell me just how
much alcohol I've consumed in say the last month, since you just called
me a "drunken fool"...don't worry that you really DON'T have any
ESP, just make crap up as you go along in your drug-damaged
state as always...
On the wagon? Thats good.
Yup, just make it up as you go along, say whatever you want,
THAT'S the "middle way" allright...first you assert without possibility
of contradiction that I am "a drunken fool", now turn me into a
recovering alcoholic in your rich hallucinogenic fantasy life...
Post by kelps
I hate loudmouth jerks like you, but it's your behavior I hate not you.
So if I said I liked "Eyes Wide Shut" you wouldn't call me names?
TOO HIGH A PRICE TO PAY!!!
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Although you have posted you are a fan of 2001, I would submit
that
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
had
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
you not seen 2001 until the late 90's. you would have been sitting
in
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
the
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
theater with "Stanley yelling" at you again.
Submitted for your approval, the fantasies of a brain-damaged
acid-head...
Post by kelps
No matter how many times, moronic fools like you, say things connecting
LSD
Post by kelps
with "brain damage" does not make it true.
It is absolutely true, I've already corrected you on this but you are
too brain-damaged to understand. LSD is known to cause "flashbacks"
weeks, months, even years after a single use. The UNDAMAGED
human brain does NOT have "flashbacks", or spontaneous
"hallucinogenic" experiences. The brain DAMAGED by LSD
DOES.
You are a fool. As Leary once said, "Flashbacks? Gee I wish I had some."
I hope you aren't trying to deny the reality of acid "flashbacks"
here...but I wouldn't put it past you and your tenuous grip on reality...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
LSD apparently permanently
alters brain chemistry. That's DAMAGE.
You are a kook spouting nonsense.
Well, that settles THAT...
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
There have never been any
evidence of any "brain damage" from LSD use, except in cases of extreme
dosages given to rodents that would be many thousands of times any
users
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
dose.
You're re-defining their heads exploding or something as evidence of
"brain damage". You're disingenuous at best.
I've spent 40 years studying this stuff. You haven't a clue and are just
spouting old, dim, propaganda, created by people wanting to control
people.
And yet you never heard of acid "flashbacks"? Or you never considered
the implications of them? Or the fact that nobody knows how LSD works?
Or the fact that another name for the "psychedelics" is "psychotomemetics"
due to the similarities between the "hallucinogenic" state and a psychotic
"break"? Or that there are people in mental institutions to this day that
suffered their breakdown after ingesting LSD? (I know, that's full
employment for you, Orderly "Weed", but still...)
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
It is obvious to me that you are not the same person that once enjoyed
2001.
Post by kelps
Call it conjecture if you like, but you are very sick person.
I just call it "name-calling", because that is what it is.
OH BILL REID COMPLAINS ABOUT NAME CALLING....BOO HOO
The "names" I call people are based on their actual demonstrated
behavior. You just make crap up, and sling a lot of childish insults...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my dear bog! Make
him stop! Make him stop! I don't want to be on little pills the rest
of my life! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! ULGPH! MMmmm! errrrr...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Your brilliant "analysis" of why I didn't like a movie is that
I am a "sick person". Why not just call me a "poopy-head"
and be done with it?
Quiet Poopy-head.
SEE, WHAT'D I SAY!??!?!!
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
That is not
conjecture, but just based on your habit of being a total ass on the
internet.
OH YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE A POOPY-HEAD, BUT
WHAT AM I?
Go flame your pet dog.
MY DOG DIED, YOU BASTARD!!!
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Were you to have never seen 2001 originally, and saw it in your
current
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
state of consciousness, you would be calling it boring and yelling
at
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
you,
"APES,SPACE,COMPUTERS, ALIENS"
and you would be equally dismissive, elaborating on how BORING it
was.
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
I've always said that I can see the "other side" of people who claim
it
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
was a tremendously boring movie. Just because it didn't strike ME
that
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
way doesn't mean I feel the need to denigrate their self-worth like
you
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
do when somebody criticizes something you like...
And what would that "other side" that you see be? that those people
were
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
just dumb and lacked concentration?
No, that they just didn't like it, and frankly, it is a long movie that
consists of a lot of repetitive shots of spaceships flying around.
Again,
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
I don't feel the need that you and the other "borderline" personalities
here (actually well over the "line") to call people names and wish
death on them just because they don't share MY opinion.
And so other's opinion about EWS being a great film makes them morons and
makes SK brain damaged.?
I've NEVER said that somebody's positive opinion about "Eyes
Wide Shut" (or ANY movie) make them a moron! That's another
of your damnable brain-damaged lies!
As far a Kubrick is concerned, he smoked several packs of cigarettes
a day for years, which contain one of the most necrotic substances known
to man: nicotine. I am quite sure that he had extensive cardio-vascular
and other damage throughout his body, including his brain, that
probably led to his relatively early death...and there is no question
that his film output fell dramatically in the last years of his life, and
in my opinion, the quality as well as the quantity...
Post by kelps
What I said is true. Were you to have not seen 2001 till later years,
you'd
Post by kelps
hate it today.
You have no way of knowing that and zero basis for saying it. You're
just an abusive freak who lives in a brain-damaged fantasy world.
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
It's called being an adult, it's called getting along with other
humans, it's called being a decent human being, look into it;
I mean, you've still got maybe five years left in your pathetic
life, you could still change it around and have a few months
of normal adult living in your life...
Yeah being an internet troll, and shouting and flaming is adult?
Yeah, you should try to stop that too...but I was thinking just
about any possible shred of a personal life you might actually have.
Telling people they are "programmed robots" and "drunken fools"
because they don't like the same movies as you is not going to
win you many friends...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! The "Prince of Fellowship" speaks! You are
killing me Reidiot(TM)! You really are. It matters not that you're
fighting just about anybody who'll step up including Oldman Bedpan
here. You far and away are your own worst enemy. I'm ashamed for
you.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
the same is true of your hatred of EWS,
whihc is a singular work of pure filmaking genius.
And everybody who doesn't agree with your opinion
about this is a "poopy-head", right?
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
SO I think the hardened arteries in your brain, might be to blame
and
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
not
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
"Stanley's"
OK, there it is, bottom line, he got me good. His brilliant
analysis,
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
with
"I KNOW KUBRICK IS, BUT WHAT ARE YOU?!??!!!"
No. I never said "Kubrick is"---I said you are.
I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?!!??!!
Post by kelps
You are not the same person
who saw 2001, back when you saw it. Today you are a gambling addict,
imaging
Post by kelps
you understand probability. You have also pretended you have a
understanding of Jungianism, yet have no real background in it or know
it's
Post by kelps
sources, but you attempt making serious posts ahbout Jungianism, to
compensate for your diminished comprehension of your own consciousness
and
Post by kelps
how things really work.
Yes, and I drive a car now too, just not a cool car like a 23-year-old
Honda Accord...
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one time
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie! Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate. Well we do establish that you
actually had and apparently knew your father. "I'll bet he regrets
that!" You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."

"We study the problem."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-06-20 05:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Uh-oh, predictably our little Quote Monkey(TM) is scampering
about excitedly all over every thread with two thin inches of glistening
pink poking out of his fur because I awarded him the coveted "Most
Entertaining Kook Post Of The Day"...I knew it was a mistake when I
did it, but I am nothing if not scrupulously honest and like to share
my opinions, consequences be damned (as if you haven't noticed)...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
The "names" I call people are based on their actual demonstrated
behavior. You just make crap up, and sling a lot of childish insults...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my dear bog! Make
him stop! Make him stop! I don't want to be on little pills the rest
of my life! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! ULGPH! MMmmm! errrrr...
Stop trying to win my affection by performing the idiotic ending
of "Dr. Zhivago"; it won't work, and I'm just not getting the effect
of that stupid cyan makeup they plastered on Omar Sharif's face...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Yeah being an internet troll, and shouting and flaming is adult?
Yeah, you should try to stop that too...but I was thinking just
about any possible shred of a personal life you might actually have.
Telling people they are "programmed robots" and "drunken fools"
because they don't like the same movies as you is not going to
win you many friends...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! The "Prince of Fellowship" speaks!
How do you get to Dale Carnegie's hall?

I knew you didn't know!
Post by ichorwhip
You are
killing me Reidiot(TM)! You really are. It matters not that you're
fighting just about anybody who'll step up including Oldman Bedpan
here. You far and away are your own worst enemy. I'm ashamed for
you.
You guys are never gonna change my opinion about "Eyes Wide
Shut", so just give up already...and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult and/or
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
You are not the same person
who saw 2001, back when you saw it. Today you are a gambling addict,
imaging
Post by kelps
you understand probability. You have also pretended you have a
understanding of Jungianism, yet have no real background in it or know
it's
Post by kelps
sources, but you attempt making serious posts ahbout Jungianism, to
compensate for your diminished comprehension of your own consciousness
and
Post by kelps
how things really work.
Yes, and I drive a car now too, just not a cool car like a 23-year-old
Honda Accord...
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one time
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
You fake, you don't know what you're talking about, motor oil
is something that only MEN know about...not fey little Quote
Monkeys(TM) who have banged their fuzzy heads on the cage
bars one too many times...
Post by ichorwhip
Well we do establish that you
actually had and apparently knew your father. "I'll bet he regrets
that!" You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...

---
William Ernest "My Dad Also Owned A Mercury Montego" Reid
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-20 13:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! ULGPH! MMmmm! errrrr...
Stop trying to win my affection by performing the idiotic ending
of "Dr. Zhivago"; it won't work, and I'm just not getting the effect
of that stupid cyan makeup they plastered on Omar Sharif's face...
Dr. Zhivago is, by far, your favorite film. You like it more than
2001.
Truth is, you don't like 2001. Not one bit.
You are Lara-obsessed. You're a living Lara-complex. A Lara Wide Shut.
It's all you really want: Lara, Lara, Lara.
You don't even need "stupid cyan makeup", plastered on your face. Your
face will do just fine.
Admit it: the only thing that you fail to reproduce is the heart
attack.
Post by Bill Reid
You guys are never gonna change my opinion about "Eyes Wide
Shut"
LOL. Changing your opinion on EWS would be the real nightmare.
The thougth of you admiring EWS: the horror.
Just stick with your Lara-desktop and -pyama's.
Post by Bill Reid
so just give up already... and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult and/or
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
Now, "a person" we would advice to read Harry Bailey's replies;
perhaps a person would learn something.
Not you, however, not you.

Then again, of course, it's not because of your "opinion of a movie".
The www is huge, but there is no opinion of you on whatever movie to
be found.
You don't have opinions. All you have, is Lara.

The emptyness of "EWS is boring" is what defines you. Keep it that
way.

PS: Your "Jungian Analysis" on Kubrick is a collector's item!
It should be any funshop's favorite item.
It's also a perfect blue print for a hilarious parody on "critics on
Kubrick".
I challenge everyone: read it out aloud and try not to laugh.
Try to imagine Jack Black reading it out aloud and try not to die of
laughter.
It's obvious you can't write, which is what allows the piece it's
specifiek "voice".
Even the name on the cover is bull's eye: "William Ernest 'Lara'-
Obsessed Reid".
If you keep up your hard work, perhaps, one day, you might become a
troll.
As for now, even that is out of your reach, alas, you're everything's
parody.
You're Zhivago, you're after Lara. But do remember: postpone the heart
attack.

gR.
Bill Reid
2007-06-21 02:14:25 UTC
Permalink
You're just getting worse and worse, "Requiescat", you should have
quit while you were ahead.

Your original non-sequitur unprovoked outburst was a stripped-down
classic of net-kookery, a kind of minimalist example of the art.

Every new attempt, though, is longer, and the more you write, the
more the echoes of your empty intellect resound. More of a good thing
is not always better, which is true of words and apparently chromosones
in your case...

Due to certain spelling errors and grammatical awkwardness in your
posts (and certain other evidence), I conclude you are not a native English
speaker. However, there is a universal language that you have even
more unfortunately failed to master, the language of coherent thought,
the ability to correlate, connect, and manipulate ideas. Like so many
of the angry people that comprise much of the Internet these days,
you are not a "human thinker", and it is this that prevents you from
being a persuasive or remotely useful writer in any language.

In rating intelligent communication in this group, we must
unfortunately start with the nematode-swarming humus below
the clay crust as our top ranking, and progress downward ever
more subterraneanly. You have now consistently fallen below the
extremely disordered idiot "Icky-Whipped", and are in danger of
burrowing like a blind mole beneath even the obviously
brain-damaged anti-social "Seen My Weed?"

More posts from you will probably only serve to confirm that
your are the indeed the most dense core of inner Earth, a swirling
mass of molten inarticulation...

Please consider the charge that "Icky" brought against you of
plagiarism to be your best possible hope for non-embarassing
posting here; cut and paste has redeemed many a Usenet crank
from total idiocy, however transparently...
Post by R***@chello.nl
Dr. Zhivago is, by far, your favorite film. You like it more than
2001.
Truth is, you don't like 2001. Not one bit.
You are Lara-obsessed. You're a living Lara-complex. A Lara Wide Shut.
It's all you really want: Lara, Lara, Lara.
You don't even need "stupid cyan makeup", plastered on your face. Your
face will do just fine.
Admit it: the only thing that you fail to reproduce is the heart
attack.
LOL. Changing your opinion on EWS would be the real nightmare.
The thougth of you admiring EWS: the horror.
Just stick with your Lara-desktop and -pyama's.
Now, "a person" we would advice to read Harry Bailey's replies;
perhaps a person would learn something.
Not you, however, not you.
Then again, of course, it's not because of your "opinion of a movie".
The www is huge, but there is no opinion of you on whatever movie to
be found.
You don't have opinions. All you have, is Lara.
The emptyness of "EWS is boring" is what defines you. Keep it that
way.
PS: Your "Jungian Analysis" on Kubrick is a collector's item!
It should be any funshop's favorite item.
It's also a perfect blue print for a hilarious parody on "critics on
Kubrick".
I challenge everyone: read it out aloud and try not to laugh.
Try to imagine Jack Black reading it out aloud and try not to die of
laughter.
It's obvious you can't write, which is what allows the piece it's
specifiek "voice".
Even the name on the cover is bull's eye: "William Ernest 'Lara'-
Obsessed Reid".
If you keep up your hard work, perhaps, one day, you might become a
troll.
As for now, even that is out of your reach, alas, you're everything's
parody.
You're Zhivago, you're after Lara. But do remember: postpone the heart
attack.
---
William Ernest "So Very Sad, A Promising But Short Career" Reid
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-21 08:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
You're just getting worse and worse
Call it your fate. Quality-wise though, your replies make more sense
than your "Jungian Analysis Pt.I-IV".
Keep trying, puppy.

gR.
ichorwhip
2007-06-20 22:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Uh-oh, predictably our little Quote Monkey(TM)
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You know you're getting under Reidiot(TM)'s skin
like a prison tattoo when he starts talking about Quote Monkeys(TM)
(sounds like a game from the makers of Trivial Pursuit(TM) and Barrel
Full-O-Monkeys(TM).) Thou art a blue-assed baboon!
Post by Bill Reid
is scampering
about excitedly all over every thread
This thread is every thread? You can't keep anything straight.
Post by Bill Reid
with two thin inches of glistening
pink poking out of his fur
You lousy pervert! Quit looking at dog carrots every chance you get
you Red Rocketeer....
Post by Bill Reid
because I awarded him
He "awarded" me! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! This truly is one of the
funniest encounters I've had with you yet Reidiot(TM). You are coming
apart at the seams. Steady yourself now...
Post by Bill Reid
the coveted "Most
Entertaining Kook Post Of The Day"...I knew it was a mistake when I
did it, but I am nothing if not scrupulously honest
Bloph!
Post by Bill Reid
and like to share
my opinions,
Ughllppph!
Post by Bill Reid
consequences be damned (as if you haven't noticed)...
What I've noticed is a lot of your deranged techniques and demented
tendencies continuing to bubble up with some "interesting" additions.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
The "names" I call people are based on their actual demonstrated
behavior. You just make crap up, and sling a lot of childish insults...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my dear bog! Make
him stop! Make him stop! I don't want to be on little pills the rest
of my life! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! ULGPH! MMmmm! errrrr...
Stop trying to win my affection by performing the idiotic ending
of "Dr. Zhivago"; it won't work, and I'm just not getting the effect
of that stupid cyan makeup they plastered on Omar Sharif's face...
You know you loved it. Visions of carrots danced in your head.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Yeah being an internet troll, and shouting and flaming is adult?
Yeah, you should try to stop that too...but I was thinking just
about any possible shred of a personal life you might actually have.
Telling people they are "programmed robots" and "drunken fools"
because they don't like the same movies as you is not going to
win you many friends...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! The "Prince of Fellowship" speaks!
How do you get to Dale Carnegie's hall?
I knew you didn't know!
You didn't give me a chance to answer idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You are
killing me Reidiot(TM)! You really are. It matters not that you're
fighting just about anybody who'll step up including Oldman Bedpan
here. You far and away are your own worst enemy. I'm ashamed for
you.
You guys are never gonna change my opinion about "Eyes Wide
Shut",
That's not my objective. You are not a "reliable witness" in any
event.
Post by Bill Reid
so just give up already...
Already gave up even before I didn't start.... pfffffft-teeee-pooop!
Post by Bill Reid
and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult and/or
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
I like to insult you because it's fun and makes my friends laugh and
laugh, and you definitely deserve every ounce of it. Being a
repugnant bitch has its consequences. Thanks for playing!
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
You are not the same person
who saw 2001, back when you saw it. Today you are a gambling
addict,
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
imaging
Post by kelps
you understand probability. You have also pretended you have a
understanding of Jungianism, yet have no real background in it or
know
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
it's
Post by kelps
sources, but you attempt making serious posts ahbout Jungianism, to
compensate for your diminished comprehension of your own
consciousness
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
and
Post by kelps
how things really work.
Yes, and I drive a car now too, just not a cool car like a
23-year-old
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Post by kelps
Honda Accord...
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one time
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Look... The car had to have been turned over at least a few times
within that long a time period(more like once every few months).
Batteries don't last that long either especially without charging.
And then there is the rubber issue...fuck it. You said the car was
outside and so forth? Hmmm? You're either lying outright or calendar-
challenged.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
You fake, you don't know what you're talking about, motor oil
is something that only MEN know about...not fey little Quote
Monkeys(TM) who have banged their fuzzy heads on the cage
bars one too many times...
That is not a refutation you phony. I know what I'm talking about, you
don't. It's as simple as that.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well we do establish that you
actually had and apparently knew your father. "I'll bet he regrets
that!" You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...
Questions were asked which you never answered phony-boy...

"Is it some devil that crawls inside of you?"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-06-21 02:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Can I call 'em or what? I've always said this was one stupid mofo,
which is the true underlying cause of all the anti-social behavior exhibited
by him and all the other similarly mentally-situated lonely angry kooks on
the Internet nowadays, and now he's just proven the point perfectly by
progressing to a "flame war" over...get this, you're not gonna believe
it, even I can't believe it...MOTOR OIL!!!

It does seem like he's a little more "on edge" than usual, if that's
possible, so I do have to consider my contention from a few weeks
ago that he might have suffered a life-altering "event" that is driving
his current fascination with my license plate number, family relationships,
and employment status, and wonder if indeed this portends the
"end game" that I predicted years ago, his demise in a hail of
the local gendarmes' projectiles...

But what is Useless-net if not lotz and lotz of "stupid talk"; let's
have some sly fun with him to bring the only possible joy to his
remaining days...
Post by ichorwhip
What I've noticed is a lot of your deranged techniques and demented
tendencies continuing to bubble up with some "interesting" additions.
Yes, this is a new theme for him in the last few weeks...the ambiguous
"interesting" analysis of the "data" in my posts...is he "gathering
information"
on me similar to his well-known stalking behavior from a couple years
ago? Is he "psyching" me? We'll only know in retrospect about the
former, and the latter will forever only be known to the voices in
his head!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult and/or
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
OH NO, WHAT'S THIS, A FLASH OF TRUTH?
Post by ichorwhip
I like to insult you because it's fun and makes my friends laugh and
laugh, and you definitely deserve every ounce of it. Being a
repugnant bitch has its consequences. Thanks for playing!
So is he admitting he's just a common "troll"? No, trollz iz smart...and
they NEVER admit to being a troll...I think this is just a description of
the voices in his head...

AND NOW HERE IT COMES, THE GREAT "MOTOR
OIL" QUESTION THAT IS CONSUMING THE KUBRICK
NEWSGROUP!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one time
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Look... The car had to have been turned over at least a few times
within that long a time period(more like once every few months).
Batteries don't last that long either especially without charging.
And then there is the rubber issue...fuck it.
"rubber issue"? wha' dat?
Post by ichorwhip
You said the car was
outside and so forth?
It was full of spiders! I didn't want to get in it, but my dad said it
was the only way to drive to town, so I kind of "hovered" over my
seat for 25 miles as arachnids belayed down on silk towards my
face!
Post by ichorwhip
Hmmm? You're either lying outright or calendar-
challenged.
I don't know, except my grandfather had been dead for years
when this happened, and my grandmother didn't drive herself
anywhere.
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
"harden up"? You mean like concrete? Got a cite for this,
petroleum boy?!!??!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You fake, you don't know what you're talking about, motor oil
is something that only MEN know about...not fey little Quote
Monkeys(TM) who have banged their fuzzy heads on the cage
bars one too many times...
That is not a refutation you phony. I know what I'm talking about, you
don't. It's as simple as that.
You don't know who you're dealing with, you giant idiotic liar!!!
I've started my own stored cars with a full sump of oil after two
years with NO problem, just a freshly-charged battery if needed.

As a matter of fact, I know the EXACT procedures for storing
cars for years, and you DON'T! It IS true that some of the lighter
aromatic elements will "evaporate" out of petroleum products when
a car is stored for a long time, but that is a bigger problem for
the gas in the tank, which can turn quite sludgy and not able
to be used as fuel after years.

But the oil will not "harden up" in any way to prevent the starting
of the car! I happen to change my own oil in all my cars, and there
was one time where the jerks at the local auto parts store didn't
honor their legal obligation to allow me to re-cycle my oil, kept
saying "our sump is full", for a matter of years.

So I just kept storing the old oil in an array of containers, such
as old milk containers, in a corner of my garage. Finally, the lying
bastards finally had an empty sump after about three years or so,
so I transported about 50 gallons of old oil down there, and I
guarantee you it POURED JUST FINE, THANK YOU, NOT
AT ALL HARDENED, YOU MORON!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well we do establish that you
actually had and apparently knew your father. "I'll bet he regrets
that!" You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
"diagnosis" or a new level of stalking? Should I remind the
"authorities" of your deranged record?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...
Questions were asked which you never answered phony-boy...
I own several cars and said so. I am NOT giving you the
VIN numbers, you freak!

Wait a second, I want a new topic for you to idiotically dispute.
You see, this one came up because "Green Straggles" insulted the
vehicles of my dead grandmother. The thoughtless bastard also
insulted the memory of my dead dog (pick one of my several dead
dogs), so here I go down memory lane again:

When I was just an infant, my family had a dog named "Tippy".
"Tippy" was apparently a quite rambunctious canine, and loved
to take car trips for a particular reason. The family car did not
have air conditioning at that time, and I was told that when we
went on a long trip in the hot summer, with all the windows
rolled down, "Tippy" would spy some potential prey in the roadside
brush, and just jump right out the window at like 80 mph!

My parents and sister described that "Tippy" would hit the
ground rolling...and rolling...and rolling, like a furry barrel
down the road before finally coming to a rest, then would
pop up to his paws, completely unharmed! Then they would
stop the car, and get the dog back in, and start driving again,
with my sister's job to hold the dog. But kids being kids,
she would relax her vigilance after a few miles, and as soon
as the car had hit a minimum of 70 mph, "Tippy" would
WHOOOSH!!! fly right out the window again!

This whole process would repeat about every ten miles
for hundreds of miles. Of course, as you might be able to
predict, things did not wind up well for "Tippy": he was
crossing the street in front of our house one day, and got
killed by a car...

NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!

---
William Ernest "Dog Defenestration-Denying Dumbass!" Reid
R***@chello.nl
2007-06-21 16:06:49 UTC
Permalink
No, trollz iz smart...and they NEVER admit to being a troll...
It would almost define you, yet... wannabe's like you aren't smart
enough to ever become one...

gR.
ichorwhip
2007-06-21 22:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Can I call 'em or what? I've always said this was one stupid mofo,
which is the true underlying cause of all the anti-social behavior exhibited
by him and all the other similarly mentally-situated lonely angry kooks on
the Internet nowadays, and now he's just proven the point perfectly by
progressing to a "flame war" over...get this, you're not gonna believe
it, even I can't believe it...MOTOR OIL!!!
Simply not the case at all. You lied, or at best distorted, and I
called you on it. And now you're going totally apeshit with all the
usual truth deflections and tactics you can think of to cover up for
your less-than-genuine ass. "It serves no purpose."
Post by Bill Reid
It does seem like he's a little more "on edge" than usual,
Eh? Completely relaxed and enjoying life at the moment. Quit
projecting baboon.
Post by Bill Reid
if that's
possible, so I do have to consider my contention from a few weeks
ago that he might have suffered a life-altering "event" that is driving
his current fascination with my license plate number,
Craziness, I have never asked for such details.
Post by Bill Reid
family relationships,
Yeah, I'm interested in knowing why you're so fucked up since you
won't go away and crave all this attention and so forth. Family
relationships are the best place to start. You became a creep because
of something that happened in your life. You'll spill it eventually.
Post by Bill Reid
and employment status, and wonder if indeed this portends the
"end game" that I predicted years ago, his demise in a hail of
the local gendarmes' projectiles...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! In your fondest dreams O veiler of deathwishes.
Post by Bill Reid
But what is Useless-net if not lotz and lotz of "stupid talk"; let's
have some sly fun with him to bring the only possible joy to his
remaining days...
Reidiot(TM) is obviously pissed ain't he? He keeps talking about me
dying. I get the feeling he don't like me very much.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
What I've noticed is a lot of your deranged techniques and demented
tendencies continuing to bubble up with some "interesting" additions.
Yes, this is a new theme for him in the last few weeks...the ambiguous
How dare you use that word?
Post by Bill Reid
"interesting" analysis of the "data" in my posts...is he "gathering
information"
on me similar to his well-known stalking behavior from a couple years
ago?
Why didn't you file a complaint then you freak? Do it now! I double-
dog dare ya! Yeah, I'm gathering information on you, sure, why not?
It may come in handy one day when you go totally off the deep-end and
try and do something to me. I have a rather large amount of evidence
to prove what an absolute menace to Usenet you are. I'm calling your
bluff. How do you like them apples?
Post by Bill Reid
Is he "psyching" me? We'll only know in retrospect about the
former, and the latter will forever only be known to the voices in
his head!
Who is the the "we" you keep referring to? You are friendless and
with good reason.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult
and/or
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
OH NO, WHAT'S THIS, A FLASH OF TRUTH?
Post by ichorwhip
I like to insult you because it's fun and makes my friends laugh and
laugh, and you definitely deserve every ounce of it. Being a
repugnant bitch has its consequences. Thanks for playing!
So is he admitting he's just a common "troll"? No, trollz iz smart...and
they NEVER admit to being a troll...I think this is just a description of
the voices in his head...
Neah, you can call me whatever you please so long as it doesn't cross
the aforementioned lines that you have crossed at least once before.
(Keep your namecalling legal in other words. I won't forgive you
again.) You are the "troll" except a really persistent, dumb and
vacuous one with some serious mental illness issues is my best guess.
I am a troll-beater-upper. I would say "slayer", but you'd no doubt
take it literally, wet your diaper, and start screaming LIFETHREATENER
in your high-pitched caps. You can really dish it out, but you just
can't take it is what it amounts to. Crybaby idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
AND NOW HERE IT COMES, THE GREAT "MOTOR
OIL" QUESTION THAT IS CONSUMING THE KUBRICK
NEWSGROUP!!!
It all started with your improbable tale idiot. You can't just let it
go though. And YOU are the one "consuming" this newsgroup. I have a
little spare time at the moment and feel like "smacking" you around.
It's hilarious. I can feel your pulse pounding in your latest messages
here. For your own health you ought to back off and go quietly
meditate, drink some Ovaltine(TM), and light a candle or something.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one
time
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Look... The car had to have been turned over at least a few times
within that long a time period(more like once every few months).
Batteries don't last that long either especially without charging.
And then there is the rubber issue...fuck it.
"rubber issue"? wha' dat?
You know all about engines? What an idiot. I'm not going to bother to
explain it to you. I'll just stick to the oil, afterall your health is
at stake, and I don't believe I can do it without insulting you
further still.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You said the car was
outside and so forth?
It was full of spiders! I didn't want to get in it, but my dad said it
was the only way to drive to town, so I kind of "hovered" over my
seat for 25 miles as arachnids belayed down on silk towards my
face!
Creepy! Did you ask him about the Donner Party?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Hmmm? You're either lying outright or calendar-
challenged.
I don't know, except my grandfather had been dead for years
when this happened, and my grandmother didn't drive herself
anywhere.
This is as close to a recant as I'm likely to get. Fair enough...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
"harden up"? You mean like concrete? Got a cite for this,
petroleum boy?!!??!!
I'll cite my own experience. I recently rebuilt a Chevy smallblock
305 that had sat for about a year outside in the car. When I went to
drain the oil, very little came out. It was in the engine in the form
of "hardened sludge", not like concrete idiot. This is not uncommon
I'm told by real mechanics, I just "shade-tree" for knowledge and
hobby when I can. Trying to start an engine with this crap in it would
most likely be futile, and would prolly damage the engine. Piston
rings also have a tendency to rust and adhere to cylinder walls the
longer they sit. Instant damage if you even try to turn them over
like that. Not to mention that gas turns to varnish if it sits long
enough. Ask any mechanic...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You fake, you don't know what you're talking about, motor oil
is something that only MEN know about...not fey little Quote
Monkeys(TM) who have banged their fuzzy heads on the cage
bars one too many times...
That is not a refutation you phony. I know what I'm talking about, you
don't. It's as simple as that.
You don't know who you're dealing with, you giant idiotic liar!!!
Simmer down now lil' fella! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Post by Bill Reid
I've started my own stored cars with a full sump of oil after two
years with NO problem, just a freshly-charged battery if needed.
There you go and TOTALLY admit that a battery had to be charged up at
the very least. You never said that before about your gramp's car.
Also, a stored car, out of the elements and so forth, can sit much
longer depending, but who cares? There is NO WAY that old car sat
there untouched for 7 years and started right up for so many reasons.
Post by Bill Reid
As a matter of fact, I know the EXACT procedures for storing
cars for years, and you DON'T!
Oh yeah? BWAHAHA!!!!!! The voices in your head tell you that?
Post by Bill Reid
It IS true that some of the lighter
aromatic elements will "evaporate" out of petroleum products when
a car is stored for a long time, but that is a bigger problem for
the gas in the tank, which can turn quite sludgy and not able
to be used as fuel after years.
It turns into a sort of varnish. Sounds like you looked this stuff up
for yourself. Still it was your big stinking exaggeration, I'll call
it, that started all of this idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
But the oil will not "harden up" in any way to prevent the starting
of the car! I happen to change my own oil in all my cars, and there
was one time where the jerks at the local auto parts store didn't
honor their legal obligation to allow me to re-cycle my oil, kept
saying "our sump is full", for a matter of years.
So I just kept storing the old oil in an array of containers, such
as old milk containers, in a corner of my garage. Finally, the lying
bastards finally had an empty sump after about three years or so,
so I transported about 50 gallons of old oil down there, and I
guarantee you it POURED JUST FINE, THANK YOU, NOT
AT ALL HARDENED, YOU MORON!!!
It wasn't in the engine you idiot, and there was a LOT of it. You are
totally off on a tangent of your own now. 50 gallons eh? That's
quite a bit. Sounds like another lie. Five quarts of used oil in an
engine will set as previously described. I have seen it with my own
eyes, and was told to expect it beforehand when I got the car.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well we do establish that you
actually had and apparently knew your father. "I'll bet he regrets
that!" You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
"diagnosis" or a new level of stalking? Should I remind the
"authorities" of your deranged record?
Go ahead! Report me. If you do I guarantee it will backfire on you.
Go ahead Reidiot(TM). DO IT NOW.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...
Questions were asked which you never answered phony-boy...
I own several cars and said so. I am NOT giving you the
VIN numbers, you freak!
Stupid, desperate, phony... You well know I don't give a shit about
any of your exact personal particulars such as VIN numbers of cars you
supposedly own, or your basement address or your trac phone number or
anything like that. I just want to know what makes a maggot like you
tick, that's all. You like being the center of attention? Well be
the center of attention. I want to know the dawn of Reidiot(TM) since
you won't go away, and it's a slow news day. I'm sure we can relate
you to Kubrick's films much more than I already have. Give it a
chance!
Post by Bill Reid
Wait a second, I want a new topic for you to idiotically dispute.
You see, this one came up because "Green Straggles" insulted the
vehicles of my dead grandmother.
I don't think he did. You made some snide remark, and he responded.
You always nastily provoke a nasty response and cry your eyes out when
you get one.
Post by Bill Reid
The thoughtless bastard also
insulted the memory of my dead dog (pick one of my several dead
When I was just an infant, my family had a dog named "Tippy".
"Tippy" was apparently a quite rambunctious canine, and loved
to take car trips for a particular reason. The family car did not
have air conditioning at that time, and I was told that when we
went on a long trip in the hot summer, with all the windows
rolled down, "Tippy" would spy some potential prey in the roadside
brush, and just jump right out the window at like 80 mph!
My parents and sister described that "Tippy" would hit the
ground rolling...and rolling...and rolling, like a furry barrel
down the road before finally coming to a rest, then would
pop up to his paws, completely unharmed! Then they would
stop the car, and get the dog back in, and start driving again,
with my sister's job to hold the dog. But kids being kids,
she would relax her vigilance after a few miles, and as soon
as the car had hit a minimum of 70 mph, "Tippy" would
WHOOOSH!!! fly right out the window again!
Sheesh! Talk about cruelty to animals! At a minimum of 70 eh?
Sounds rather incredible that the dog could survive that, but I am no
expert on seeing what a dog can survive as such. I take good care of
my animals you see, and would have tied the "jumper" down somehow or
put the windows half up or something, ANYTHING to prevent such an
incident from happening over and over such as you describe.
Post by Bill Reid
This whole process would repeat about every ten miles
for hundreds of miles. Of course, as you might be able to
predict, things did not wind up well for "Tippy": he was
crossing the street in front of our house one day, and got
killed by a car...
Sad story... I guess your family had very little emotional attachment
to "Tippy" to let that happen over and over let alone any decency
concerning the treatment of animals. Should we pause for a hankie-
break?
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
No, idiot.

"Sebastian, come back here!"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-06-22 01:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Can I call 'em or what? I've always said this was one stupid mofo,
which is the true underlying cause of all the anti-social behavior exhibited
by him and all the other similarly mentally-situated lonely angry kooks on
the Internet nowadays, and now he's just proven the point perfectly by
progressing to a "flame war" over...get this, you're not gonna believe
it, even I can't believe it...MOTOR OIL!!!
Simply not the case at all. You lied, or at best distorted,
I told a stupid story about a car, that's all, just some "dumb talk",
you know, the way NORMAL people do, and you chose to brand
me a "LIAR!!!"

As a heuristically programmed meat puppet, I never intentionally
lie or distort data. I will admit my series of computer has been known
to make the occasional "human error", but that's also what makes
me a fun person at parties! If I make a mistake, I just admit, and
have never killed any astronauts to try to cover it up!
Post by ichorwhip
and I
called you on it.
Why? If you heard this same story around the "water cooler", would
you challenge your co-workers the same way? If they said they thought
"Dr. Zhivago" was laughably bad, would you impulsively wish death
on them?

This IS the "power of the Internet" for anonymous trolls with criminally
low self-esteem such as yourself, innit?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
It does seem like he's a little more "on edge" than usual,
Eh? Completely relaxed and enjoying life at the moment.
Then why all the spontaneous venom? You've turned yet another
thread into an off-topic hate-fest...why?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
if that's
possible, so I do have to consider my contention from a few weeks
ago that he might have suffered a life-altering "event" that is driving
his current fascination with my license plate number,
Craziness, I have never asked for such details.
You've asked me to put up a "MySpace" page, a known
info source for stalkers, then berated me for not revealing the
exact make of my car. You've vaguely hinted that you're
compiling information on my familial relationships.

They do a lot of this kind of stuff in Russia, but I don't think
you're smart enough to be that kind of criminal...you're mostly
just a impotent little fake that likes to "talk tough" but probably
can't even afford the bus fare to fulfill your hateful desires...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
family relationships,
Yeah, I'm interested in knowing why you're so fucked up since you
won't go away and crave all this attention and so forth.
There's so many things wrong with this:

1. I don't think you have any particular training to in any way detect
or diagnose any real or projected "mental problems" I may have.

2. As we have seen again recently, I tend to be a responsible
thoughtful on-topic poster who is the victim of some hate-filled
attacks by people who have a clear history of anti-social behavior,
but I expect that there are many "borderline personalities" on the 'net,
and frankly, I find them to be funny, so even sort of seek them out.

3. If you really think that it is "attention" I seek, and you truly wanted
me to "go away", your continued unprovoked attacks on me would be
the WORST way to go about it.
Post by ichorwhip
Family
relationships are the best place to start. You became a creep because
of something that happened in your life.
I was born a poor black child? What?

Look, I'll help you out here, since you clearly lack "book-learning"
on the issue: first look for "inappropriate responses", over-reactions to
seemingly simple inputs. Start looking for a pattern of these reactions.

This is how psychologists work, by establishing a catalog of
responses to simple questions about the subject's life, reactions
to Rorsharch cards, etc.

For example, I couldn't help but notice that when confronted with
the mere statement that I thought "Dr. Zhivago" was laughably bad,
you chose to wish death on me, a completely inappropriate response.
I've given you MY interpretation of that inappropriate response
about a hundred times now, but as any trained psychologist would
know, you are nowhere near a "breakthrough" here.

I've been given the opportunity to demonstrate an actual real-life
"breakthrough" (or at least a "breakdown") here, so read my latest
response to "Harry Bailey" carefully (if only for the humor value)...
Post by ichorwhip
You'll spill it eventually.
Yes, the "Eternal Borgward" and "Tippy The Flying Wonder-Dog"
stories are getting you MUCH closer to your ostensible goal...BOTH
of us will die before we get anywhere at this rate.

Look, I will help you out just a little...I'm totally serious that you are
a potential threat to reasonable participants of this newsgroup, because
you exhibited the "stalking" behavior that frankly I had never encountered
after almost 20 years on Usenet, and the only other people who exhibited
the behavior were very disturbed, had a history of institutionalization,
or made actual undeniable threats ("I'm gonna get your address and
send you a going away present!").

Now if you consider my contacting certain people and sharing
information about you to be an "inappropriate response", so be
it, and there you have the true start of your all-important "psych"
evaluation. But I predict that like so everything else in your "life",
you ain't gonna get anywhere with this...
Post by ichorwhip
Reidiot(TM) is obviously pissed ain't he?
Not even close. I've always been straight with you and everybody
about my emotional states. I've told you that I had to take action against
you because you might become a threat to me, but I'm not angry, just
taking due and rational precautions...you might call that "fear",
because that would be the simplest concept to describe it...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
What I've noticed is a lot of your deranged techniques and demented
tendencies continuing to bubble up with some "interesting" additions.
Yes, this is a new theme for him in the last few weeks...the ambiguous
How dare you use that word?
I only use it for things I don't like...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
"interesting" analysis of the "data" in my posts...is he "gathering
information"
on me similar to his well-known stalking behavior from a couple years
ago?
Why didn't you file a complaint then you freak? Do it now! I double-
dog dare ya!
I already did it, and I told you so! But I'm not legally required
to inform you of the people I "share" information with...but it is
the "usual suspects" that a NORMAL person would want to
notify when confronted with bizzarre behavior...
Post by ichorwhip
Yeah, I'm gathering information on you, sure, why not?
Cuz it's nutty? Ever wonder why nobody's doing the same for
you? It's NOT just that you're not worth the effort...
Post by ichorwhip
It may come in handy one day when you go totally off the deep-end and
try and do something to me.
Sure, this is the part when you take what I've said about you and
you parrot it back at me without reason. YOU'RE THE ADMITTED
STALKER, NOT ME. The worst thing I will ever do to you is the
same thing I have always done to you: TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT
YOU.
Post by ichorwhip
I have a rather large amount of evidence
to prove what an absolute menace to Usenet you are.
OK, post it all here right now:








('nuff space? use a separate sheet if you need it...)
Post by ichorwhip
I'm calling your
bluff. How do you like them apples?
I'd call them some really whacked-out nonsensical apples...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult
and/or
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
OH NO, WHAT'S THIS, A FLASH OF TRUTH?
Post by ichorwhip
I like to insult you because it's fun and makes my friends laugh and
laugh, and you definitely deserve every ounce of it. Being a
repugnant bitch has its consequences. Thanks for playing!
So is he admitting he's just a common "troll"? No, trollz iz smart...and
they NEVER admit to being a troll...I think this is just a description of
the voices in his head...
Neah, you can call me whatever you please so long as it doesn't cross
the aforementioned lines that you have crossed at least once before.
OK:

YOU BIG-NOSED GREEK!!!

(I don't care who sues me anymore!)
Post by ichorwhip
(Keep your namecalling legal in other words. I won't forgive you
again.)
Just for your information, idiot, your "forgiveness" is not that
much of a legal issue...
Post by ichorwhip
You are the "troll" except a really persistent, dumb and
vacuous one with some serious mental illness issues is my best guess.
I am a troll-beater-upper. I would say "slayer", but you'd no doubt
take it literally, wet your diaper, and start screaming LIFETHREATENER
in your high-pitched caps.
Actually, I'd say you've got some kind of "Buffy" complex!!!

Also, I'd say you're like the worst "troll-slayer" imaginable...you
swore you'd drive me out of the group years ago, and I'm still here!
And the funny thing is, you won't take my well-meaning and reasonable
advice to POSSIBLY acheive your idiotic "goal", so we shouldn't
be surprised at this, the latest of your lifetime of failures...
Post by ichorwhip
You can really dish it out, but you just
can't take it is what it amounts to.
I think even a cursory reading of the text would prove just the
opposite...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
AND NOW HERE IT COMES, THE GREAT "MOTOR
OIL" QUESTION THAT IS CONSUMING THE KUBRICK
NEWSGROUP!!!
It all started with your improbable tale idiot. You can't just let it
go though.
I "let it go" when I FIRST told the "tale", I implied it was
"IMPROBABLE!" from the get-go...sheesh, that was the
whole point!
Post by ichorwhip
And YOU are the one "consuming" this newsgroup.
Nope, it's you, and "Screams/Seaweeds", and other nutjobs,
with your compulsive posting of abuse rather than content...
Post by ichorwhip
I have a
little spare time at the moment
So you really DID get canned? Bummer...but round these parts,
everybody gets canned about every 18 months on average, and
a month later they're working at a minimum 50% salary increase,
so we actually look forward to it!
Post by ichorwhip
and feel like "smacking" you around.
It's hilarious.
This is a latter-day Usenut thing I've noticed, when the trolls
start admitting to their troll-like behavior, kind of like a geriatric
running around the rest home with their robe open...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one
time
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Look... The car had to have been turned over at least a few times
within that long a time period(more like once every few months).
Batteries don't last that long either especially without charging.
And then there is the rubber issue...fuck it.
"rubber issue"? wha' dat?
You know all about engines? What an idiot. I'm not going to bother to
explain it to you.
EVERYBODY knows that when some idiot says "I'm not going to
bother to explain it to you", THEY GOT NUTTIN'!!!

"rubber"...sheesh...what brought that neurotic misfire on: his sheets, the
condom his biological father should have used, what?
Post by ichorwhip
I'll just stick to the oil,
That's good, stick to what you don't know...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You said the car was
outside and so forth?
It was full of spiders! I didn't want to get in it, but my dad said it
was the only way to drive to town, so I kind of "hovered" over my
seat for 25 miles as arachnids belayed down on silk towards my
face!
Creepy! Did you ask him about the Donner Party?
I WAS thinking about the toofless hillbilly that would pick us
up when we had to hitch-hike back, I must admit...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Hmmm? You're either lying outright or calendar-
challenged.
I don't know, except my grandfather had been dead for years
when this happened, and my grandmother didn't drive herself
anywhere.
This is as close to a recant as I'm likely to get. Fair enough...
Sweet baby Jaaaaay-sus, you are such a jerk! And you wonder
why the conversation stops and people hurry away without making
eye contact when you arrive...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
"harden up"? You mean like concrete? Got a cite for this,
petroleum boy?!!??!!
I'll cite my own experience.
NO, A WEB-"CITE", GOOGLE(TM) "MOTOR OIL STORED
CARS" OR SUMPIN' AND POST IT, YOU IDIOT!!! I'd do it,
but I can't "prove a negative"...I know logic isn't your strong suit,
because it involves "thinking", but likewise, your idiotic anecdote in
no way "trumps" my own idiotic stories...
Post by ichorwhip
I recently rebuilt a Chevy smallblock
305 that had sat for about a year outside in the car.
SO YOU'RE NOT A COPY EDITOR, YOU'RE A MECHANIC!!!
I SHUDDA KNOWN!!!
Post by ichorwhip
When I went to
drain the oil, very little came out. It was in the engine in the form
of "hardened sludge", not like concrete idiot.
Well, that proves it, you bought a car from some slob who didn't
change the oil for 1,000,000,000,000,000,018 miles, and you idiotically
think that the oil had thickened just from sitting for a year! WHAT
A MAROON!!!
Post by ichorwhip
This is not uncommon
I'm told by real mechanics,
Uh, just a little hint here, you may not realize this since you is one,
"real" mechanics are REAL IDIOTS, and they're likely to tell you
just about anything, especially if they sell you a car where the oil
hasn't been changed for 1,000,000,000,000,000,018 miles...I once
has a "professional" mechanic tell me a Ferrari he was trying to
sell me might "smoke a little" because he had run it for a while
using DIESEL FUEL "just to see what would happen"...and he
claimed it "ran fine" for 2,000 miles on diesel!!! Now THAT'S a
"disputable" story!!!
Post by ichorwhip
I just "shade-tree" for knowledge and
hobby when I can.
Couldn't sell your "project car" for a profit, could ya?

Look, at this point, I would like to apologize for repeatedly
calling you a low-level pennibroke idiot, because I didn't realize
until just this moment just how true it was...sheesh, you just
accomplished the impossible, I actually feel sorry for your
creepy ass...
Post by ichorwhip
Trying to start an engine with this crap in it would
most likely be futile, and would prolly damage the engine.
Ah, yes, probably would damage the engine, but the engine
was severely damaged already because some slob drove it
for 1,000,000,000,000,000,018 miles without changing
the oil...NOT your contention that you couldn't start the car
AT ALL because the oil "hardened up"...as a matter of fact
I've seen a LOT of really sludged-up cars driven until they finally
died; in fact, it's quite typical, I've even done it my own
self in my very early years, and definitely have encountered
the SLOW-moving oil you describe as a result...
Post by ichorwhip
Piston
rings also have a tendency to rust and adhere to cylinder walls the
longer they sit. Instant damage if you even try to turn them over
like that.
Actually, in some cases you CAN get a complete "freeze"
of the engine due to the bearings and piston rings "rusting"
together, this may be what you thought was due to "hardened
oil". It helps to apply a little "top oil" or any lubricant to
through the spark plug holes before storing a car to help
prevent this, and when you go to start it up, similarly squirt
a little penetrating oil in there, and manually turn the engine
over a few cranks after a few minutes, just to ensure the
minimal amount of damage, if any, will occur.

You should also store a car with full sump of freshly-circulated
new oil to help make sure that the bearings and cylinder walls will
have some oil in them when you start the car again.
Post by ichorwhip
Not to mention that gas turns to varnish if it sits long
enough. Ask any mechanic...
I already said that gas degrades in several ways over time, you
should drain the gas tank when storing a car and use fresh fuel
on start-up...and I've told you how idiotic mechanics like you are...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
I've started my own stored cars with a full sump of oil after two
years with NO problem, just a freshly-charged battery if needed.
There you go and TOTALLY admit that a battery had to be charged up at
the very least.
I said "IF NEEDED!" you moron!!!
Post by ichorwhip
You never said that before about your gramp's car.
Argumentative mechanic idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
Also, a stored car, out of the elements and so forth, can sit much
longer depending, but who cares? There is NO WAY that old car sat
there untouched for 7 years and started right up for so many reasons.
Here I was feeling sorry for you, but you are just like all low-level
idiots...you were just "born wrong", and who am I to worry about
your wretched life?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
It IS true that some of the lighter
aromatic elements will "evaporate" out of petroleum products when
a car is stored for a long time, but that is a bigger problem for
the gas in the tank, which can turn quite sludgy and not able
to be used as fuel after years.
It turns into a sort of varnish. Sounds like you looked this stuff up
for yourself.
Uh, yeah, like decades ago...
Post by ichorwhip
Still it was your big stinking exaggeration, I'll call
it, that started all of this idiot.
SO SUE ME FOR TELLING A "TALL TALE" MORON!!!
MAKE A "FEDERAL CASE" OF IT, WHY DON'T YOU!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
But the oil will not "harden up" in any way to prevent the starting
of the car! I happen to change my own oil in all my cars, and there
was one time where the jerks at the local auto parts store didn't
honor their legal obligation to allow me to re-cycle my oil, kept
saying "our sump is full", for a matter of years.
So I just kept storing the old oil in an array of containers, such
as old milk containers, in a corner of my garage. Finally, the lying
bastards finally had an empty sump after about three years or so,
so I transported about 50 gallons of old oil down there, and I
guarantee you it POURED JUST FINE, THANK YOU, NOT
AT ALL HARDENED, YOU MORON!!!
It wasn't in the engine you idiot, and there was a LOT of it.
WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION!???!!!

WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE
WHERE THE OIL WAS?!??!! SHEESH, JUST LET
IT GO, YOU "SHADY-MINDED" MECHANIC!!!
Post by ichorwhip
You are
totally off on a tangent of your own now. 50 gallons eh? That's
quite a bit. Sounds like another lie.
I have several cars, I change the oil in as little as every 3,000
miles, and some of them use up to 10 quarts of oil, I was storing
it for years, do the math...and also, 50 gallons may be a BIT of an
exaggeration, it just SEEMED like it at the time, why don't you
just call me a liar about everything little thing, you jerk...
Post by ichorwhip
Five quarts of used oil in an
engine will set as previously described. I have seen it with my own
eyes, and was told to expect it beforehand when I got the car.
EXACTLY AS I SAID...THE GUY WHO SOLD YOU THE
CAR TOLD YOU A "STORY", AND YOU IDIOTICALLY
BELIEVED HIM! IDIOT!!!

Also, I can't help it...FIVE quarts of oil in the idiotic Chevy
smallblock...that's what they put in a Toyota Corolla 1500cc
engine, for cryin' out loud...and people wonder why I have
steadfastly refused to ever own an American car...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
"diagnosis" or a new level of stalking? Should I remind the
"authorities" of your deranged record?
Go ahead! Report me. If you do I guarantee it will backfire on you.
Go ahead Reidiot(TM). DO IT NOW.
Ah, the idiotic "bluff". I'll do what I need to do on my
own schedule like the normal reasonable person I am.
Nothing is going to "backfire" on me, except maybe your
miserable beat-up Chevy as your drive past my house
throwing eggs or whatever idiotic "revenge" you have
planned for your "end-game"...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...
Questions were asked which you never answered phony-boy...
I own several cars and said so. I am NOT giving you the
VIN numbers, you freak!
Stupid, desperate, phony... You well know I don't give a shit about
any of your exact personal particulars such as VIN numbers of cars you
supposedly own, or your basement address or your trac phone number or
anything like that.
Then why do you keep asking?
Post by ichorwhip
I want to know the dawn of Reidiot(TM) since
you won't go away, and it's a slow news day.
Not many cars come into the shop (under the "tree") today?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wait a second, I want a new topic for you to idiotically dispute.
You see, this one came up because "Green Straggles" insulted the
vehicles of my dead grandmother.
I don't think he did. You made some snide remark, and he responded.
He should have known my grandmothers and dogs were dead,
the psychopathic freak, and not brought them up (oh, by the way,
this is what's called "satire", for all the many people in this group
who are too stupid to "get it")...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
The thoughtless bastard also
insulted the memory of my dead dog (pick one of my several dead
When I was just an infant, my family had a dog named "Tippy".
"Tippy" was apparently a quite rambunctious canine, and loved
to take car trips for a particular reason. The family car did not
have air conditioning at that time, and I was told that when we
went on a long trip in the hot summer, with all the windows
rolled down, "Tippy" would spy some potential prey in the roadside
brush, and just jump right out the window at like 80 mph!
My parents and sister described that "Tippy" would hit the
ground rolling...and rolling...and rolling, like a furry barrel
down the road before finally coming to a rest, then would
pop up to his paws, completely unharmed! Then they would
stop the car, and get the dog back in, and start driving again,
with my sister's job to hold the dog. But kids being kids,
she would relax her vigilance after a few miles, and as soon
as the car had hit a minimum of 70 mph, "Tippy" would
WHOOOSH!!! fly right out the window again!
Sheesh! Talk about cruelty to animals!
Does this help you with your "psych" at all? MY FAMILY
KILLED DOGS...AND CATS!!! AND TURTLES, GOLDFISH,
HAMSTERS, AND PARAKEETS!!! WE KILLED THEM
ALL!!! WE WERE LIKE SPCA VERSION OF "THE TEXAS
CHAINSAW MASSACRE"!!! THAT'S WHY I'M DERANGED,
BECAUSE OF THE TRAIL OF PET CARCASSES WE LEFT
IN OUR MURDEROUS WAKE!!! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Post by ichorwhip
At a minimum of 70 eh?
Apparently, he liked a "degree of difficulty" to his stunts...
Post by ichorwhip
Sounds rather incredible that the dog could survive that, but I am no
expert on seeing what a dog can survive as such.
You mean you're not a "shade tree" veteranarian as well? Nobody
sell you a dog with two-legs and tell you they'd grow back?
Post by ichorwhip
I take good care of
my animals you see, and would have tied the "jumper" down somehow
FASCIST!!! HE WAS "BORN FREE", YOU'D PUT HIM
IN CHAINS!!!
Post by ichorwhip
or
put the windows half up or something, ANYTHING to prevent such an
incident from happening over and over such as you describe.
What about the future entertainment value of the story? Does
that count for anything?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
This whole process would repeat about every ten miles
for hundreds of miles. Of course, as you might be able to
predict, things did not wind up well for "Tippy": he was
crossing the street in front of our house one day, and got
killed by a car...
Sad story... I guess your family had very little emotional attachment
to "Tippy" to let that happen over and over let alone any decency
concerning the treatment of animals. Should we pause for a hankie-
break?
It's was kind of like that Jim Carroll song "All The People Who Died",
but with tails and floppy ears...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
No, idiot.
"Sebastian, come back here!"
Well, at least you got a quote out of it...idiot...

---
William Ernest "I Hope The Bird In 'The Killing' Was OK" Reid
m***@gmail.com
2007-06-22 03:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Can I call 'em or what? I've always said this was one stupid mofo,
which is the true underlying cause of all the anti-social behavior
exhibited
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
by him and all the other similarly mentally-situated lonely angry kooks
on
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
the Internet nowadays, and now he's just proven the point perfectly by
progressing to a "flame war" over...get this, you're not gonna believe
it, even I can't believe it...MOTOR OIL!!!
Simply not the case at all. You lied, or at best distorted,
I told a stupid story about a car, that's all, just some "dumb talk",
you know, the way NORMAL people do, and you chose to brand
me a "LIAR!!!"
As a heuristically programmed meat puppet, I never intentionally
lie or distort data. I will admit my series of computer has been known
to make the occasional "human error", but that's also what makes
me a fun person at parties! If I make a mistake, I just admit, and
have never killed any astronauts to try to cover it up!
Post by ichorwhip
and I
called you on it.
Why? If you heard this same story around the "water cooler", would
you challenge your co-workers the same way? If they said they thought
"Dr. Zhivago" was laughably bad, would you impulsively wish death
on them?
This IS the "power of the Internet" for anonymous trolls with criminally
low self-esteem such as yourself, innit?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
It does seem like he's a little more "on edge" than usual,
Eh? Completely relaxed and enjoying life at the moment.
Then why all the spontaneous venom? You've turned yet another
thread into an off-topic hate-fest...why?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
if that's
possible, so I do have to consider my contention from a few weeks
ago that he might have suffered a life-altering "event" that is driving
his current fascination with my license plate number,
Craziness, I have never asked for such details.
You've asked me to put up a "MySpace" page, a known
info source for stalkers, then berated me for not revealing the
exact make of my car. You've vaguely hinted that you're
compiling information on my familial relationships.
They do a lot of this kind of stuff in Russia, but I don't think
you're smart enough to be that kind of criminal...you're mostly
just a impotent little fake that likes to "talk tough" but probably
can't even afford the bus fare to fulfill your hateful desires...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
family relationships,
Yeah, I'm interested in knowing why you're so fucked up since you
won't go away and crave all this attention and so forth.
1. I don't think you have any particular training to in any way detect
or diagnose any real or projected "mental problems" I may have.
2. As we have seen again recently, I tend to be a responsible
thoughtful on-topic poster who is the victim of some hate-filled
attacks by people who have a clear history of anti-social behavior,
but I expect that there are many "borderline personalities" on the 'net,
and frankly, I find them to be funny, so even sort of seek them out.
3. If you really think that it is "attention" I seek, and you truly wanted
me to "go away", your continued unprovoked attacks on me would be
the WORST way to go about it.
Post by ichorwhip
Family
relationships are the best place to start. You became a creep because
of something that happened in your life.
I was born a poor black child? What?
Look, I'll help you out here, since you clearly lack "book-learning"
on the issue: first look for "inappropriate responses", over-reactions to
seemingly simple inputs. Start looking for a pattern of these reactions.
This is how psychologists work, by establishing a catalog of
responses to simple questions about the subject's life, reactions
to Rorsharch cards, etc.
For example, I couldn't help but notice that when confronted with
the mere statement that I thought "Dr. Zhivago" was laughably bad,
you chose to wish death on me, a completely inappropriate response.
I've given you MY interpretation of that inappropriate response
about a hundred times now, but as any trained psychologist would
know, you are nowhere near a "breakthrough" here.
I've been given the opportunity to demonstrate an actual real-life
"breakthrough" (or at least a "breakdown") here, so read my latest
response to "Harry Bailey" carefully (if only for the humor value)...
Post by ichorwhip
You'll spill it eventually.
Yes, the "Eternal Borgward" and "Tippy The Flying Wonder-Dog"
stories are getting you MUCH closer to your ostensible goal...BOTH
of us will die before we get anywhere at this rate.
Look, I will help you out just a little...I'm totally serious that you are
a potential threat to reasonable participants of this newsgroup, because
you exhibited the "stalking" behavior that frankly I had never encountered
after almost 20 years on Usenet, and the only other people who exhibited
the behavior were very disturbed, had a history of institutionalization,
or made actual undeniable threats ("I'm gonna get your address and
send you a going away present!").
Now if you consider my contacting certain people and sharing
information about you to be an "inappropriate response", so be
it, and there you have the true start of your all-important "psych"
evaluation. But I predict that like so everything else in your "life",
you ain't gonna get anywhere with this...
Post by ichorwhip
Reidiot(TM) is obviously pissed ain't he?
Not even close. I've always been straight with you and everybody
about my emotional states. I've told you that I had to take action against
you because you might become a threat to me, but I'm not angry, just
taking due and rational precautions...you might call that "fear",
because that would be the simplest concept to describe it...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
What I've noticed is a lot of your deranged techniques and demented
tendencies continuing to bubble up with some "interesting" additions.
Yes, this is a new theme for him in the last few weeks...the ambiguous
How dare you use that word?
I only use it for things I don't like...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
"interesting" analysis of the "data" in my posts...is he "gathering
information"
on me similar to his well-known stalking behavior from a couple years
ago?
Why didn't you file a complaint then you freak? Do it now! I double-
dog dare ya!
I already did it, and I told you so! But I'm not legally required
to inform you of the people I "share" information with...but it is
the "usual suspects" that a NORMAL person would want to
notify when confronted with bizzarre behavior...
Post by ichorwhip
Yeah, I'm gathering information on you, sure, why not?
Cuz it's nutty? Ever wonder why nobody's doing the same for
you? It's NOT just that you're not worth the effort...
Post by ichorwhip
It may come in handy one day when you go totally off the deep-end and
try and do something to me.
Sure, this is the part when you take what I've said about you and
you parrot it back at me without reason. YOU'RE THE ADMITTED
STALKER, NOT ME. The worst thing I will ever do to you is the
same thing I have always done to you: TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT
YOU.
Post by ichorwhip
I have a rather large amount of evidence
to prove what an absolute menace to Usenet you are.
('nuff space? use a separate sheet if you need it...)
Post by ichorwhip
I'm calling your
bluff. How do you like them apples?
I'd call them some really whacked-out nonsensical apples...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult
and/or
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
OH NO, WHAT'S THIS, A FLASH OF TRUTH?
Post by ichorwhip
I like to insult you because it's fun and makes my friends laugh and
laugh, and you definitely deserve every ounce of it. Being a
repugnant bitch has its consequences. Thanks for playing!
So is he admitting he's just a common "troll"? No, trollz iz
smart...and
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
they NEVER admit to being a troll...I think this is just a description
of
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
the voices in his head...
Neah, you can call me whatever you please so long as it doesn't cross
the aforementioned lines that you have crossed at least once before.
YOU BIG-NOSED GREEK!!!
(I don't care who sues me anymore!)
Post by ichorwhip
(Keep your namecalling legal in other words. I won't forgive you
again.)
Just for your information, idiot, your "forgiveness" is not that
much of a legal issue...
Post by ichorwhip
You are the "troll" except a really persistent, dumb and
vacuous one with some serious mental illness issues is my best guess.
I am a troll-beater-upper. I would say "slayer", but you'd no doubt
take it literally, wet your diaper, and start screaming LIFETHREATENER
in your high-pitched caps.
Actually, I'd say you've got some kind of "Buffy" complex!!!
Also, I'd say you're like the worst "troll-slayer" imaginable...you
swore you'd drive me out of the group years ago, and I'm still here!
And the funny thing is, you won't take my well-meaning and reasonable
advice to POSSIBLY acheive your idiotic "goal", so we shouldn't
be surprised at this, the latest of your lifetime of failures...
Post by ichorwhip
You can really dish it out, but you just
can't take it is what it amounts to.
I think even a cursory reading of the text would prove just the
opposite...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
AND NOW HERE IT COMES, THE GREAT "MOTOR
OIL" QUESTION THAT IS CONSUMING THE KUBRICK
NEWSGROUP!!!
It all started with your improbable tale idiot. You can't just let it
go though.
I "let it go" when I FIRST told the "tale", I implied it was
"IMPROBABLE!" from the get-go...sheesh, that was the
whole point!
Post by ichorwhip
And YOU are the one "consuming" this newsgroup.
Nope, it's you, and "Screams/Seaweeds", and other nutjobs,
with your compulsive posting of abuse rather than content...
Post by ichorwhip
I have a
little spare time at the moment
So you really DID get canned? Bummer...but round these parts,
everybody gets canned about every 18 months on average, and
a month later they're working at a minimum 50% salary increase,
so we actually look forward to it!
Post by ichorwhip
and feel like "smacking" you around.
It's hilarious.
This is a latter-day Usenut thing I've noticed, when the trolls
start admitting to their troll-like behavior, kind of like a geriatric
running around the rest home with their robe open...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one
time
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward"
which
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right
up!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Look... The car had to have been turned over at least a few times
within that long a time period(more like once every few months).
Batteries don't last that long either especially without charging.
And then there is the rubber issue...fuck it.
"rubber issue"? wha' dat?
You know all about engines? What an idiot. I'm not going to bother to
explain it to you.
EVERYBODY knows that when some idiot says "I'm not going to
bother to explain it to you", THEY GOT NUTTIN'!!!
"rubber"...sheesh...what brought that neurotic misfire on: his sheets, the
condom his biological father should have used, what?
Post by ichorwhip
I'll just stick to the oil,
That's good, stick to what you don't know...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You said the car was
outside and so forth?
It was full of spiders! I didn't want to get in it, but my dad said it
was the only way to drive to town, so I kind of "hovered" over my
seat for 25 miles as arachnids belayed down on silk towards my
face!
Creepy! Did you ask him about the Donner Party?
I WAS thinking about the toofless hillbilly that would pick us
up when we had to hitch-hike back, I must admit...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Hmmm? You're either lying outright or calendar-
challenged.
I don't know, except my grandfather had been dead for years
when this happened, and my grandmother didn't drive herself
anywhere.
This is as close to a recant as I'm likely to get. Fair enough...
Sweet baby Jaaaaay-sus, you are such a jerk! And you wonder
why the conversation stops and people hurry away without making
eye contact when you arrive...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
"harden up"? You mean like concrete? Got a cite for this,
petroleum boy?!!??!!
I'll cite my own experience.
NO, A WEB-"CITE", GOOGLE(TM) "MOTOR OIL STORED
CARS" OR SUMPIN' AND POST IT, YOU IDIOT!!! I'd do it,
but I can't "prove a negative"...I know logic isn't your strong suit,
because it involves "thinking", but likewise, your idiotic anecdote in
no way "trumps" my own idiotic stories...
Post by ichorwhip
I recently rebuilt a Chevy smallblock
305 that had sat for about a year outside in the car.
SO YOU'RE NOT A COPY EDITOR, YOU'RE A MECHANIC!!!
I SHUDDA KNOWN!!!
Post by ichorwhip
When I went to
drain the oil, very little came out. It was in the engine in the form
of "hardened sludge", not like concrete idiot.
Well, that proves it, you bought a car from some slob who didn't
change the oil for 1,000,000,000,000,000,018 miles, and you idiotically
think that the oil had thickened just from sitting for a year! WHAT
A MAROON!!!
Post by ichorwhip
This is not uncommon
I'm told by real mechanics,
Uh, just a little hint here, you may not realize this since you is one,
"real" mechanics are REAL IDIOTS, and they're likely to tell you
just about anything, especially if they sell you a car where the oil
hasn't been changed for 1,000,000,000,000,000,018 miles...I once
has a "professional" mechanic tell me a Ferrari he was trying to
sell me might "smoke a little" because he had run it for a while
using DIESEL FUEL "just to see what would happen"...and he
claimed it "ran fine" for 2,000 miles on diesel!!! Now THAT'S a
"disputable" story!!!
Post by ichorwhip
I just "shade-tree" for knowledge and
hobby when I can.
Couldn't sell your "project car" for a profit, could ya?
Look, at this point, I would like to apologize for repeatedly
calling you a low-level pennibroke idiot, because I didn't realize
until just this moment just how true it was...sheesh, you just
accomplished the impossible, I actually feel sorry for your
creepy ass...
Post by ichorwhip
Trying to start an engine with this crap in it would
most likely be futile, and would prolly damage the engine.
Ah, yes, probably would damage the engine, but the engine
was severely damaged already because some slob drove it
for 1,000,000,000,000,000,018 miles without changing
the oil...NOT your contention that you couldn't start the car
AT ALL because the oil "hardened up"...as a matter of fact
I've seen a LOT of really sludged-up cars driven until they finally
died; in fact, it's quite typical, I've even done it my own
self in my very early years, and definitely have encountered
the SLOW-moving oil you describe as a result...
Post by ichorwhip
Piston
rings also have a tendency to rust and adhere to cylinder walls the
longer they sit. Instant damage if you even try to turn them over
like that.
Actually, in some cases you CAN get a complete "freeze"
of the engine due to the bearings and piston rings "rusting"
together, this may be what you thought was due to "hardened
oil". It helps to apply a little "top oil" or any lubricant to
through the spark plug holes before storing a car to help
prevent this, and when you go to start it up, similarly squirt
a little penetrating oil in there, and manually turn the engine
over a few cranks after a few minutes, just to ensure the
minimal amount of damage, if any, will occur.
You should also store a car with full sump of freshly-circulated
new oil to help make sure that the bearings and cylinder walls will
have some oil in them when you start the car again.
Post by ichorwhip
Not to mention that gas turns to varnish if it sits long
enough. Ask any mechanic...
I already said that gas degrades in several ways over time, you
should drain the gas tank when storing a car and use fresh fuel
on start-up...and I've told you how idiotic mechanics like you are...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
I've started my own stored cars with a full sump of oil after two
years with NO problem, just a freshly-charged battery if needed.
There you go and TOTALLY admit that a battery had to be charged up at
the very least.
I said "IF NEEDED!" you moron!!!
Post by ichorwhip
You never said that before about your gramp's car.
Argumentative mechanic idiot.
Post by ichorwhip
Also, a stored car, out of the elements and so forth, can sit much
longer depending, but who cares? There is NO WAY that old car sat
there untouched for 7 years and started right up for so many reasons.
Here I was feeling sorry for you, but you are just like all low-level
idiots...you were just "born wrong", and who am I to worry about
your wretched life?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
It IS true that some of the lighter
aromatic elements will "evaporate" out of petroleum products when
a car is stored for a long time, but that is a bigger problem for
the gas in the tank, which can turn quite sludgy and not able
to be used as fuel after years.
It turns into a sort of varnish. Sounds like you looked this stuff up
for yourself.
Uh, yeah, like decades ago...
Post by ichorwhip
Still it was your big stinking exaggeration, I'll call
it, that started all of this idiot.
SO SUE ME FOR TELLING A "TALL TALE" MORON!!!
MAKE A "FEDERAL CASE" OF IT, WHY DON'T YOU!!!
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
But the oil will not "harden up" in any way to prevent the starting
of the car! I happen to change my own oil in all my cars, and there
was one time where the jerks at the local auto parts store didn't
honor their legal obligation to allow me to re-cycle my oil, kept
saying "our sump is full", for a matter of years.
So I just kept storing the old oil in an array of containers, such
as old milk containers, in a corner of my garage. Finally, the lying
bastards finally had an empty sump after about three years or so,
so I transported about 50 gallons of old oil down there, and I
guarantee you it POURED JUST FINE, THANK YOU, NOT
AT ALL HARDENED, YOU MORON!!!
It wasn't in the engine you idiot, and there was a LOT of it.
WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION!???!!!
WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE
WHERE THE OIL WAS?!??!! SHEESH, JUST LET
IT GO, YOU "SHADY-MINDED" MECHANIC!!!
Post by ichorwhip
You are
totally off on a tangent of your own now. 50 gallons eh? That's
quite a bit. Sounds like another lie.
I have several cars, I change the oil in as little as every 3,000
miles, and some of them use up to 10 quarts of oil, I was storing
it for years, do the math...and also, 50 gallons may be a BIT of an
exaggeration, it just SEEMED like it at the time, why don't you
just call me a liar about everything little thing, you jerk...
Post by ichorwhip
Five quarts of used oil in an
engine will set as previously described. I have seen it with my own
eyes, and was told to expect it beforehand when I got the car.
EXACTLY AS I SAID...THE GUY WHO SOLD YOU THE
CAR TOLD YOU A "STORY", AND YOU IDIOTICALLY
BELIEVED HIM! IDIOT!!!
Also, I can't help it...FIVE quarts of oil in the idiotic Chevy
smallblock...that's what they put in a Toyota Corolla 1500cc
engine, for cryin' out loud...and people wonder why I have
steadfastly refused to ever own an American car...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
"diagnosis" or a new level of stalking? Should I remind the
"authorities" of your deranged record?
Go ahead! Report me. If you do I guarantee it will backfire on you.
Go ahead Reidiot(TM). DO IT NOW.
Ah, the idiotic "bluff". I'll do what I need to do on my
own schedule like the normal reasonable person I am.
Nothing is going to "backfire" on me, except maybe your
miserable beat-up Chevy as your drive past my house
throwing eggs or whatever idiotic "revenge" you have
planned for your "end-game"...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...
Questions were asked which you never answered phony-boy...
I own several cars and said so. I am NOT giving you the
VIN numbers, you freak!
Stupid, desperate, phony... You well know I don't give a shit about
any of your exact personal particulars such as VIN numbers of cars you
supposedly own, or your basement address or your trac phone number or
anything like that.
Then why do you keep asking?
Post by ichorwhip
I want to know the dawn of Reidiot(TM) since
you won't go away, and it's a slow news day.
Not many cars come into the shop (under the "tree") today?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wait a second, I want a new topic for you to idiotically dispute.
You see, this one came up because "Green Straggles" insulted the
vehicles of my dead grandmother.
I don't think he did. You made some snide remark, and he responded.
He should have known my grandmothers and dogs were dead,
the psychopathic freak, and not brought them up (oh, by the way,
this is what's called "satire", for all the many people in this group
who are too stupid to "get it")...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
The thoughtless bastard also
insulted the memory of my dead dog (pick one of my several dead
When I was just an infant, my family had a dog named "Tippy".
"Tippy" was apparently a quite rambunctious canine, and loved
to take car trips for a particular reason. The family car did not
have air conditioning at that time, and I was told that when we
went on a long trip in the hot summer, with all the windows
rolled down, "Tippy" would spy some potential prey in the roadside
brush, and just jump right out the window at like 80 mph!
My parents and sister described that "Tippy" would hit the
ground rolling...and rolling...and rolling, like a furry barrel
down the road before finally coming to a rest, then would
pop up to his paws, completely unharmed! Then they would
stop the car, and get the dog back in, and start driving again,
with my sister's job to hold the dog. But kids being kids,
she would relax her vigilance after a few miles, and as soon
as the car had hit a minimum of 70 mph, "Tippy" would
WHOOOSH!!! fly right out the window again!
Sheesh! Talk about cruelty to animals!
Does this help you with your "psych" at all? MY FAMILY
KILLED DOGS...AND CATS!!! AND TURTLES, GOLDFISH,
HAMSTERS, AND PARAKEETS!!! WE KILLED THEM
ALL!!! WE WERE LIKE SPCA VERSION OF "THE TEXAS
CHAINSAW MASSACRE"!!! THAT'S WHY I'M DERANGED,
BECAUSE OF THE TRAIL OF PET CARCASSES WE LEFT
IN OUR MURDEROUS WAKE!!! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Post by ichorwhip
At a minimum of 70 eh?
Apparently, he liked a "degree of difficulty" to his stunts...
Post by ichorwhip
Sounds rather incredible that the dog could survive that, but I am no
expert on seeing what a dog can survive as such.
You mean you're not a "shade tree" veteranarian as well? Nobody
sell you a dog with two-legs and tell you they'd grow back?
Post by ichorwhip
I take good care of
my animals you see, and would have tied the "jumper" down somehow
FASCIST!!! HE WAS "BORN FREE", YOU'D PUT HIM
IN CHAINS!!!
Post by ichorwhip
or
put the windows half up or something, ANYTHING to prevent such an
incident from happening over and over such as you describe.
What about the future entertainment value of the story? Does
that count for anything?
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
This whole process would repeat about every ten miles
for hundreds of miles. Of course, as you might be able to
predict, things did not wind up well for "Tippy": he was
crossing the street in front of our house one day, and got
killed by a car...
Sad story... I guess your family had very little emotional attachment
to "Tippy" to let that happen over and over let alone any decency
concerning the treatment of animals. Should we pause for a hankie-
break?
It's was kind of like that Jim Carroll song "All The People Who Died",
but with tails and floppy ears...
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
No, idiot.
"Sebastian, come back here!"
Well, at least you got a quote out of it...idiot...
---
William Ernest "I Hope The Bird In 'The Killing' Was OK" Reid

Harry Bailey
2007-06-21 23:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
Actually, I'm just wondering, as it's not so much that dog bodies
'harden up' upon hitting a very hard surface at 70mph-80mph but that
they become ex-dog bodies, former canine lovables, blood-splattered
minced-dog still imagined as cuddly puppy-in-back-seat of post-war
German automobile powered by batteries spectrally re-charged by the
oil-loving revenants of the Overlook's departed ancestors, preferring
the Weimar-lovable Borgward to the Nazi-designed Volkswagen,
especially after Mr Torrance was authorised, by orders of the House,
to re-charge the Overlook's Blitzkarren (i.e. the first Borgward, a
lightning cart, a sort of tiny three-wheeled van from the era of the
Overlook's first monochrome caretaker, the Weimar 1920s, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgward), but which couldn't - to Jack's
horror - hack it in the creeping perma-frost of the Overlook Maze's
snow ... whereas a Tucker Sno-Cat, like Danny's footprints, leave a
trace, a recognisable TRACK, which Jack would rather not GO CHECK IT
OUT, leaving it instead to his terrorised Borgwardless wife ... All
the consequences of which could have been avoided if your deranged,
Jack Torrance-emulating, Pavlovian mutt had simply been locked in the
back of a FIAT BAMBINO circa 1979's trip to the Overlook ...
Harry Bailey
2007-06-21 23:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
Actually, I'm just wondering, as it's not so much that dog bodies
'harden up' upon hitting a very hard surface at 70mph-80mph but that
they become ex-dog bodies, former canine lovables, blood-splattered
minced-dog still imagined as cuddly puppy-in-back-seat of post-war
German automobile powered by batteries spectrally re-charged by the
oil-loving revenants of the Overlook's departed ancestors, preferring
the Weimar-lovable Borgward to the Nazi-designed Volkswagen,
especially after Mr Torrance was authorised, by orders of the House,
to re-charge the Overlook's Blitzkarren (i.e. the first Borgward, a
lightning cart, a sort of tiny three-wheeled van from the era of the
Overlook's first monochrome caretaker, the Weimar 1920s, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgward), but which couldn't - to Jack's
horror - hack it in the creeping perma-frost of the Overlook Maze's
snow ... whereas a Tucker Sno-Cat, like Danny's footprints, leave a
trace, a recognisable TRACK, which Jack would rather not GO CHECK IT
OUT, leaving it instead to his terrorised, Borgwardless, TIPPY
Headroned wife ... All the consequences of which could have been
avoided if your deranged, Jack Torrance-emulating, Pavlovian mutt had
simply been locked in the back of a FIAT BAMBINO circa 1979's trip to
the Overlook ...
Harry Bailey
2007-06-22 00:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
Actually, I'm just wondering, as it's not so much that dog bodies
'harden up' upon hitting a very hard surface at 70mph-80mph but that
they become ex-dog bodies, former canine lovables, blood-splattered
minced-dog still imagined as cuddly puppy-in-back-seat of post-war
German automobile powered by batteries spectrally re-charged by the
oil-loving revenants of the Overlook's departed ancestors, preferring
the Weimar-lovable Borgward to the Nazi-designed Volkswagen,
especially after Mr Torrance was authorised, by orders of the House,
to re-charge the Overlook's Blitzkarren (i.e. the first Borgward, a
lightning cart, a sort of tiny three-wheeled van from the era of the
Overlook's first monochrome caretaker, the Weimar 1920s, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgward), but which couldn't - to Jack's
horror - hack it in the creeping perma-frost of the Overlook Maze's
snow ... whereas a Tucker Sno-Cat, like Danny's footprints, leave a
trace, a recognisable TRACK, which Jack would rather not GO CHECK IT
OUT, leaving it instead to his terrorised, Borgwardless, TIPPY
Headroned wife ... All the consequences of which could have been
avoided if your deranged, Jack Torrance-emulating, Pavlovian mutt had
simply been locked in the back of a FIAT BAMBINO circa 1979's trip to
the Overlook ...
Harry Bailey
2007-06-22 01:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
Actually, I'm just wondering, as it's not so much that dog bodies
'harden up' upon hitting a very hard surface at 70mph-80mph but that
they become ex-dog bodies, former canine lovables, blood-splattered
minced-dog still imagined as cuddly puppy-in-back-seat of post-war
German automobile powered by batteries spectrally re-charged by the
oil-loving revenants of the Overlook's departed ancestors, preferring
the Weimar-lovable Borgward to the Nazi-designed Volkswagen,
especially after Mr Torrance was authorised, by orders of the House,
to re-charge the Overlook's Blitzkarren (i.e. the first Borgward, a
lightning cart, a sort of tiny three-wheeled van from the era of the
Overlook's first monochrome caretaker, the Weimar 1920s, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgward), but which couldn't - to Jack's
horror - hack it in the creeping perma-frost of the Overlook Maze's
snow ... whereas a Tucker Sno-Cat, like Danny's footprints, leave a
trace, a recognisable TRACK, which Jack would rather not GO CHECK IT
OUT, leaving it instead to his terrorised, Borgwardless, TIPPY
Headroned wife ... All the consequences of which could have been
avoided if your deranged, Jack Torrance-emulating, Pavlovian mutt had
simply been locked in the back of a FIAT BAMBINO circa 1979's trip to
the Overlook ...
ichorwhip
2007-06-22 03:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Well this here reply just don't want to post! Maybe Reidiot(TM)
already got me banned from Usenet! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Well, here
Post by Bill Reid
Can I call 'em or what? I've always said this was one stupid mofo,
which is the true underlying cause of all the anti-social behavior exhibited
by him and all the other similarly mentally-situated lonely angry kooks on
the Internet nowadays, and now he's just proven the point perfectly by
progressing to a "flame war" over...get this, you're not gonna believe
it, even I can't believe it...MOTOR OIL!!!
Simply not the case at all. You lied, or at best distorted, and I
called you on it. And now you're going totally apeshit with all the
usual truth deflections and tactics you can think of to cover up for
your less-than-genuine ass. "It serves no purpose."
Post by Bill Reid
It does seem like he's a little more "on edge" than usual,
Eh? Completely relaxed and enjoying life at the moment. Quit
projecting baboon.
Post by Bill Reid
if that's
possible, so I do have to consider my contention from a few weeks
ago that he might have suffered a life-altering "event" that is driving
his current fascination with my license plate number,
Craziness, I have never asked for such details.
Post by Bill Reid
family relationships,
Yeah, I'm interested in knowing why you're so fucked up since you
won't go away and crave all this attention and so forth. You want to
be the center of attention huh? Well then, be the center of attention
idiot! Family relationships are the best place to start. You became
a creep because of something that happened in your life. You'll spill
it eventually.
Post by Bill Reid
and employment status, and wonder if indeed this portends the
"end game" that I predicted years ago, his demise in a hail of
the local gendarmes' projectiles...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! In your fondest dreams O veiler of deathwishes.
Post by Bill Reid
But what is Useless-net if not lotz and lotz of "stupid talk"; let's
have some sly fun with him to bring the only possible joy to his
remaining days...
Reidiot(TM) is obviously pissed ain't he? He keeps talking about me
dying. I get the feeling he don't like me very much.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
What I've noticed is a lot of your deranged techniques and demented
tendencies continuing to bubble up with some "interesting" additions.
Yes, this is a new theme for him in the last few weeks...the ambiguous
How dare you use that word?
Post by Bill Reid
"interesting" analysis of the "data" in my posts...is he "gathering
information"
on me similar to his well-known stalking behavior from a couple years
ago?
Why didn't you file a complaint then you freak? Do it now! I double-
dog dare ya! Yeah, I'm gathering information on you, sure, why not?
It may come in handy one day when you go totally off the deep-end and
try and do something to me. I have a rather large amount of evidence
to prove what an absolute menace to Usenet you are. I'm calling your
bluff. How do you like them apples?
Post by Bill Reid
Is he "psyching" me? We'll only know in retrospect about the
former, and the latter will forever only be known to the voices in
his head!
Who is the the "we" you keep referring to? You are friendless and
with good reason.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult
and/or
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
OH NO, WHAT'S THIS, A FLASH OF TRUTH?
Post by ichorwhip
I like to insult you because it's fun and makes my friends laugh and
laugh, and you definitely deserve every ounce of it. Being a
repugnant bitch has its consequences. Thanks for playing!
So is he admitting he's just a common "troll"? No, trollz iz smart...and
they NEVER admit to being a troll...I think this is just a description of
the voices in his head...
Neah, you can call me whatever you please so long as it doesn't cross
the aforementioned lines that you have crossed at least once before.
(Keep your namecalling legal in other words. I won't forgive you
again.) You are the "troll" except a really persistent, dumb and
vacuous one with some serious mental illness issues is my best guess.
I am a troll-beater-upper. I would say "slayer", but you'd no doubt
take it literally, wet your diaper, and start screaming LIFETHREATENER
in your high-pitched caps. You can really dish it out, but you just
can't take it is what it amounts to. Crybaby idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
AND NOW HERE IT COMES, THE GREAT "MOTOR
OIL" QUESTION THAT IS CONSUMING THE KUBRICK
NEWSGROUP!!!
It all started with your improbable tale idiot. You can't just let it
go though. And YOU are the one "consuming" this newsgroup. I have a
little spare time at the moment and feel like "smacking" you around.
It's hilarious. I can feel your pulse pounding in your latest messages
here. For your own health you ought to back off and go quietly
meditate, drink some Ovaltine(TM), and light a candle or something.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one
time
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Look... The car had to have been turned over at least a few times
within that long a time period(more like once every few months).
Batteries don't last that long either especially without charging.
And then there is the rubber issue...fuck it.
"rubber issue"? wha' dat?
You know all about engines? What an idiot. I'm not going to bother to
explain it to you. I'll just stick to the oil, afterall your health is
at stake, and I don't believe I can do it without insulting you
further still.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You said the car was
outside and so forth?
It was full of spiders! I didn't want to get in it, but my dad said it
was the only way to drive to town, so I kind of "hovered" over my
seat for 25 miles as arachnids belayed down on silk towards my
face!
Creepy! Did you ask him about the Donner Party?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Hmmm? You're either lying outright or calendar-
challenged.
I don't know, except my grandfather had been dead for years
when this happened, and my grandmother didn't drive herself
anywhere.
This is as close to a recant as I'm likely to get. Fair enough...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
"harden up"? You mean like concrete? Got a cite for this,
petroleum boy?!!??!!
I'll cite my own experience. I once rebuilt a Chevy smallblock 305
that had sat for about a year outside in the car. When I went to
drain the oil, very little came out. It was in the engine in the form
of "hardened sludge", not like concrete idiot. This is not uncommon
I'm told by real mechanics, I just "shade-tree" for knowledge and
hobby when I can. Trying to start an engine with this crap in it would
most likely be futile, and would prolly damage the engine. Piston
rings also have a tendency to rust and adhere to cylinder walls the
longer they sit. Instant damage if you even try to turn them over
like that. Not to mention that gas turns to varnish if it sits long
enough. Ask any mechanic...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You fake, you don't know what you're talking about, motor oil
is something that only MEN know about...not fey little Quote
Monkeys(TM) who have banged their fuzzy heads on the cage
bars one too many times...
That is not a refutation you phony. I know what I'm talking about, you
don't. It's as simple as that.
You don't know who you're dealing with, you giant idiotic liar!!!
Simmer down now lil' fella! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Post by Bill Reid
I've started my own stored cars with a full sump of oil after two
years with NO problem, just a freshly-charged battery if needed.
There you go and TOTALLY admit that a battery had to be charged up at
the very least. You never said that before about your gramp's car.
Also, a stored car, out of the elements and so forth, can sit much
longer depending, but who cares? There is NO WAY that old car sat
there untouched for 7 years and started right up for so many reasons.
Post by Bill Reid
As a matter of fact, I know the EXACT procedures for storing
cars for years, and you DON'T!
Oh yeah? BWAHAHA!!!!!! The voices in your head tell you that?
Post by Bill Reid
It IS true that some of the lighter
aromatic elements will "evaporate" out of petroleum products when
a car is stored for a long time, but that is a bigger problem for
the gas in the tank, which can turn quite sludgy and not able
to be used as fuel after years.
It turns into a sort of varnish. Sounds like you looked this stuff up
for yourself. Still it was your big stinking exaggeration, I'll call
it, that started all of this idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
But the oil will not "harden up" in any way to prevent the starting
of the car! I happen to change my own oil in all my cars, and there
was one time where the jerks at the local auto parts store didn't
honor their legal obligation to allow me to re-cycle my oil, kept
saying "our sump is full", for a matter of years.
So I just kept storing the old oil in an array of containers, such
as old milk containers, in a corner of my garage. Finally, the lying
bastards finally had an empty sump after about three years or so,
so I transported about 50 gallons of old oil down there, and I
guarantee you it POURED JUST FINE, THANK YOU, NOT
AT ALL HARDENED, YOU MORON!!!
It wasn't in the engine you idiot, and there was a LOT of it. You are
totally off on a tangent of your own now. 50 gallons eh? That's
quite a bit. Sounds like another lie. Five quarts of used oil in an
engine will set as previously described. I have seen it with my own
eyes, and was told to expect it beforehand when I got the car.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well we do establish that you
actually had and apparently knew your father. "I'll bet he regrets
that!" You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
"diagnosis" or a new level of stalking? Should I remind the
"authorities" of your deranged record?
Go ahead! Report me. If you do I guarantee it will backfire on you.
Go ahead Reidiot(TM). DO IT NOW.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...
Questions were asked which you never answered phony-boy...
I own several cars and said so. I am NOT giving you the
VIN numbers, you freak!
Stupid, desperate, phony... You well know I don't give a shit about
any of your exact personal particulars such as VIN numbers of cars you
supposedly own, or your basement address or your trac phone number or
anything like that. I just want to know what makes a maggot like you
tick, that's all. You like being the center of attention? Well be
the center of attention. I want to know the dawn of Reidiot(TM) since
you won't go away, and it's a slow news day. I'm sure we can relate
you to Kubrick's films much more than I already have. Give it a
chance!
Post by Bill Reid
Wait a second, I want a new topic for you to idiotically dispute.
You see, this one came up because "Green Straggles" insulted the
vehicles of my dead grandmother.
I don't think he did. You made some snide remark, and he responded.
You always nastily provoke a nasty response and cry your eyes out when
you get one.
Post by Bill Reid
The thoughtless bastard also
insulted the memory of my dead dog (pick one of my several dead
When I was just an infant, my family had a dog named "Tippy".
"Tippy" was apparently a quite rambunctious canine, and loved
to take car trips for a particular reason. The family car did not
have air conditioning at that time, and I was told that when we
went on a long trip in the hot summer, with all the windows
rolled down, "Tippy" would spy some potential prey in the roadside
brush, and just jump right out the window at like 80 mph!
My parents and sister described that "Tippy" would hit the
ground rolling...and rolling...and rolling, like a furry barrel
down the road before finally coming to a rest, then would
pop up to his paws, completely unharmed! Then they would
stop the car, and get the dog back in, and start driving again,
with my sister's job to hold the dog. But kids being kids,
she would relax her vigilance after a few miles, and as soon
as the car had hit a minimum of 70 mph, "Tippy" would
WHOOOSH!!! fly right out the window again!
Sheesh! Talk about cruelty to animals! At a minimum of 70 eh?
Sounds rather incredible that the poor dog could survive that, but I
am no expert on seeing what a dog can survive as such. I take good
care of my animals you see, and would have tied the "jumper" down
somehow or put the windows half up or something, ANYTHING to prevent
such an incident from happening over and over such as you describe.
Post by Bill Reid
This whole process would repeat about every ten miles
for hundreds of miles. Of course, as you might be able to
predict, things did not wind up well for "Tippy": he was
crossing the street in front of our house one day, and got
killed by a car...
Sad story... I guess your family had very little emotional attachment
to "Tippy" to let that happen over and over let alone any decency
concerning the treatment of animals. Should we pause for a hankie-
break?
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
No, idiot.

"Sebastian, come back here!"
i
"piop"
kelps
2007-06-22 03:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Well this here reply just don't want to post! Maybe Reidiot(TM)
already got me banned from Usenet! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Well, here
Post by Bill Reid
Can I call 'em or what? I've always said this was one stupid mofo,
which is the true underlying cause of all the anti-social behavior exhibited
by him and all the other similarly mentally-situated lonely angry kooks on
the Internet nowadays, and now he's just proven the point perfectly by
progressing to a "flame war" over...get this, you're not gonna believe
it, even I can't believe it...MOTOR OIL!!!
Simply not the case at all. You lied, or at best distorted, and I
called you on it. And now you're going totally apeshit with all the
usual truth deflections and tactics you can think of to cover up for
your less-than-genuine ass. "It serves no purpose."
Post by Bill Reid
It does seem like he's a little more "on edge" than usual,
Eh? Completely relaxed and enjoying life at the moment. Quit
projecting baboon.
Post by Bill Reid
if that's
possible, so I do have to consider my contention from a few weeks
ago that he might have suffered a life-altering "event" that is driving
his current fascination with my license plate number,
Craziness, I have never asked for such details.
Post by Bill Reid
family relationships,
Yeah, I'm interested in knowing why you're so fucked up since you
won't go away and crave all this attention and so forth. You want to
be the center of attention huh? Well then, be the center of attention
idiot! Family relationships are the best place to start. You became
a creep because of something that happened in your life. You'll spill
it eventually.
Post by Bill Reid
and employment status, and wonder if indeed this portends the
"end game" that I predicted years ago, his demise in a hail of
the local gendarmes' projectiles...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! In your fondest dreams O veiler of deathwishes.
Post by Bill Reid
But what is Useless-net if not lotz and lotz of "stupid talk"; let's
have some sly fun with him to bring the only possible joy to his
remaining days...
Reidiot(TM) is obviously pissed ain't he? He keeps talking about me
dying. I get the feeling he don't like me very much.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
What I've noticed is a lot of your deranged techniques and demented
tendencies continuing to bubble up with some "interesting" additions.
Yes, this is a new theme for him in the last few weeks...the ambiguous
How dare you use that word?
Post by Bill Reid
"interesting" analysis of the "data" in my posts...is he "gathering
information"
on me similar to his well-known stalking behavior from a couple years
ago?
Why didn't you file a complaint then you freak? Do it now! I double-
dog dare ya! Yeah, I'm gathering information on you, sure, why not?
It may come in handy one day when you go totally off the deep-end and
try and do something to me. I have a rather large amount of evidence
to prove what an absolute menace to Usenet you are. I'm calling your
bluff. How do you like them apples?
Post by Bill Reid
Is he "psyching" me? We'll only know in retrospect about the
former, and the latter will forever only be known to the voices in
his head!
Who is the the "we" you keep referring to? You are friendless and
with good reason.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
and as I've always said, I can't imagine
a "life" with so little self-esteem that you feel the need to insult
and/or
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
wish death on a person because of their opinion of a movie.
OH NO, WHAT'S THIS, A FLASH OF TRUTH?
Post by ichorwhip
I like to insult you because it's fun and makes my friends laugh and
laugh, and you definitely deserve every ounce of it. Being a
repugnant bitch has its consequences. Thanks for playing!
So is he admitting he's just a common "troll"? No, trollz iz smart...and
they NEVER admit to being a troll...I think this is just a description of
the voices in his head...
Neah, you can call me whatever you please so long as it doesn't cross
the aforementioned lines that you have crossed at least once before.
(Keep your namecalling legal in other words. I won't forgive you
again.) You are the "troll" except a really persistent, dumb and
vacuous one with some serious mental illness issues is my best guess.
I am a troll-beater-upper. I would say "slayer", but you'd no doubt
take it literally, wet your diaper, and start screaming LIFETHREATENER
in your high-pitched caps. You can really dish it out, but you just
can't take it is what it amounts to. Crybaby idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
AND NOW HERE IT COMES, THE GREAT "MOTOR
OIL" QUESTION THAT IS CONSUMING THE KUBRICK
NEWSGROUP!!!
It all started with your improbable tale idiot. You can't just let it
go though. And YOU are the one "consuming" this newsgroup. I have a
little spare time at the moment and feel like "smacking" you around.
It's hilarious. I can feel your pulse pounding in your latest messages
here. For your own health you ought to back off and go quietly
meditate, drink some Ovaltine(TM), and light a candle or something.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
Who has a 23 year old Honda Accord? Your grandmother?
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one
time
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Must have had one of those "eight year" batteries... What an
electrically and mechanically impossible lie!
It really happened, I swear it! I couldn't believe it my own self!
Look... The car had to have been turned over at least a few times
within that long a time period(more like once every few months).
Batteries don't last that long either especially without charging.
And then there is the rubber issue...fuck it.
"rubber issue"? wha' dat?
You know all about engines? What an idiot. I'm not going to bother to
explain it to you. I'll just stick to the oil, afterall your health is
at stake, and I don't believe I can do it without insulting you
further still.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
You said the car was
outside and so forth?
It was full of spiders! I didn't want to get in it, but my dad said it
was the only way to drive to town, so I kind of "hovered" over my
seat for 25 miles as arachnids belayed down on silk towards my
face!
Creepy! Did you ask him about the Donner Party?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Hmmm? You're either lying outright or calendar-
challenged.
I don't know, except my grandfather had been dead for years
when this happened, and my grandmother didn't drive herself
anywhere.
This is as close to a recant as I'm likely to get. Fair enough...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Used motor oil in an
engine will begin to harden up after as little as a year or so of
disuse depending on the climate.
"harden up"? You mean like concrete? Got a cite for this,
petroleum boy?!!??!!
I'll cite my own experience. I once rebuilt a Chevy smallblock 305
that had sat for about a year outside in the car. When I went to
drain the oil, very little came out. It was in the engine in the form
of "hardened sludge", not like concrete idiot. This is not uncommon
I'm told by real mechanics, I just "shade-tree" for knowledge and
hobby when I can. Trying to start an engine with this crap in it would
most likely be futile, and would prolly damage the engine. Piston
rings also have a tendency to rust and adhere to cylinder walls the
longer they sit. Instant damage if you even try to turn them over
like that. Not to mention that gas turns to varnish if it sits long
enough. Ask any mechanic...
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
You fake, you don't know what you're talking about, motor oil
is something that only MEN know about...not fey little Quote
Monkeys(TM) who have banged their fuzzy heads on the cage
bars one too many times...
That is not a refutation you phony. I know what I'm talking about, you
don't. It's as simple as that.
You don't know who you're dealing with, you giant idiotic liar!!!
Simmer down now lil' fella! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Post by Bill Reid
I've started my own stored cars with a full sump of oil after two
years with NO problem, just a freshly-charged battery if needed.
There you go and TOTALLY admit that a battery had to be charged up at
the very least. You never said that before about your gramp's car.
Also, a stored car, out of the elements and so forth, can sit much
longer depending, but who cares? There is NO WAY that old car sat
there untouched for 7 years and started right up for so many reasons.
Post by Bill Reid
As a matter of fact, I know the EXACT procedures for storing
cars for years, and you DON'T!
Oh yeah? BWAHAHA!!!!!! The voices in your head tell you that?
Post by Bill Reid
It IS true that some of the lighter
aromatic elements will "evaporate" out of petroleum products when
a car is stored for a long time, but that is a bigger problem for
the gas in the tank, which can turn quite sludgy and not able
to be used as fuel after years.
It turns into a sort of varnish. Sounds like you looked this stuff up
for yourself. Still it was your big stinking exaggeration, I'll call
it, that started all of this idiot.
Post by Bill Reid
But the oil will not "harden up" in any way to prevent the starting
of the car! I happen to change my own oil in all my cars, and there
was one time where the jerks at the local auto parts store didn't
honor their legal obligation to allow me to re-cycle my oil, kept
saying "our sump is full", for a matter of years.
So I just kept storing the old oil in an array of containers, such
as old milk containers, in a corner of my garage. Finally, the lying
bastards finally had an empty sump after about three years or so,
so I transported about 50 gallons of old oil down there, and I
guarantee you it POURED JUST FINE, THANK YOU, NOT
AT ALL HARDENED, YOU MORON!!!
It wasn't in the engine you idiot, and there was a LOT of it. You are
totally off on a tangent of your own now. 50 gallons eh? That's
quite a bit. Sounds like another lie. Five quarts of used oil in an
engine will set as previously described. I have seen it with my own
eyes, and was told to expect it beforehand when I got the car.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Well we do establish that you
actually had and apparently knew your father. "I'll bet he regrets
that!" You see, sometimes, Reidiot(TM) lets slip vital information
about himself that adds to the overall "diagnosis."
"diagnosis" or a new level of stalking? Should I remind the
"authorities" of your deranged record?
Go ahead! Report me. If you do I guarantee it will backfire on you.
Go ahead Reidiot(TM). DO IT NOW.
Post by Bill Reid
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Bill Reid
Wow, and that my deceased grandfather drove a "Borgward"
(well, not after he was deceased, of course), you're gonna have
yourself a non-sequitur field day with that dirt, considering your
last non-compus-mental tirade mocking my automotive position
in society...
Questions were asked which you never answered phony-boy...
I own several cars and said so. I am NOT giving you the
VIN numbers, you freak!
Stupid, desperate, phony... You well know I don't give a shit about
any of your exact personal particulars such as VIN numbers of cars you
supposedly own, or your basement address or your trac phone number or
anything like that. I just want to know what makes a maggot like you
tick, that's all. You like being the center of attention? Well be
the center of attention. I want to know the dawn of Reidiot(TM) since
you won't go away, and it's a slow news day. I'm sure we can relate
you to Kubrick's films much more than I already have. Give it a
chance!
Post by Bill Reid
Wait a second, I want a new topic for you to idiotically dispute.
You see, this one came up because "Green Straggles" insulted the
vehicles of my dead grandmother.
I don't think he did. You made some snide remark, and he responded.
You always nastily provoke a nasty response and cry your eyes out when
you get one.
Post by Bill Reid
The thoughtless bastard also
insulted the memory of my dead dog (pick one of my several dead
When I was just an infant, my family had a dog named "Tippy".
"Tippy" was apparently a quite rambunctious canine, and loved
to take car trips for a particular reason. The family car did not
have air conditioning at that time, and I was told that when we
went on a long trip in the hot summer, with all the windows
rolled down, "Tippy" would spy some potential prey in the roadside
brush, and just jump right out the window at like 80 mph!
My parents and sister described that "Tippy" would hit the
ground rolling...and rolling...and rolling, like a furry barrel
down the road before finally coming to a rest, then would
pop up to his paws, completely unharmed! Then they would
stop the car, and get the dog back in, and start driving again,
with my sister's job to hold the dog. But kids being kids,
she would relax her vigilance after a few miles, and as soon
as the car had hit a minimum of 70 mph, "Tippy" would
WHOOOSH!!! fly right out the window again!
Sheesh! Talk about cruelty to animals! At a minimum of 70 eh?
Sounds rather incredible that the poor dog could survive that, but I
am no expert on seeing what a dog can survive as such. I take good
care of my animals you see, and would have tied the "jumper" down
somehow or put the windows half up or something, ANYTHING to prevent
such an incident from happening over and over such as you describe.
Post by Bill Reid
This whole process would repeat about every ten miles
for hundreds of miles. Of course, as you might be able to
predict, things did not wind up well for "Tippy": he was
crossing the street in front of our house one day, and got
killed by a car...
Sad story... I guess your family had very little emotional attachment
to "Tippy" to let that happen over and over let alone any decency
concerning the treatment of animals. Should we pause for a hankie-
break?
Post by Bill Reid
NOW GO AHEAD AND START ANOTHER STUPID
DEBATE ABOUT MY MIRACULOUS STUNT DOG
"TIPPY", YOU FRIGGIN' WEIRDO!!! TELL ME HOW
DOG BODIES "HARDEN UP" WHEN THEY JUMP
OUT A CAR WINDOW AT SPEED, OR SOME
SIMILAR NONSENSE!!!
No, idiot.
"Sebastian, come back here!"
i
"piop"
geez. What happens when troll and troll collide?


It's a natural law of impaction.



dc
kelps
2007-06-20 05:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Whenever I read stuff like this on the 'net, the most amazing thing
is it's coming from A GUY IN HIS SIXTIES...
Yeah, you should try to stop that too...but I was thinking just
about any possible shred of a personal life you might actually have.
Telling people they are "programmed robots" and "drunken fools"
because they don't like the same movies as you is not going to
win you many friends...
Let's not add the Plural "'s" to the number 60 just yet.
Post by Bill Reid
BOTH OF MY GRANDMOTHERS ARE DEAD, YOU ROTTEN
STINKING BASTARD!!! And neither one of them ever learned to
drive, though my maternal grandmother kept my dead grandfather's
"Borgward" parked in front of her house for about 15 years...one time
when I was there my mom took our car someplace, my dad and I
wanted to go someplace, so we tried to start the "Borgward" which
hadn't run for seven years...and the crazy thing started right up!
Moment of reverie?
Post by Bill Reid
Post by kelps
There is never any point to your posts other then flaming and being
obnoxious or trying to assert the few remaining shreds of
intelliginece
you
Post by kelps
may at one time had.
That's a lie...sometimes I tell stories about ever-lasting obscure
German cars, YOU ROTTEN STINKING HEARTLESS
LYING BASTARD!!!
Let me put this another way. Is there some reason you are always screaming
and acting like an hysterical bitch?

Are you so absurd, that you can't see that your posts in any thread are
without provocation, nasty, loudmouthy, illogical tantums?

..................... and that in every case you begin your flaming for
warped attention.


dc
Harry Bailey
2007-06-17 23:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Harry Bailey
"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."
"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
Likewise, a person consumed with the seizure of power for
themself, that is, a "politician", will see all aspects of life, including
"art", through that prism. One way or another, every film they
see will just be reduced to some form of supporting "evidence"
to be co-opted for their rhetoric as they "struggle" to assume
"power" over others.
Circular, tautologous reasoning. And based on a psychologistic
assumption about the world, of reducing everything down to His Majesty
the Ego. How is such a person "consumed with the seizure of power"?
What is the source of this power virus?
Post by Bill Reid
For the truly thoughtful person, a "serious" film might be seen
as "multi-layered" (hopefully not "ambiguous"), that examines
several inter-related instances of overall common themes, played
out at different levels. They might even consider the idea put
forward by some that "society" can just be considered the
projection of "struggles" within each individual.
They "might consider" that society, that the 'outside' world, is a
delusion? That positing the existence of anything else other than
their precious 'inner self'is 'mere' paranoia? Are you falling into
the trap of elevating some interiorised, psychologistic
interpretations of the world over those that emphasize social power?
Post by Bill Reid
But you're right, that might be giving "Eyes Wide Shut" too much
credit. Everybody knows that politicians are BORING, and "Eyes
Wide Shut" is one of the most BORING films ever made, and as
you stumble through your frustrated powerless life, you may have
hit on the reason why.
Aren't you now 'projecting' your self-loathing onto the (delusion of)
the world, onto your self-proclaimed illusion of society? Why is it so
necessary for you to so systematically litter all of your posts here
with arbitrary ad hominems and contemptible cheap shots? This
newsgroup has already been on a maintenance-challenged life-support
machine for some time now, dumbed-down by adolescent-consumerist
opinionated irrationalism, something you are seemingly content with
further perpetuating? And, since I have little at stake in this debate
because you obviously have these AMK 'discussions' for reasons other
than gaining new perspectives on important issues, I don't
particularly feel the need to engage you in this any further.
Post by Bill Reid
I still vividly recall seeing the film the first time. I remember sitting
there in the almost entirely-unpopulated theater a couple days after
the film's much-hyped release, and hearing Tom Cruise utter the
first line of the movie, "Honey, have you seen my wallet?", and
feeling my heart sink in my chest.
I KNEW at that moment what I was in for, and I knew it was
going to be like three hours of living death. I KNEW Tom was
gonna be flashing that wallet throughout the movie, I KNEW
what every boring plot "twist" was going to be, I KNEW what
every tedious line of dialog was going to be. And I dreaded
having to sit through it, but resisted the strong urge to just get
up and walk out...and I came to muchly regret that resolve...
"MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!
MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
little Stanley screamed at me in his swan song for seeming
centuries of ennui, until at one point I thought my soul actually
left my body and was looking down at my corpse, crumpled
over after having the life crushed out of it through sheer
boredom.
And how do you reconcile such a view with your earlier contention that
the 'outside world', society, is a mere 'projection' of some imagined
(power-hungry) self? Shouldn't you, instead, be arguing that
everything we see in EWS is only, is nothing more than, a projection
of dear doctor Bill's supposed 'inner being', a mysterious entity
which is somehow devoid of any social dimension? [Or that the film
required of your precious 'soul' to abandon its meat puppet!?]

I would challenge that one-dimensional, solipsistic view of the film.
Yes, the film is concerned with power - with capital and patriarchy,
but this is by no means all it is concerned with. The analysis of
power, as if it really needs to be repeated in THIS newsgroup, is one
of the most recurrent themes in all of Kubrick's films. And power -
social, economic, patriarchal - is, yes, a theme in EWS, as numerous
analyses of the film have amply demonstrated. But it is not THE theme,
the CENTRAL CONCERN of EWS. And, further, simply announcing that the
film is about money-sex-power evacuates the film, dehistoricises it,
when what is of crucial interest to viewers is Kubrick's exploration,
at the very end of the 20th century, of those themes in the context of
a very precisely configured social, economic, and political world:
wealthy New York society under late capitalism.

[Needless to say, EWS contains a labyrinth, a multiplicity of themes:
another one, just as much present as Bill's money, is the role of mood-
altering or psychotropic substances in the film's libidinal economy,
from 'band-aid' pot and Mandy "snowballs" to Alice's champagne and
Bill's beer and Ziegler's "I'll send you over a case" 25-year-old
whiskey, within the film's treatment of the social psychology - and
sexual politics - of desire and social status.]

Among other things, EWS is ABOUT the inability of a patriarchal, 'male-
centric' ideology [Alice: "You are very, very sure of yourself, aren't
you?" Bill(responding): "No, I'm sure of you."] to deal with female
desire, with the desire of the OTHER, choosing instead to deny it via
the oppression of women. The whole narrative thrust of the film is
Bill's effort to run away from, to avenge himself upon, Alice's
desire, a desire which necessarily excludes him, and which - following
his problematic adventures - result in his subjective destitution and
identity disintegration. The mere thought of Alice desiring somebody
else is a challenge to patriarchy, and, as Bill is one of its
subservient foot-soldiers, it is therefore what is absolutely horrific
to Bill's social-symbolic narcissism. And, contrary to the dominant,
mainstream reading of the film, EWS does not contain ANY explicit
dream sequences. There is, however, one dream referred to or recalled
in the film: Alice's dream about laughing at and humiliating Bill,
but we don't see this dream, we only hear Alice recollecting it to
Bill. This recollected dream, as well as Alice's - recollected -
fantasy about the naval officer, constitutes the female desire whose
patriarchal expulsion from the quotidian reality of the Harfords'
domesticity and marriage the film is centrally concerned with.

As Mark de Rozario brilliantly argued some years ago on this
newsgroup: "Dreams are the realization of desire - and desire is the
truth of what we are (even though that truth in no way accords with
what we _think_ we are.) As Zizek points out, we wake up not to return
to reality but, on the contrary, to escape from the real
of our desires - to pretend that we are sober, rational subjects (and
not the crazed desiring machines of our dreams).

Hence Bill's desperate, obsessively reiterated announcement - to
anyone who will listen - that he 'is a doctor' . What is this if not
an attempt to convince himself of his identity, to establish that his
social standing (still) means something? Far from being Bill's
'fantasy', the film is about Bill's (ultimately failed) attempt to
_return_ to the fantasy - the complacent trance - of his previous
life: a life not yet wrecked by the irruption of others' desires
(Alice's, the Somerton group's) into it. Bill is the man excluded from
those desires; an unwelcome interloper into others' dreams.

[And] doesn't Bill discover that the membrane separating his mind, his
psychology, from the world of wealth, power and patriarchy was only
ever an illusion? Hence the irony of his desperate attempt to shore up
his identity by appealing to his professional status. 'I am a DOC-TOR'
- meaning: I am what I am socially validated to be. 'Here's ... my
card.'

[ ... ]

It seems to me that Kubrick was in many ways the inheritor of the
nineteenth century naturalist tradition which saw characters as
determined by environment. Kubrick's films are intensely, and
consistently, focused on psychology, but not as some theatre of
interiority. Rather - as we see most explicitly in ACO - human mental
processes are seen as shaped, influenced and manipulated by forces
outside the cogito. The tragic flaw in many of Kubrick's characters -
in Alex, in Redmond Barry, in Jack, in Bill - is their conviction that
they are 'master of their own destiny', in control of their own minds.
The Shining is a classic example of this fatal delusion. Rather than
being a projection from _within_ his mind, as many have contended,
what happens in The Shining is an effect of Jack's mind being
overwhelmed, overtaken by The Overlook, by a malevolent Outside."

What is unique and most important about EWS, then, [and what also
connects it to a diverse range of philosophical, psychoanalytic,
political, and social analyses of society, from Kafka to Foucault,
from Freud to Welles, from Lacan to Deleuze] is its analysis of the
INTERCONNECTIONS between power, patriarchy, capital, ownership, money
on the one hand, and unconscious desires, identity, intimacy,
domesticity and sexuality on the other. An analysis that is far from
'reassuring', much less 'boring'.
ichorwhip
2007-06-18 01:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Harry Bailey
"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."
"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
Likewise, a person consumed with the seizure of power for
themself, that is, a "politician", will see all aspects of life, including
"art", through that prism. One way or another, every film they
see will just be reduced to some form of supporting "evidence"
to be co-opted for their rhetoric as they "struggle" to assume
"power" over others.
Circular, tautologous reasoning. And based on a psychologistic
assumption about the world, of reducing everything down to His Majesty
the Ego. How is such a person "consumed with the seizure of power"?
What is the source of this power virus?
Billy Reidiot(TM) aka Lil' Seizure... You've no doubt read the
dossier.
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
For the truly thoughtful person, a "serious" film might be seen
as "multi-layered" (hopefully not "ambiguous"),
Billy can't stand the word "ambiguous". It's like RAID on a
cockroach. This is a component of his overall Will to Vacuousness...
this Nietzsche pretender with no talent and no sense of humor beyond
his intimate relationship with himself and his Kleenex(TM).
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
that examines
several inter-related instances of overall common themes, played
out at different levels. They might even consider the idea put
forward by some that "society" can just be considered the
projection of "struggles" within each individual.
They "might consider" that society, that the 'outside' world, is a
delusion? That positing the existence of anything else other than
their precious 'inner self'is 'mere' paranoia?
"Leave him be, Joe. It's the treatment...(Buffy)"
Post by Harry Bailey
Are you falling into
the trap of elevating some interiorised, psychologistic
interpretations of the world over those that emphasize social power?
He definitely exhibits this wholy narcissistic tendency.... What
kills me about Billy often is his utter hypocrisy in regards to the
way he represents himself and the things he says. In a word,
disingenuous... You'd be better off talking to a gabby maggot, but
Reidiot(TM) does have his kicks especially when he verbally abuses
himself whilst so unaware. Makes my big Bowzer NES BWA-HA-HA's come
out.
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
But you're right, that might be giving "Eyes Wide Shut" too much
credit. Everybody knows that politicians are BORING, and "Eyes
Wide Shut" is one of the most BORING films ever made, and as
you stumble through your frustrated powerless life, you may have
hit on the reason why.
Aren't you now 'projecting' your self-loathing onto the (delusion of)
the world, onto your self-proclaimed illusion of society?
Of course he is! I've been pointing this out for months on to
years... This bizarre, imbalanced person....
Post by Harry Bailey
Why is it so
necessary for you to so systematically litter all of your posts here
with arbitrary ad hominems and contemptible cheap shots?
I think it makes him smile. It's prolly the only enjoyment Fake Billy
gets in his pathetic life... The total giveaway is that he never
gives much of a hint of his true veracity... William Ernest Reid aka
John Douche... Such a big shot::complete loser, especially terrible
at chess... To Billy's state: Mood now: Squirming with my genitals in
a wad Listening to: Circlejerks, "Golden Shower of Hits"
Post by Harry Bailey
This
newsgroup has already been on a maintenance-challenged life-support
machine for some time now, dumbed-down by adolescent-consumerist
opinionated irrationalism, something you are seemingly content with
further perpetuating?
But what about his big Jung tome (seemingly copped mostly from
Wikipedia?) Ha! He totally tried to pin plagiarism (in his snarky
way) on Hendricks' earlier for what he had to say. That killed me!
Post by Harry Bailey
And, since I have little at stake in this debate
because you obviously have these AMK 'discussions' for reasons other
than gaining new perspectives on important issues, I don't
particularly feel the need to engage you in this any further.
It's funny to me when you do Harry, you have a real knack for it. .
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
I still vividly recall seeing the film the first time. I remember sitting
there in the almost entirely-unpopulated theater a couple days after
the film's much-hyped release, and hearing Tom Cruise utter the
first line of the movie, "Honey, have you seen my wallet?", and
feeling my heart sink in my chest.
I KNEW at that moment what I was in for, and I knew it was
going to be like three hours of living death. I KNEW Tom was
gonna be flashing that wallet throughout the movie, I KNEW
what every boring plot "twist" was going to be, I KNEW what
every tedious line of dialog was going to be. And I dreaded
having to sit through it, but resisted the strong urge to just get
up and walk out...and I came to muchly regret that resolve...
"MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!
MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
little Stanley screamed at me in his swan song for seeming
centuries of ennui, until at one point I thought my soul actually
left my body and was looking down at my corpse, crumpled
over after having the life crushed out of it through sheer
boredom.
Funny that Reidiot(TM) will carry on forever about EWS as it suits
him, but yet he hates it so much and even now in "detail". I think he
prolly really hates it because the only sex he has had has been with
his hand and Autosuck(TM)("It swallows!") Furthermore, his "knowing"
what EWS was before seeing it all the way through just from Bill's
wallet and so forth is clearly another bit of contrivance fit to his
fancy that he actually can figure things out ahead of time. Wasn't
everybody impressed? PPFFFFTttttttt! Then why art thou so dense
otherwise, ya know?
Post by Harry Bailey
And how do you reconcile such a view with your earlier contention that
the 'outside world', society, is a mere 'projection' of some imagined
(power-hungry) self? Shouldn't you, instead, be arguing that
everything we see in EWS is only, is nothing more than, a projection
of dear doctor Bill's supposed 'inner being', a mysterious entity
which is somehow devoid of any social dimension? [Or that the film
required of your precious 'soul' to abandon its meat puppet!?]
I would challenge that one-dimensional, solipsistic view of the film.
Yes, the film is concerned with power - with capital and patriarchy,
but this is by no means all it is concerned with. The analysis of
power, as if it really needs to be repeated in THIS newsgroup, is one
of the most recurrent themes in all of Kubrick's films. And power -
social, economic, patriarchal - is, yes, a theme in EWS, as numerous
analyses of the film have amply demonstrated. But it is not THE theme,
the CENTRAL CONCERN of EWS. And, further, simply announcing that the
film is about money-sex-power evacuates the film, dehistoricises it,
when what is of crucial interest to viewers is Kubrick's exploration,
at the very end of the 20th century, of those themes in the context of
wealthy New York society under late capitalism.
another one, just as much present as Bill's money, is the role of mood-
altering or psychotropic substances in the film's libidinal economy,
from 'band-aid' pot and Mandy "snowballs" to Alice's champagne and
Bill's beer and Ziegler's "I'll send you over a case" 25-year-old
whiskey, within the film's treatment of the social psychology - and
sexual politics - of desire and social status.]
You're wasting your time with no one except stupid disingenuous
Reidiot... As I've said before, Billy's primarily here to disrupt
things. That's how he gets his rocks off. He's not as successful at
this as he might be if only certain people didn't stand up to this
pathetic loner self and try and minister to him and talk to him as if
he had something human within. Of course he cries like a little baby
when ever this happens, which is so bittersweet.... I don't believe
who he is, that's my conclusion. A major phony and a source of
endless harassment, that's Reidiot(TM).
Post by Harry Bailey
Among other things, EWS is ABOUT the inability of a patriarchal, 'male-
centric' ideology [Alice: "You are very, very sure of yourself, aren't
you?" Bill(responding): "No, I'm sure of you."] to deal with female
desire, with the desire of the OTHER, choosing instead to deny it via
the oppression of women. The whole narrative thrust of the film is
Bill's effort to run away from, to avenge himself upon, Alice's
desire, a desire which necessarily excludes him, and which - following
his problematic adventures - result in his subjective destitution and
identity disintegration. The mere thought of Alice desiring somebody
else is a challenge to patriarchy, and, as Bill is one of its
subservient foot-soldiers, it is therefore what is absolutely horrific
to Bill's social-symbolic narcissism. And, contrary to the dominant,
mainstream reading of the film, EWS does not contain ANY explicit
dream sequences. There is, however, one dream referred to or recalled
in the film: Alice's dream about laughing at and humiliating Bill,
but we don't see this dream, we only hear Alice recollecting it to
Bill. This recollected dream, as well as Alice's - recollected -
fantasy about the naval officer, constitutes the female desire whose
patriarchal expulsion from the quotidian reality of the Harfords'
domesticity and marriage the film is centrally concerned with.
As Mark de Rozario brilliantly argued some years ago on this
newsgroup: "Dreams are the realization of desire - and desire is the
truth of what we are (even though that truth in no way accords with
what we _think_ we are.) As Zizek points out, we wake up not to return
to reality but, on the contrary, to escape from the real
of our desires - to pretend that we are sober, rational subjects (and
not the crazed desiring machines of our dreams).
Hence Bill's desperate, obsessively reiterated announcement - to
anyone who will listen - that he 'is a doctor' . What is this if not
an attempt to convince himself of his identity, to establish that his
social standing (still) means something? Far from being Bill's
'fantasy', the film is about Bill's (ultimately failed) attempt to
_return_ to the fantasy - the complacent trance - of his previous
life: a life not yet wrecked by the irruption of others' desires
(Alice's, the Somerton group's) into it. Bill is the man excluded from
those desires; an unwelcome interloper into others' dreams.
[And] doesn't Bill discover that the membrane separating his mind, his
psychology, from the world of wealth, power and patriarchy was only
ever an illusion? Hence the irony of his desperate attempt to shore up
his identity by appealing to his professional status. 'I am a DOC-TOR'
- meaning: I am what I am socially validated to be. 'Here's ... my
card.'
[ ... ]
It seems to me that Kubrick was in many ways the inheritor of the
nineteenth century naturalist tradition which saw characters as
determined by environment.
I'd often wished Kubrick had adapted Stephen Crane instead of Stephen
King although he prolly did anyway.
Post by Harry Bailey
Kubrick's films are intensely, and
consistently, focused on psychology, but not as some theatre of
interiority. Rather - as we see most explicitly in ACO - human mental
processes are seen as shaped, influenced and manipulated by forces
outside the cogito. The tragic flaw in many of Kubrick's characters -
in Alex, in Redmond Barry, in Jack, in Bill - is their conviction that
they are 'master of their own destiny', in control of their own minds.
The Shining is a classic example of this fatal delusion. Rather than
being a projection from _within_ his mind, as many have contended,
what happens in The Shining is an effect of Jack's mind being
overwhelmed, overtaken by The Overlook, by a malevolent Outside."
What is unique and most important about EWS, then, [and what also
connects it to a diverse range of philosophical, psychoanalytic,
political, and social analyses of society, from Kafka to Foucault,
from Freud to Welles, from Lacan to Deleuze] is its analysis of the
INTERCONNECTIONS between power, patriarchy, capital, ownership, money
on the one hand, and unconscious desires, identity, intimacy,
domesticity and sexuality on the other. An analysis that is far from
'reassuring', much less 'boring'.
All lost on the idiots who live to ignore any kind of rational thought
beyond what simmers to the top of their own pisspot of a brain's, but
I liked it! Thanks so much!

"Yeah... What's the difference?"
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-06-18 01:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Harry Bailey
"The essence of Eyes Wide Shut is not the "erotic";
the essence of Eyes Wide Shut is the main character's 'naked truth'.
It is not 'nude people' that matters, it's the naked eye that tries to
really SEE ('confront', 'confirm', learn about) the inner soul, the
mental truth about oneself."
"It's worth remembering that one of SK's favourite authors
was Kafka, a writer who - perhaps more than any other - connected
desire, psychology and politics ... Just a suggestion that EWS - which
strikes me as SK's most Kafkaesque
film - may have some features in common with a writer Kubrick
admired.
Interestingly enough, Kafka interpretation has also been dogged by
those who have insisted it is primarily about 'labyrinths of the
inner
self' as opposed to society/power ... "
Likewise, a person consumed with the seizure of power for
themself, that is, a "politician", will see all aspects of life, including
"art", through that prism. One way or another, every film they
see will just be reduced to some form of supporting "evidence"
to be co-opted for their rhetoric as they "struggle" to assume
"power" over others.
Circular, tautologous reasoning. And based on a psychologistic
assumption about the world, of reducing everything down to His Majesty
the Ego. How is such a person "consumed with the seizure of power"?
What is the source of this power virus?
The inability to recognize your own innate desires, and the primal
unstoppable power of those desires.

OR AS I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED AS THE UNIFYING
THEME OF ALL STANLEY KUBRICK FILMS:

"The inability of man's intelligence to overcome his animal instincts."

You'll forget this soon enough, within mere milliseconds of hearing
it, as with all "unwanted" information, but the zenith of man's ostensible
"intelligence" is just the ability to forge ever-more sophisticated weapons
of rhetoric and/or war to enslave and/or murder their fellow human
beings.

Kubrick knew this, and satirized it in EVERY movie he made.
YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, LIVE IT BUT DON'T KNOW
IT, BECAUSE YOUR "EYES" ARE WIDE SHUT.
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
For the truly thoughtful person, a "serious" film might be seen
as "multi-layered" (hopefully not "ambiguous"), that examines
several inter-related instances of overall common themes, played
out at different levels. They might even consider the idea put
forward by some that "society" can just be considered the
projection of "struggles" within each individual.
They "might consider" that society, that the 'outside' world, is a
delusion? That positing the existence of anything else other than
their precious 'inner self'is 'mere' paranoia? Are you falling into
the trap of elevating some interiorised, psychologistic
interpretations of the world over those that emphasize social power?
Yes, I guess I tumbled right into that one. If I think that power
"struggles" within society are rooted in innate biological imperatives
within each individual, I must have been mis-led, mis-driven,
MIS-PUSHED!!! I AM A COMMON MAN WHO WILL
SELL MY INTELLECTUAL BIRTHRIGHT FOR A MORE
PEACEFUL NEWSGROUP LIFE!!!
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
But you're right, that might be giving "Eyes Wide Shut" too much
credit. Everybody knows that politicians are BORING, and "Eyes
Wide Shut" is one of the most BORING films ever made, and as
you stumble through your frustrated powerless life, you may have
hit on the reason why.
Aren't you now 'projecting' your self-loathing onto the (delusion of)
the world, onto your self-proclaimed illusion of society? Why is it so
necessary for you to so systematically litter all of your posts here
with arbitrary ad hominems and contemptible cheap shots?
Hmmmm, is it even worth pointing out the actual statistics? I'm
just trying to "keep up" and "fit in", is all...and I even feel a quote
coming on:

"Sings the roof off lovely, he does!"
"Heh-heh..."
Post by Harry Bailey
This
newsgroup has already been on a maintenance-challenged life-support
machine for some time now, dumbed-down by adolescent-consumerist
opinionated irrationalism,
Now THAT'S a finely-honed weapon of rhetorical warfare...it's
the equivalent of a neutron bomb, kills any sentient beings with massive
doses of blathering boredom radiation, leaves the brain-dead standing...
Post by Harry Bailey
something you are seemingly content with
further perpetuating?
I am mightily staggered by your "B-rays", but still alive to defend
my "kind", even though I may be "Legend" here...
Post by Harry Bailey
And, since I have little at stake in this debate
because you obviously have these AMK 'discussions' for reasons other
than gaining new perspectives on important issues,
Which important issues were those? This is a group that discusses
movies by a director whose output has been labeled as "middlebrow
slapstick" and "strained seriousness"...
Post by Harry Bailey
I don't
particularly feel the need to engage you in this any further.
Every time you hear something like this on Usenet, expect a
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
I still vividly recall seeing the film the first time. I remember sitting
there in the almost entirely-unpopulated theater a couple days after
the film's much-hyped release, and hearing Tom Cruise utter the
first line of the movie, "Honey, have you seen my wallet?", and
feeling my heart sink in my chest.
I KNEW at that moment what I was in for, and I knew it was
going to be like three hours of living death. I KNEW Tom was
gonna be flashing that wallet throughout the movie, I KNEW
what every boring plot "twist" was going to be, I KNEW what
every tedious line of dialog was going to be. And I dreaded
having to sit through it, but resisted the strong urge to just get
up and walk out...and I came to muchly regret that resolve...
"MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!
MONEY! SEX! POWER! MONEY! SEX! POWER!"
little Stanley screamed at me in his swan song for seeming
centuries of ennui, until at one point I thought my soul actually
left my body and was looking down at my corpse, crumpled
over after having the life crushed out of it through sheer
boredom.
And how do you reconcile such a view with your earlier contention that
the 'outside world', society, is a mere 'projection' of some imagined
(power-hungry) self?
What "contention"? I merely discuss ideas, different possible ways of
looking at things, I don't do "diatribes" let alone "contentions", cuz the
bottom line about movies is, some stuffs I likes, and some stuffs I don't,
and "contentions" have little or nothing to do with it...
Post by Harry Bailey
Shouldn't you, instead, be arguing that
everything we see in EWS is only, is nothing more than, a projection
of dear doctor Bill's supposed 'inner being', a mysterious entity
which is somehow devoid of any social dimension? [Or that the film
required of your precious 'soul' to abandon its meat puppet!?]
I don't do "arguments" very much either, particularly over stuff
I can't prove "statistically", but you're twice the person that I am,
and like so many others on Usenet are perfectly capable of arguing
with your own imaginary straw men, so have at it...
Post by Harry Bailey
I would challenge that one-dimensional, solipsistic view of the film.
THE STRAW IS FLYIN'!!! I'LL MISS YOU MOST OF
ALL, SCARECROW!!!
Post by Harry Bailey
Yes, the film is concerned with power - with capital and patriarchy,
but this is by no means all it is concerned with. The analysis of
power, as if it really needs to be repeated in THIS newsgroup, is one
of the most recurrent themes in all of Kubrick's films. And power -
social, economic, patriarchal - is, yes, a theme in EWS, as numerous
analyses of the film have amply demonstrated. But it is not THE theme,
the CENTRAL CONCERN of EWS.
Uh-oh, he's winding up and about to pitch again...
Post by Harry Bailey
And, further, simply announcing that the
film is about money-sex-power evacuates the film, dehistoricises it,
"dehistoricises"?
Post by Harry Bailey
when what is of crucial interest to viewers
Who the hell are you to tell any viewer what is of crucial interest to
them? As we've just learned from "The Green Slime", most people
just wanted to see a sex show (though why they would want that in
an era of readily-available hard-core pornography is beyond me,
but perhaps not beyond Kubrick, who appeared to be stuck in
an earlier era).
Post by Harry Bailey
is Kubrick's exploration,
at the very end of the 20th century, of those themes in the context of
wealthy New York society under late capitalism.
And he burned it right over the plate! IT WAS ABOUT
SOON-TO-BE-VANQUISHED CAPITALISM! THAT'S
what's important for US to know!

Thank "God", I thought for a second there you were going to
bring politics into this after I accused you of bringing politics into
everything, but you've completely reformed!
Post by Harry Bailey
another one, just as much present as Bill's money, is the role of mood-
altering or psychotropic substances in the film's libidinal economy,
from 'band-aid' pot and Mandy "snowballs" to Alice's champagne and
Bill's beer and Ziegler's "I'll send you over a case" 25-year-old
whiskey, within the film's treatment of the social psychology - and
sexual politics - of desire and social status.]
This is probably why "Si, Weed" liked it so much...
Post by Harry Bailey
Among other things, EWS is ABOUT the inability of a patriarchal, 'male-
centric' ideology [Alice: "You are very, very sure of yourself, aren't
you?" Bill(responding): "No, I'm sure of you."] to deal with female
desire, with the desire of the OTHER, choosing instead to deny it via
the oppression of women. The whole narrative thrust of the film is
Bill's effort to run away from, to avenge himself upon, Alice's
desire, a desire which necessarily excludes him, and which - following
his problematic adventures - result in his subjective destitution and
identity disintegration. The mere thought of Alice desiring somebody
else is a challenge to patriarchy, and, as Bill is one of its
subservient foot-soldiers, it is therefore what is absolutely horrific
to Bill's social-symbolic narcissism. And, contrary to the dominant,
mainstream reading of the film, EWS does not contain ANY explicit
dream sequences. There is, however, one dream referred to or recalled
in the film: Alice's dream about laughing at and humiliating Bill,
but we don't see this dream, we only hear Alice recollecting it to
Bill. This recollected dream, as well as Alice's - recollected -
fantasy about the naval officer, constitutes the female desire whose
patriarchal expulsion from the quotidian reality of the Harfords'
domesticity and marriage the film is centrally concerned with.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzmphflphugh I'm up...wow, you captured
the themes of the film so perfectly, I just re-lived my first viewing of
it...
Post by Harry Bailey
As Mark de Rozario brilliantly argued some years ago on this
newsgroup: "Dreams are the realization of desire - and desire is the
truth of what we are (even though that truth in no way accords with
what we _think_ we are.) As Zizek points out, we wake up not to return
to reality but, on the contrary, to escape from the real
of our desires - to pretend that we are sober, rational subjects (and
not the crazed desiring machines of our dreams).
So that Alice was one super-horny chick, huh? That's hot...
Post by Harry Bailey
Hence Bill's desperate, obsessively reiterated announcement - to
anyone who will listen - that he 'is a doctor' . What is this if not
an attempt to convince himself of his identity, to establish that his
social standing (still) means something? Far from being Bill's
'fantasy', the film is about Bill's (ultimately failed) attempt to
_return_ to the fantasy - the complacent trance - of his previous
life: a life not yet wrecked by the irruption of others' desires
(Alice's, the Somerton group's) into it. Bill is the man excluded from
those desires; an unwelcome interloper into others' dreams.
[And] doesn't Bill discover that the membrane separating his mind, his
psychology, from the world of wealth, power and patriarchy was only
ever an illusion? Hence the irony of his desperate attempt to shore up
his identity by appealing to his professional status. 'I am a DOC-TOR'
- meaning: I am what I am socially validated to be. 'Here's ... my
card.'
Yeah, I've already mentioned that I knew in the first two minutes
of the film he would be flashing his wallet repeatedly throughout the
movie...since you're a "Lacanian", maybe you might try being a little
more "laconic" when you're just repeating what I already said, try
to keep it under 680K...
Post by Harry Bailey
It seems to me that Kubrick was in many ways the inheritor of the
nineteenth century naturalist tradition which saw characters as
determined by environment. Kubrick's films are intensely, and
consistently, focused on psychology, but not as some theatre of
interiority. Rather - as we see most explicitly in ACO - human mental
processes are seen as shaped, influenced and manipulated by forces
outside the cogito. The tragic flaw in many of Kubrick's characters -
in Alex, in Redmond Barry, in Jack, in Bill - is their conviction that
they are 'master of their own destiny', in control of their own minds.
The Shining is a classic example of this fatal delusion. Rather than
being a projection from _within_ his mind, as many have contended,
what happens in The Shining is an effect of Jack's mind being
overwhelmed, overtaken by The Overlook, by a malevolent Outside."
Yeah, sure, like "ghosts" are real, "ghosts" made him nuts...rather, I
think you're a little nutty, but you were probably born that way...unlike
Jack, society "ghosts" made him do it, poor bastard...
Post by Harry Bailey
What is unique and most important about EWS, then, [and what also
connects it to a diverse range of philosophical, psychoanalytic,
political, and social analyses of society, from Kafka to Foucault,
from Freud to Welles, from Lacan to Deleuze] is its analysis of the
INTERCONNECTIONS between power, patriarchy, capital, ownership, money
on the one hand, and unconscious desires, identity, intimacy,
domesticity and sexuality on the other. An analysis that is far from
'reassuring', much less 'boring'.
Bores the snot out of me, but maybe somebody found this
latest diatribe worthwhile...if so, "God" Bless Them...

---
William Ernest "Outsider Looking In" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-06-18 03:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
The inability to recognize your own innate desires, and the primal
unstoppable power of those desires.
OR AS I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED AS THE UNIFYING
"The inability of man's intelligence to overcome his animal instincts."
But those two statements are not equivalent. You're confusing "animal
instincts" (whatever they are; genes? If so, you're reducing
psychoanalytical terms to mere deterministic biology) with human
desire. And why would 'man's intelligence' want to 'overcome' such
desire if it is unstoppable? As opposed to the lesser - and very
different - aim of the genetic engineering of what you are presumably
calling 'animal instincts'.

Desire is not an 'instinct', nor is it 'innate'.
Post by Bill Reid
Yes, I guess I tumbled right into that one. If I think that power
"struggles" within society are rooted in innate biological imperatives
within each individual, I must have been mis-led, mis-driven,
But social forces, power struggles, ARE NOT rooted in 'innate
biological imperatives within each individual". We're here back again
retreating into psychologistic solipsism. They are SOCIAL ie. they are
OUTSIDE the subjectivising 'individual', the result of forces EXTERNAL
to the individual. You're simply taking refuge in a reductivist,
scientistic lumpen-empiricism that simply spirits away both the
conceptual and the libidinal/psyche ...

[rest of insults snipped]
kelps
2007-06-18 08:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
The inability to recognize your own innate desires, and the primal
unstoppable power of those desires.
OR AS I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED AS THE UNIFYING
"The inability of man's intelligence to overcome his animal instincts."
But those two statements are not equivalent. You're confusing "animal
instincts" (whatever they are; genes? If so, you're reducing
psychoanalytical terms to mere deterministic biology) with human
desire. And why would 'man's intelligence' want to 'overcome' such
desire if it is unstoppable? As opposed to the lesser - and very
different - aim of the genetic engineering of what you are presumably
calling 'animal instincts'.
Desire is not an 'instinct', nor is it 'innate'.
Post by Bill Reid
Yes, I guess I tumbled right into that one. If I think that power
"struggles" within society are rooted in innate biological imperatives
within each individual, I must have been mis-led, mis-driven,
But social forces, power struggles, ARE NOT rooted in 'innate
biological imperatives within each individual". We're here back again
retreating into psychologistic solipsism. They are SOCIAL ie. they are
OUTSIDE the subjectivising 'individual', the result of forces EXTERNAL
to the individual. You're simply taking refuge in a reductivist,
scientistic lumpen-empiricism that simply spirits away both the
conceptual and the libidinal/psyche ...
[rest of insults snipped]
I hate to stop you when you are arguing with Reid, but to say desire is not
innate, or that "forces external to the individual" is the source of the
issues of human desires and power struggles, or that "animal instincts" and
human desire are not inseparable, is simply wrong. You are also wrong to
think that is only in the realm of "deterministic biology." or "genetic
engineering."

It is also not a question as to whether desire is "stoppable," or that it
can be "overcome." Desire can however be transformed. All this depends on
the being's predominant and changing lifestates ruled by linear and
simultaneous causation, which incorporates both internal amd external,
subject and object relationships, fundamentally inseparable.

It is neither mere reductionism, nor does it follow any other psychological
model.





dc
kelps
2007-06-18 09:11:24 UTC
Permalink
When Arthur Clarke said "We just discovered that there is a Buddhist Sect
which worships a large, black rectangular slab." It may be of some interest
that that very same monolithic mandala, in that very same sect. mentioned,
is known as the "Embodiment of Ichinen Sanzen." of which these 10 factors,
below defining casual sequences, are integral.

The ten factors of karma (cause and effect) from Mahayana buddhism and one
part of the principle of "3000 Life States in a Single Moment" (Jap. Ichinen
Sanzen)

Appearance (nyoze-so): Those aspects that can be perceived or discerned from
the outside. Appearance includes such attributes as color, form and
behavior, and in the terms of human beings points to the physical side of
our existence, including the body and its functions.

Nature (nyoze-sho): The inherent disposition or those qualities that cannot
be discerned from the outside. In terms of human life, nature indicates such
spiritual aspects as mind and consciousness.

Entity (nyoze-tai): The entity or essence of life that manifests itself as
external appearance and inner nature but is itself, neither. It is the
entity of life in any of the ten Life worlds (Life States)

Power (nyoze-riki): Life's inherent capacity to act, its potential strength
or energy to achieve something. Each of the ten worlds has its corresponding
power Life in the state of Anger has the power to destroy value, while life
'in the state of Bodhisattva has the power to alleviate others' suffering.

Influence (nyoze-sa): The action or movement produced when life's latent
power is activated. It is the exertion of influence, whether good or evil,
in thought, deed or action nternal cause (nyoze-in): The cause latent in
life that simultaneously contains a potential effect. Good causes produce
good effects and bad causes, bad effects.

Internal cause (nyoze-in): The cause latent in life that simultaneously
contains a potential effect. Good causes produce good effects and bad
causes, bad effects.

Relation (nyoze-en): The auxiliary cause or environmental stimulus that
helps karma (internal cause) to produce its effect. Though also called
external cause, it is not the environment itself but the connection between
life and the environment. When activated by relation, an internal cause
undergoes a change and Simultaneously produces a new latent effect. It is
also through the function of relation that latent effects become manifest.

Latent effect (nyoze-ka): The potential effect produced in the depths of
life when the internal cause is activated by relation. Since both internal
cause and latent effect are dormant in the depths of life, there is no time
gap between the two such as that which often occurs between an action and
its perceivable result.

Manifest effect (nyoze-ho): The concrete, perceptible result that emerges
after the passing of time as a consequence of internal cause and latent
effect.

Consistency from beginning to end (nyoze-honmatsukukyo-to): The integrating
factor that unifies all the other nine factors at each moment in a single
entity of life. Where there is one factor, all the other nine will
invariably be present. Regardless of which of the ten worlds one is in, the
tenth factor states that all the other nine will be consistent with that
state. The first three factors are the entity (beginning) and the next six
factors are its function (end). Both the beginning and end, that is the
entity and function of all phenomena, are inseparable.


When Arthur Clarke said "We just discovered that there is a Buddhist Sect
which worships a large, black rectangular slab." It may be of some interest
that that very same monolithic mandala, in that very same sect. mentioned,
is known as the "Embodiment of Ichinen Sanzen." of which these 10 factors
above defining casual sequences, are integral.

"Kanjin means to observe one's own mind and to find the Ten Worlds (Life
States) within it." --Sun Lotus 13th century.
dc
Bill Reid
2007-06-18 14:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
The inability to recognize your own innate desires, and the primal
unstoppable power of those desires.
OR AS I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED AS THE UNIFYING
"The inability of man's intelligence to overcome his animal instincts."
But those two statements are not equivalent. You're confusing "animal
instincts" (whatever they are; genes? If so, you're reducing
psychoanalytical terms to mere deterministic biology) with human
desire.
Semantically they may not be entirely equivalent, but conceptually
they are the same. The "will to power" is not rooted in some mistake
of abstract logic, but in the INBORN social patterns of the "human
animal", the DESIRE to be part of a "group" that VANQUISHES
another ARBITRARY "group", and thus fulfills the ultimate
"desire/instinct", the perpetuation of the "group"'s genetic
material.
Post by Harry Bailey
And why would 'man's intelligence' want to 'overcome' such
desire if it is unstoppable?
Why do people go to the bathroom in private? Why do you
erect such elaborate rhetorical fantasies that divorce the "politics"
and "psychology" of man from his actual nature? The "human
condition" is to be a monkey that is just smart enough to be
ashamed of being a monkey, but not smart enough to NOT
be a monkey...
Post by Harry Bailey
As opposed to the lesser - and very
different - aim of the genetic engineering of what you are presumably
calling 'animal instincts'.
IBID. One of the most important things to remember is that
when there is the ultimate collision of monkey-shines and human
"logic", you wind up with laughable contradictions like, "YOU
CAN'T FIGHT IN HERE, THIS IS THE WAR ROOM!"
Post by Harry Bailey
Desire is not an 'instinct', nor is it 'innate'.
So when a man "desires" a woman, that is not an "innate
instinct" of sexual reproduction? You've managed to completely
kid yourself semantically that the "mind of man" is somehow
divorced from the underlying genetic imperatives, that a
Shakespeare sonnet not only embodies but created "romatic
love"...
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Yes, I guess I tumbled right into that one. If I think that power
"struggles" within society are rooted in innate biological imperatives
within each individual, I must have been mis-led, mis-driven,
But social forces, power struggles, ARE NOT rooted in 'innate
biological imperatives within each individual".
OK, that's what you say...me and Stanley think sumpin' else, but
Stanley barely graduated high school and I ain't that smart my own
self, so who knows...
Post by Harry Bailey
We're here back again
retreating into psychologistic solipsism.
YOU'RE right back with meaningless rhetorical blather...you've
perfectly abstracted your "words" away from any actual practical
communication of actual concepts, which of course you do because
it "feels good", right?..."psychologistic solipsism", indeed...
Post by Harry Bailey
They are SOCIAL ie. they are
OUTSIDE the subjectivising 'individual', the result of forces EXTERNAL
to the individual. You're simply taking refuge in a reductivist,
scientistic lumpen-empiricism that simply spirits away both the
conceptual and the libidinal/psyche ...
What'd I tell you? I do like the phrase "spirits away" above,
however...you're not the TOTAL "godless commie", are you? You
just think that sometimes with some people, "God" BLOWS
it...conceptually, of course, cuz they is too "scientistic" and
take "refuge in empiricism"...so "naturally", you must CORRECT
them, right?

---
William Ernest "I Stand Un-Corrected" Reid
blue
2007-06-18 15:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Why do people go to the bathroom in private? Why do you
erect such elaborate rhetorical fantasies that divorce the "politics"
and "psychology" of man from his actual nature? The "human
condition" is to be a monkey that is just smart enough to be
ashamed of being a monkey, but not smart enough to NOT
be a monkey...
Sorry to but in, but there are several theories on this (the bathroom).
The most compelling one is that you are at your most vunerable (from
predators) when taking a dump so therefore you want to be out of the
way. It also reduces mess and is more hygenic. I'm sure you've heard the
expression "don't shit where you eat".

Could I just ask you about this as well...
Post by Bill Reid
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzmphflphugh I'm up...wow, you captured
the themes of the film so perfectly, I just re-lived my first viewing
of it...
I presume you watched it again from what you wrote. Did your impressions
change on subsequent viewings or cement?
blue
2007-06-18 15:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Why do people go to the bathroom in private? Why do you
erect such elaborate rhetorical fantasies that divorce the "politics"
and "psychology" of man from his actual nature? The "human
condition" is to be a monkey that is just smart enough to be
ashamed of being a monkey, but not smart enough to NOT
be a monkey...
Sorry to but in, but there are several theories on this (the bathroom).
The most compelling one is that you are at your most vunerable (from
predators) when taking a dump so therefore you want to be out of the
way. It also reduces mess and is more hygenic. I'm sure you've heard the
expression "don't shit where you eat".

Could I just ask you about this as well...
Post by Bill Reid
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzmphflphugh I'm up...wow, you captured
the themes of the film so perfectly, I just re-lived my first viewing
of it...
I presume you watched it again from what you wrote. Did your impressions
change on subsequent viewings or did they cement?
Bill Reid
2007-06-19 01:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by blue
Post by Bill Reid
Why do people go to the bathroom in private? Why do you
erect such elaborate rhetorical fantasies that divorce the "politics"
and "psychology" of man from his actual nature? The "human
condition" is to be a monkey that is just smart enough to be
ashamed of being a monkey, but not smart enough to NOT
be a monkey...
Sorry to but in, but there are several theories on this (the bathroom).
The most compelling one is that you are at your most vunerable (from
predators) when taking a dump so therefore you want to be out of the
way.
Yes, but actually you are at your most vulnerable when SLEEPING.
That's why most predators are nocturnal; they eat you while you are
unconscious (forget all that nonsense about lions chasing after gazelles
in 110 degree heat during the day, lions wait until all the gazelles are
asleep and just eat a few every night).

Now think about it...you were a child once, right? Or maybe you
have children now. What's the universal fear of children at night?
THE "BOOGEYMAN", RIGHT? Every kid in the history of
mankind has gotten scared sleeping alone at night and wanted to
crawl into bed with their parents, right?

Who told all 100 billion kids or so about the "boogeyman"?
NOBODY! Parents try mightily to shield their children from
scary movies, read them innocent non-violent books, but the
kids still react to that primal fear ingrained in their animal instincts...
Post by blue
It also reduces mess and is more hygenic. I'm sure you've heard the
expression "don't shit where you eat".
Ever watch how a pet mouse takes care of this issue? If a mouse
ever became a "sentient" being, they wouldn't invent the wheel first,
they would invent the toilet...just like cats and many other animals...

Kubrick of course knew all about this, and put it in ALL of his
movies...always a bathroom scene, and there was that great shot
in "2001" of the monkeys huddled together at night with the sounds
of predators and their screaming victims blasting through the
surround-soundtrack...
Post by blue
Could I just ask you about this as well...
Post by Bill Reid
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzmphflphugh I'm up...wow, you captured
the themes of the film so perfectly, I just re-lived my first viewing
of it...
I presume you watched it again from what you wrote. Did your impressions
change on subsequent viewings or did they cement?
I don't generally change my feelings about a movie on subsequent
viewings, and "Eyes Wide Shut" was no exception. I had the same
reaction to it when I watched it on home video, except I appreciated
the photography more (I think Kubrick really WAS shooting for
"academy aperture", and it looked 100% better in that format,
really quite beautiful).

It was still a movie that only had one excellent scene, a fair number of
mediocre scenes, and a crushing number of absolutely stultifying
and sometimes laughably bad scenes...

---
William Ernest "It Stinks!" Reid
blue
2007-06-19 18:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by blue
Post by Bill Reid
Why do people go to the bathroom in private? Why do you
erect such elaborate rhetorical fantasies that divorce the "politics"
and "psychology" of man from his actual nature? The "human
condition" is to be a monkey that is just smart enough to be
ashamed of being a monkey, but not smart enough to NOT
be a monkey...
Sorry to but in, but there are several theories on this (the bathroom).
The most compelling one is that you are at your most vunerable (from
predators) when taking a dump so therefore you want to be out of the
way.
Yes, but actually you are at your most vulnerable when SLEEPING.
That's why most predators are nocturnal; they eat you while you are
unconscious (forget all that nonsense about lions chasing after gazelles
in 110 degree heat during the day, lions wait until all the gazelles are
asleep and just eat a few every night).
Now think about it...you were a child once, right? Or maybe you
have children now. What's the universal fear of children at night?
THE "BOOGEYMAN", RIGHT? Every kid in the history of
mankind has gotten scared sleeping alone at night and wanted to
crawl into bed with their parents, right?
Who told all 100 billion kids or so about the "boogeyman"?
NOBODY! Parents try mightily to shield their children from
scary movies, read them innocent non-violent books, but the
kids still react to that primal fear ingrained in their animal instincts...
Post by blue
It also reduces mess and is more hygenic. I'm sure you've heard the
expression "don't shit where you eat".
Ever watch how a pet mouse takes care of this issue? If a mouse
ever became a "sentient" being, they wouldn't invent the wheel first,
they would invent the toilet...just like cats and many other animals...
Kubrick of course knew all about this, and put it in ALL of his
movies...always a bathroom scene, and there was that great shot
in "2001" of the monkeys huddled together at night with the sounds
of predators and their screaming victims blasting through the
surround-soundtrack...
I agree with your points. I was just pointing out that we don't go to
the toilet alone because of shame (which was implied).
Harry Bailey
2007-06-18 20:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
The inability to recognize your own innate desires, and the primal
unstoppable power of those desires.
OR AS I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED AS THE UNIFYING
"The inability of man's intelligence to overcome his animal instincts."
But those two statements are not equivalent. You're confusing "animal
instincts" (whatever they are; genes? If so, you're reducing
psychoanalytical terms to mere deterministic biology) with human
desire.
Semantically they may not be entirely equivalent, but conceptually
they are the same. The "will to power" is not rooted in some mistake
of abstract logic, but in the INBORN social patterns of the "human
animal", the DESIRE to be part of a "group" that VANQUISHES
another ARBITRARY "group", and thus fulfills the ultimate
"desire/instinct", the perpetuation of the "group"'s genetic
material.
The two statements are neither semantically nor conceptually
equivalent. Again, you are confusing human wants, needs, 'instincts'
with Desire, the latter - which I have already repeatedly indicated -
being used here in its strictly psychoanalytic sense, not its
"commonsensical' or popular sense of 'whatever I want, or don't want'
etc. You are also, therefore, assuming that you KNOW what desire is by
mistaking such wants with desire, mistakenly believing that you knows
the meaning of your - and others' - actions and thus know the true
nature of all desire. But analysis shows that the reason for our
repetitions, the desire animating our action, is hidden from us. Our
desire is embodied in our repetitions and symptoms, yet the whole
problem is that we do not know why it is that we repeat, why it is
that we desire. The hidden meaning of one's action is what is called
Desire.

"In "The Signification of the Phallus", Lacan distinguishes desire
from need and demand. Need is a biological instinct that is
articulated in demand, yet demand has a double function, on one hand
it articulates need and on the other acts as a demand for love. So,
even after the need articulated in demand is satisfied, the demand for
love remains unsatisfied and this leftover is desire. For Lacan
"desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction nor the demand for
love, but the difference that results from the subtraction of the
first from the second". Desire then is the surplus produced by the
articulation of need in demand (Dylan Evans). Lacan adds that "desire
begins to take shape in the margin in which demand becomes separated
from need". Hence desire can never be satisfied, or as Slavoj Zizek
puts it "desire's raison d'etre is not to realize its goal, to find
full satisfaction, but to reproduce itself as desire.""

And crucially, Desire appears as a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT since it is always
constituted in a dialectical relationship. [And social patterns are
not 'inborn', they are LEARNED, they are mediated; and yes,
'romanticism' too was a social construct]. Even before being born,
prior to being a subject, the infant is already surrounded by a
discourse not of his own making.

But returning to Eyes Wide Shut:

"Alice's desire is certainly the 'problem': Bill's inability to deal
with it is what propels him on his journey of self-discovery, or,
more
properly, self-dismantling. Bill wants to bracket out female desire -
'women aren't like that'; hence his attraction to Domino and the
Somerton masked woman. As prostitutes/ sex workers, they resume the
assigned place of women in his libidinal economy: they are the
'passive' recipients of male desire, not,as Alice has so terrifyingly
revealed herself to be, agents of their own desire.

In Lacanian terms, desire=the real; therefore, Alice's confession
of
her temptation to abandon Bill for the naval officer and her later
dream of Bill's humiliation (both fantasies in which Bill is
sacrificed, note) cannot be treated as 'merely' fantasmatic
constructions. Waking life - 'we're awake now' - is not more but less
real than what is revealed in dreams and fantasies, and it is the
flight into the 'ordinary', the domestic, the apparently
well-constituted identity, that is escapist. Alice's dreams and
fantasies indicate a - to Bill, intolerable - space in Alice's desire
where he is absent. This is another way in which EWS differs from the
'it's all a dream' genre referred to above: dreams in EWS - as in
Freud or Lacan - are not escapes from reality, but realizations of
desire.


What, then, of Alice's final word? There's no question - is there? -
that Alice 'loves' Bill ---- the issue seems to be whether married
life/ conjugal love can survive another more dangerous form of love:
desire. Does the word 'fuck' suggest a reintegration of desire into
conjugality? Is it, then, a counterpoint to the alleged 'waking up'
(flight from desire/the real)? Or was the 'waking up' precisely a
recognition of desire - paradoxically, a refusal to accept the
distinction between dreams/fantasies and ordinary domestic 'reality'?"
Bill Reid
2007-06-19 16:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
The inability to recognize your own innate desires, and the primal
unstoppable power of those desires.
OR AS I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED AS THE UNIFYING
"The inability of man's intelligence to overcome his animal instincts."
But those two statements are not equivalent. You're confusing "animal
instincts" (whatever they are; genes? If so, you're reducing
psychoanalytical terms to mere deterministic biology) with human
desire.
Semantically they may not be entirely equivalent, but conceptually
they are the same. The "will to power" is not rooted in some mistake
of abstract logic, but in the INBORN social patterns of the "human
animal", the DESIRE to be part of a "group" that VANQUISHES
another ARBITRARY "group", and thus fulfills the ultimate
"desire/instinct", the perpetuation of the "group"'s genetic
material.
The two statements are neither semantically nor conceptually
equivalent. Again, you are confusing human wants, needs, 'instincts'
with Desire, the latter - which I have already repeatedly indicated -
being used here in its strictly psychoanalytic sense, not its
"commonsensical' or popular sense of 'whatever I want, or don't want'
etc.
Great, so you've now twisted simple English words into new
definitions that only a limited number of people might understand,
like "twinspeak", and attempt to "correct" MY "confusion".
Of course, the ultimate manifestation of this particular behavior
of yours would be something like "NewSpeak", the political
enslavement of "other"'s minds using the controlling process
of semantic redefinition...this latest diatribe of yours is just
the most benign manifestation of a set of inter-related
behaviors of criticism and attempted control...
Post by Harry Bailey
You are also, therefore, assuming that you KNOW what desire is by
mistaking such wants with desire, mistakenly believing that you knows
the meaning of your - and others' - actions and thus know the true
nature of all desire.
Again, MY mistake...you know all, "Big Newsgroup Brother",
and will now continue in your futile attempt to "correct" me...
Post by Harry Bailey
But analysis shows that the reason for our
repetitions, the desire animating our action, is hidden from us.
Exactly. That's not only what I said, that's what SHE said...
Post by Harry Bailey
Our
desire is embodied in our repetitions and symptoms, yet the whole
problem is that we do not know why it is that we repeat, why it is
that we desire.
Well, I'm about to "correct" you, so get ready for some
"cognitive disonnance"...
Post by Harry Bailey
The hidden meaning of one's action is what is called
Desire.
I don't know about "desire", but I WISH this post would end...
Post by Harry Bailey
"In "The Signification of the Phallus",
NO WAIT, IT JUST GOT MORE INTERESTING!!!

Man, were those old cocaine-addicts some major cigar-smokers!
Post by Harry Bailey
Lacan distinguishes desire
from need and demand.
The problem is, he was ignoring a large body of conflicting evidence,
and mostly just "signifying himself" intellectually while indulging in the
primally-based behavior of language redefinition...
Post by Harry Bailey
Need is a biological instinct that is
articulated in demand, yet demand has a double function, on one hand
it articulates need and on the other acts as a demand for love.
Oh yeah, everybody knows that...WHAT?!?!!
Post by Harry Bailey
So,
even after the need articulated in demand is satisfied, the demand for
love remains unsatisfied and this leftover is desire.
To the extent that I can even follow this furious phallic "signification",
it's wrong...

Even a cursory examination of animal behavior reveals that
even after a "need" is satisfied, the behavior persists, and oddly,
even after the "need" is OVER-satisfied, the behavior becomes
even more compulsive and uncontrollable.

For example, just look at fish "feeding frenzies". When confronted
with an over-abundance of food, most animals "inexplicably" continue
to eat ever more "ravenously", to the point of abandoning normal
behaviors of personal safety (you can actually catch fish on a bare
unbaited hook at times when there is a lot of food in the water)
and even to the point of death by gorging (though fish have a
behavior of vomiting the food they've over-eaten, then furiously
eating their own vomit, then eating even more new food, then
vomiting again, etc.).

Does any of this start to sound familiar, with a human counter-part?
If so, did "Lacan" ever put a mackeral "on the couch" to come up with
his amazing theories about "need", "desire", "satisfaction", and "desire"?
Post by Harry Bailey
For Lacan
"desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction nor the demand for
love, but the difference that results from the subtraction of the
first from the second".
Did Lacan ever stop to consider the source of his "desire" to
write a bunch of unsupported nonsense?
Post by Harry Bailey
Desire then is the surplus produced by the
articulation of need in demand (Dylan Evans). Lacan adds that "desire
begins to take shape in the margin in which demand becomes separated
from need". Hence desire can never be satisfied, or as Slavoj Zizek
puts it "desire's raison d'etre is not to realize its goal, to find
full satisfaction, but to reproduce itself as desire.""
Idiots, every one of them...
Post by Harry Bailey
And crucially, Desire appears as a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT since it is always
constituted in a dialectical relationship.
I wouldn't argue that social constructs don't have an impact on
individual behavior because that would be silly, but apparently you
and all the shapers of your "intellect" resolutely vowed never to
consider the bulk of the real world and actual scientific research,
you know, that icky stuff you deride as "empiricism" and
"scienticism" (?), instead preferring to "go it alone", preferring
merely the "evidence" of their own phallus...
Post by Harry Bailey
[And social patterns are
not 'inborn', they are LEARNED, they are mediated; and yes,
'romanticism' too was a social construct]. Even before being born,
prior to being a subject, the infant is already surrounded by a
discourse not of his own making.
Yes, it is social pressure that makes babies suck...
Oh, forget it, I'm going to show mercy and just drop this because
it will all be more of the muddle-headed same. You have your own
"perspective" through which you view things, I have my own, sort
of, but am always "open" to "new" ideas, just not to being intellectually
raped...

---
William Ernest "Fear Of Desire" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-06-19 22:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
The two statements are neither semantically nor conceptually
equivalent. Again, you are confusing human wants, needs, 'instincts'
with Desire, the latter - which I have already repeatedly indicated -
being used here in its strictly psychoanalytic sense, not its
"commonsensical' or popular sense of 'whatever I want, or don't want'
etc.
Reid: "Great, so you've now twisted simple English words into new
definitions that only a limited number of people might understand,
like "twinspeak", and attempt to "correct" MY "confusion".
Of course, the ultimate manifestation of this particular behavior
of yours would be something like "NewSpeak", the political
enslavement of "other"'s minds using the controlling process
of semantic redefinition...this latest diatribe of yours is just
the most benign manifestation of a set of inter-related
behaviors of criticism and attempted control..."

What a ridiculous, anti-intellectual thing to say. I said - repeatedly
- that I was using the word Desire in its generally accepted
psychoanalytic meaning, not in its 'simple' meaning, the latter being
extremely vague, shallow, and unhelpful when engaging in any serious
discussion of unconscious human desires. Furthermore, there is no
accepted 'definition' of desire; the subject is a riot of
interpretation, and most peoples' understanding of the word quickly
breaks down when subject to the most basic of analysis. Are
physicists, when discussing Gravity, disingenuously 'twisting' simple
English words into 'new definitions'? There are no fixed definitions
of words. "Only a limited number of people might understand": and
who's fault is that, when cynical anti-intellectuals like yourself
make no effort to understand, preferring ignorance over insight,
dismissing knowledge purely on the basis of being - or preferring to
be - ignorant of it ("I don't understand any of this and I don't
'want' to. Therefore, it's all a load of rubbish" etc is the usual
'reasoning', so demonstrating their fundamental antipathy towards
psychonanalytic theory, which unflinchingly analyses precisely such
zombie-hysterical behaviour)?


[snip uncontroversial anecdotes on 'animal behaviour' and associated
trivia]
Post by Harry Bailey
For Lacan
"desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction nor the demand for
love, but the difference that results from the subtraction of the
first from the second".
Reid: "Did Lacan ever stop to consider the source of his "desire""


Lacan's analysis of Desire is one of his greatest and most singular
contributions to 20th century thought, in philosophy, in social
theory, in psychoanalysis. Clearly, you don't know what you're talking
about. [And ironically, it is precisely because he did this,
rigorously and logically examining unconscious desires, that he is
'criticised' by those hostile and ignorant of the unconscious,
imagining and behaving while hopelessly oblivious to the unavoidable
real of its existence, as you are.]
Post by Harry Bailey
And crucially, Desire appears as a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT since it is always
constituted in a dialectical relationship.
Reid didders on:"I wouldn't argue that social constructs don't have an
impact on
individual behavior because that would be silly, but apparently you
and all the shapers of your "intellect" resolutely vowed never to
consider the bulk of the real world and actual scientific research,
you know, that icky stuff you deride as "empiricism" and
"scienticism" (?), instead preferring to "go it alone", preferring
merely the "evidence" of their own phallus..."

Going it alone is precisely what YOU are doing, spouting a ridiculous
hodge-podge of contradictory cliches and childish anecdotes. You
invoke the "real world" as if the meaning of such a term was self-
evident and beyond dispute or questioning (when, in fact, it is one of
THE most complex issues in contemporary philosophy and ontology); you
talk of 'scientific research' without even a clue as to the actual
lack of agreement on numerous scientific theories. I am not deriding
empiricism, but questioning those who - like religious fundamentalists
- elevate it to the status of absolute truth, those who imagine that
they have direct, unqualified, unmediated, access to the Real, to
Truth, to fundamental laws of nature [ie to, in effect, some ersatz
God], when all of this is impossible [a conclusion not only of
psychanalytic theory, of numerous philosophers [Kant, Nietzsche,
Spinoza, for instance] but also of the most important of scientific
theories and research itself [cf quantum theory]. You have a very
simple-minded, positivistic view of science (and the world), confusing
it - and what is real - with mere empiricism, when it is actually
driven by Theory, and conflicting theories at that [not that you've
ever even studied the philosophy of science, or philosophy, preferring
to rely on your own irrational and inherited prejudices, your
'obvious' magical self-knowledge. It is you, a contemptible hubristic
narcissist, who wallows in 'going it alone' ego-mania, as all your
odious posts on this newsgroup repeatedly confirm. Go and educate
yourself on some of these subjects before embarrassing us even
further.
Raving Reid concludes: "Oh, forget it, I'm going to show mercy and
just drop this because it will all be more of the muddle-headed same.
You have your own
"perspective" through which you view things, I have my own, sort
of, but am always "open" to "new" ideas, just not to being
intellectually
raped..."

But you don't have a 'perspective', you just have irrational, knee-
jerk close-minded rantings while seeking pomo refuge in that
narcissistic adolescent mantra "everything is just a matter of
opinion." It isn't, and you have not presented a single argument [I
doubt you even know what an argument is] in any of your posts, simply
substituting a combination of infantile anecdotes with slurs,
slanders, personal abuse, and cheap shots for reasoned argument
supported by leading social theories. You are indeed a perverse victim
of your own crazed unconscious Desires ...

You have no interest in new, controversial ideas or theories [and how
could you, dismissing them before you have even begun to understand
them, before you have even begun to comprehend the basic vocabulary of
analysis]; your contribution to a discussion of EWS thus far has been
no more than - like a spoiled, tantrum-throwing child - to dismiss it
as 'boring'.

And you expect anyone to take you seriously? The average schoolboy has
more insight into the world than anything you have ever, in your lazy
repetitions of banal platitudes, mustered hereabouts ...
Bill Reid
2007-06-21 14:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
But you don't have a 'perspective', you just have irrational, knee-
jerk close-minded rantings while seeking pomo refuge in that
narcissistic adolescent mantra "everything is just a matter of
opinion." It isn't, and you have not presented a single argument [I
doubt you even know what an argument is] in any of your posts, simply
substituting a combination of infantile anecdotes with slurs,
slanders, personal abuse, and cheap shots for reasoned argument
supported by leading social theories. You are indeed a perverse victim
of your own crazed unconscious Desires ...
You have no interest in new, controversial ideas or theories [and how
could you, dismissing them before you have even begun to understand
them, before you have even begun to comprehend the basic vocabulary of
analysis]; your contribution to a discussion of EWS thus far has been
no more than - like a spoiled, tantrum-throwing child - to dismiss it
as 'boring'.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously? The average schoolboy has
more insight into the world than anything you have ever, in your lazy
repetitions of banal platitudes, mustered hereabouts ...
Well, thanks for that...

Didn't this "Lacan" fellow apply "structuralism" to psychoanalysis
in the same way that Claude Levi-Strauss did for anthropology? I
bring this up because I had the interesting experience of taking an
anthropology course from a fey neurotic professor who declared
himself "one of three men in America who actually understands
the work of Claude Levi-Strauss", and proceeded to try to
educate us on the topic while simultaneously warning us "you'll
never understand this because it is far too complicated for the
common intellect".

So feel free to post however many Kbytes you wish comparing
any possible similarities between the work of "Lacan" and "Claude
Levi-Strauss", and then I may post an anecdote about a dramatic
incident that occurred in that class...

---
William Ernest "Levi Strauss Made My Butt Look Sexy" Reid
kelps
2007-06-21 15:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
But you don't have a 'perspective', you just have irrational, knee-
jerk close-minded rantings while seeking pomo refuge in that
narcissistic adolescent mantra "everything is just a matter of
opinion." It isn't, and you have not presented a single argument [I
doubt you even know what an argument is] in any of your posts, simply
substituting a combination of infantile anecdotes with slurs,
slanders, personal abuse, and cheap shots for reasoned argument
supported by leading social theories. You are indeed a perverse victim
of your own crazed unconscious Desires ...
You have no interest in new, controversial ideas or theories [and how
could you, dismissing them before you have even begun to understand
them, before you have even begun to comprehend the basic vocabulary of
analysis]; your contribution to a discussion of EWS thus far has been
no more than - like a spoiled, tantrum-throwing child - to dismiss it
as 'boring'.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously? The average schoolboy has
more insight into the world than anything you have ever, in your lazy
repetitions of banal platitudes, mustered hereabouts ...
Well, thanks for that...
Didn't this "Lacan" fellow apply "structuralism" to psychoanalysis
in the same way that Claude Levi-Strauss did for anthropology? I
bring this up because I had the interesting experience of taking an
anthropology course from a fey neurotic professor who declared
himself "one of three men in America who actually understands
the work of Claude Levi-Strauss", and proceeded to try to
educate us on the topic while simultaneously warning us "you'll
never understand this because it is far too complicated for the
common intellect".
So feel free to post however many Kbytes you wish comparing
any possible similarities between the work of "Lacan" and "Claude
Levi-Strauss", and then I may post an anecdote about a dramatic
incident that occurred in that class...
---
William Ernest "Levi Strauss Made My Butt Look Sexy" Reid
When anyone spends a lifetime, looking for the source of myth and religion,
and have some courage, they always end up with the Mushroom, the Vines and
the Lotus Flowers.

".....the hallucinogens do not conceal a natural message, of which the
concept even appears contradictory; they are releases and amplifiers of a
latent speech which each culture holds in reserve and whose drugs allow or
facilitate the development". Claude Levi-Strauss.


dc
kelps
2007-06-21 15:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Bill Reid
Didn't this "Lacan" fellow apply "structuralism" to psychoanalysis
in the same way that Claude Levi-Strauss did for anthropology? I
bring this up because I had the interesting experience of taking an
anthropology course from a fey neurotic professor who declared
himself "one of three men in America who actually understands
the work of Claude Levi-Strauss", and proceeded to try to
educate us on the topic while simultaneously warning us "you'll
never understand this because it is far too complicated for the
common intellect".
So feel free to post however many Kbytes you wish comparing
any possible similarities between the work of "Lacan" and "Claude
Levi-Strauss", and then I may post an anecdote about a dramatic
incident that occurred in that class...
---
William Ernest "Levi Strauss Made My Butt Look Sexy" Reid
When anyone spends a lifetime, looking for the source of myth and
religion, and have some courage, they always end up with the Mushroom, the
Vines and the Lotus Flowers.
".....the hallucinogens do not conceal a natural message, of which the
concept even appears contradictory; they are releases and amplifiers of a
latent speech which each culture holds in reserve and whose drugs allow or
facilitate the development". Claude Levi-Strauss.
dc
When anyone spends a lifetime, looking for the source of myth and
religion, and have some courage, they always end up with the Mushroom, the
Vines and the Lotus Flowers
I shouldn't forget the Cacti either.

dc
Harry Bailey
2007-06-21 22:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Didn't this "Lacan" fellow apply "structuralism" to psychoanalysis
in the same way that Claude Levi-Strauss did for anthropology?
Your fondness for SCARE "quotes" is intriguing, the contents therein
being smugly dismissed as some kind of deluded phantasmatic
construction. As I already said, I don't wish to enter into that ego-
maniacal abyss of which you are so eager to defend, so instead I'll
just post here a reasonable "summary" of some of Lacan's principal
ideas, their connection or relevance to an analysis of EWS to follow
sometime again ...
---------------------------------

In his discussion of the absolute division between the unconscious and
the consciousness (or between id and ego), Freud introduces the idea
of the human self, or subject, as radically split, divided between
these two realms of conscious and unconscious. On the one hand, our
usual (Western humanist) ideas of self or personhood are defined by
operations of consciousness, including rationality, free will, and
self-reflection. For Freud and for psychoanalysis in general, however,
actions, thought, belief, and the concepts of "self" are all
determined or shaped by the unconscious, and its drives and desires.


Jacques Lacan is a French psychoanalyst. He was originally trained as
a psychiatrist, and in the 1930s and 40s worked with psychotic
patients; he began in the 1950s to develop his own version of
psychoanalysis, based on the ideas articulated in structuralist
linguistics and anthropology. You might think of Lacan as Freud +
Saussure, with a dash of Levi-Strauss, and even some seasoning of
Derrida. But his main influence/precursor is Freud. Lacan reinterprets
Freud in light of structuralist and post-structuralist theories,
turning psychoanalysis from an essentially humanist philosophy or
theory into a post-structuralist one.


One of the basic premises of humanism, as you recall, is that there is
such a thing as a stable self, that has all those nice things like
free will and self-determination. Freud's notion of the unconscious
was one of the ideas that began to question, or to destabilize, that
humanist ideal of the self; he was one of the precursors of post-
structuralism in that regard. But Freud hoped that, by bringing the
contents of the unconscious into consciousness, he could minimize
repression and neurosis--he makes a famous declaration about the
relation between the unconscious and conscious, saying that "Wo Es
war, soll Ich werden": Where It was, shall I be." In other words, the
"it," or "id" (unconscious) will be replaced by the "I", by
consciousness and self-identity. Freud's goal was to strengthen the
ego, the "I" self, the conscious/rational identity, so it would be
more powerful than the unconscious.


For Lacan, this project is impossible. The ego can never take the
place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for
Lacan, the ego or "I" self is only an illusion, a product of the
unconscious itself. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the unconscious is the
ground of all being.


Where Freud is interested in investigating how the polymorphously
perverse child forms an unconscious and a superego and becomes a
civilized and productive (as well as correctly heterosexual) adult,
Lacan is interested in how the infant gets this illusion we call a
"self." His essay on the Mirror Stage describes that process, showing
how the infant forms an illusion of an ego, of a unified conscious
self identified by the word "I."


Central to the conception of the human, in Lacan, is the notion that
the unconscious, which governs all factors of human existence, is
structured like a language. He bases this on Freud's account of the
two main mechanisms of unconscious processes, condensation and
displacement. Both are essentially linguistic phenomena, where meaning
is either condensed (in metaphor) or displaced (in metonymy). Lacan
notes that Freud's dream analyses, and most of his analyses of the
unconscious symbolism used by his patients, depend on word-play--on
puns, associations, etc. that are chiefly verbal. Lacan says that the
contents of the unconscious are acutely aware of language, and
particularly of the structure of language.


And here he follows ideas laid out by Saussure, but modifies them a
bit. Where Saussure talked about the relations between signifier and
signified, which form a sign, and insisted that the structure of
language is the negative relation among signs (one sign is what it is
because it is not another sign), Lacan focuses on relations between
signifiers alone. The elements in the unconscious--wishes, desires,
images--all form signifiers (and they're usually expressed in verbal
terms), and these signifiers form a "signifying chain"--one signifier
has meaning only because it is not some other signifier. For Lacan,
there are no signifieds; there is nothing that a signifier ultimately
refers to. If there were, then the meaning of any particular signifier
would be relatively stable--there would be (in Saussure's terms) a
relation of signification between signifier and signified, and that
relation would create or guarantee some kind of meaning. Lacan says
those relations of signification don't exist (in the unconscious, at
least); rather, there are only the negative relations, relations of
value, where one signifier is what it is because it's not something
else.


Because of this lack of signifieds, Lacan says, the chain of
signifiers--x=y=z=b=q=0=%=|=s (etc.)--is constantly sliding and
shifting and circulating. There is no anchor, nothing that ultimately
gives meaning or stability to the whole system. The chain of
signifiers is constantly in play (in Derrida's sense); there's no way
to stop sliding down the chain--no way to say "oh, x means this," and
have it be definitive. Rather, one signifier only leads to another
signifier, and never to a signified. It's kind of like a dictionary--
one word only leads you to more words, but never to the things the
words supposedly represent.


Lacan says this is what the unconscious looks like--a continually
circulating chain (or multiple chains) of signifiers, with no anchor--
or, to use Derrida's terms, no center. This is Lacan's linguistic
translation of Freud's picture of the unconscious as this chaotic
realm of constantly shifting drives and desires. Freud is interested
in how to bring those chaotic drives and desires into consciousness,
so that they can have some order and sense and meaning, so they can be
understood and made manageable. Lacan, on the other hand, says that
the process of becoming an adult, a "self," is the process of trying
to fix, to stabilize, to stop the chain of signifiers so that stable
meaning--including the meaning of "I"--becomes possible. Though of
course Lacan says that this possibility is only an illusion, an image
created by a misperception of the relation between body and self.


But I'm getting too far ahead of where we're going.


Freud talks about the 3 stages of polymorphous perversity in infants:
the oral, the anal, and the phallic; it's the Oedipus complex and
Castration complex that end polymorphous perversity and create "adult"
beings. Lacan creates different categories to explain a similar
trajectory, from infant to "adult." He talks about 3 concepts--need,
demand, and desire--that roughly correspond to 3 phases of
development, or 3 fields in which humans develop--the Real, the
Imaginary, and the Symbolic. The Symbolic realm, which is marked by
the concept of desire (I'll explain this in more detail later) is the
equivalent of adulthood; or, more specifically for Lacan, the Symbolic
realm is the structure of language itself, which we have to enter into
in order to become speaking subjects, in order to say "I" and have "I"
designate something which appears to be stable.


Like Freud, Lacan's infant starts out as something inseparable from
its mother; there's no distinction between self and other, between
baby and mother (at least, from the baby's perspective). In fact, the
baby (for both Freud and Lacan) is a kind of blob, with no sense of
self or individuated identity, and no sense even of its body as a
coherent unified whole. This baby-blob is driven by NEED; it needs
food, it needs comfort/safety, it needs to be changed, etc. These
needs are satisfiable, and can be satisfied by an object. When the
baby needs food, it gets a breast (or a bottle); when it needs safety,
it gets hugged. The baby, in this state of NEED, doesn't recognize any
distinction between itself and the objects that meet its needs; it
doesn't recognize that an object (like a breast) is part of another
whole person (because it doesn't have any concept yet of "whole
person"). There's no distinction between it and anyone or anything
else; there are only needs and things that satisfy those needs.


This is the state of "nature," which has to be broken up in order for
culture to be formed. This is true in both Freud's psychoanalysis and
in Lacan's: the infant must separate from its mother, form a separate
identity, in order to enter into civilization. That separation entails
some kind of LOSS; when the child knows the difference between itself
and its mother, and starts to become an individuated being, it loses
that primal sense of unity (and safety/security) that it originally
had. This is the element of the tragic built into psychoanalytic
theory (whether Freudian or Lacanian): to become a civilized "adult"
always entails the profound loss of an original unity, a non-
differentiation, a merging with others (particularly the mother).


The baby who has not yet made this separation, who has only needs
which are satisfiable, and which makes no distinction between itself
and the objects that satisfy its needs, exists in the realm of the
REAL, according to Lacan. The Real is a place (a psychic place, not a
physical place) where there is this original unity. Because of that,
there is no absence or loss or lack; the Real is all fullness and
completeness, where there's no need that can't be satisfied. And
because there is no absence or loss or lack, there is no language in
the Real.


Let me back up a bit to explain that. Lacan here follows an argument
Freud made about the idea of loss. In a case study which appears in
Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud talks about his nephew,
aged about 18 months, who is playing a game with a spool tied with
yarn. The kid throws the spool away, and says "Fort," which is German
for "gone." He pulls the spool back in, and says "Da," which is German
for "here." Freud says that this game was symbolic for the kid, a way
of working out his anxiety about his mother's absence. When he threw
the spool and said "Fort," he replayed the experience of the loss of a
beloved object; when he reeled it in and said "Da," he got pleasure
from the restoration of the object.


Lacan takes this case and focuses, of course, on the aspect of
language it displays. Lacan says that the fort/da game, which Freud
said happened when his nephew was about 18 months old, is about the
child's entry into the Symbolic, or into the structure of language
itself. Lacan says that language is always about loss or absence; you
only need words when the object you want is gone. If your world was
all fullness, with no absence, then you wouldn't need language.
(Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels, has a version of this: a
culture where there is no language, and people carry all the objects
they need to refer to on their backs).


Thus in the realm of the Real, according to Lacan, there is no
language because there is no loss, no lack, no absence; there is only
complete fullness, needs and the satisfaction of needs. Hence the Real
is always beyond language, unrepresentable in language (and therefore
irretrievably lost when one enters into language).


The Real, and the phase of need, last from birth till somewhere
between 6 and 18 months, when the baby blob starts to be able to
distinguish between its body and everything else in the world. At this
point, the baby shifts from having needs to having DEMANDS. Demands
are not satisfiable with objects; a demand is always a demand for
recognition from another, for love from another. The process works
like this: the baby starts to become aware that it is separate from
the mother, and that there exist things that are not part of it; thus
the idea of "other" is created. (Note, however, that as yet the binary
opposition of "self/other" doesn't yet exist, because the baby still
doesn't have a coherent sense of "self"). That awareness of
separation, or the fact of otherness, creates an anxiety, a sense of
loss. The baby then demands a reunion, a return to that original sense
of fullness and non-separation that it had in the Real. But that is
impossible, once the baby knows (and this knowing, remember, is all
happening on an unconscious level) that the idea of an "other" exists.
The baby demands to be filled by the other, to return to the sense of
original unity; the baby wants the idea of "other" to disappear.
Demand is thus the demand for the fullness, the completeness, of the
other that will stop up the lack the baby is experiencing. But of
course this is impossible, because that lack, or absence, the sense of
"other"ness, is the condition for the baby becoming a self/subject, a
functioning cultural being.


Because the demand is for recognition from the other, it can't really
be satisfied, if only because the 6-to-18 month infant can't SAY what
it wants. The baby cries, and the mother gives it a bottle, or a
breast, or a pacifier, or something, but no object can satisfy the
demand--the demand is for a response on a different level. The baby
can't recognize the ways the mother does respond to it, and recognize
it, because it doesn't yet have a conception of itself as a thing--it
only knows that this idea of "other" exists, and that it is separate
from the "other", but it doesn't yet have an idea of what its "self"
is.


This is where Lacan's MIRROR STAGE happens. At this age--between 6 and
18 months--the baby or child hasn't yet mastered its own body; it
doesn't have control over its own movements, and it doesn't have a
sense of its body as a whole. Rather, the baby experiences its body as
fragmented, or in pieces--whatever part is within its field of vision
is there as long as the baby can see it, but gone when the baby can't
see it. It may see its own hand, but it doesn't know that that hand
belongs to it--the hand could belong to anyone, or no one. However,
the child in this stage can imagine itself as whole--because it has
seen other people, and perceived them as whole beings.


Lacan says that at some point in this period, the baby will see itself
in a mirror. It will look at its reflection, then look back at a real
person--its mother, or some other person--then look again at the
mirror image. The child moves "from insufficiency to anticipation" in
this action; the mirror, and the moving back and forth from mirror
image to other people, gives it a sense that it, too, is an integrated
being, a whole person. The child, still unable to be whole, and hence
separate from others (though it has this notion of separation), in the
mirror stage begins to anticipate being whole. It moves from a
"fragmented body" to an "orthopedic vision of its totality", to a
vision of itself as whole and integrated, which is "orthopedic"
because it serves as a crutch, a corrective instrument, an aid to help
the child achieve the status of wholeness.


What the child anticipates is a sense of self as a unified separate
whole; the child sees that it looks like what "others" look like.
Eventually, this entity the child sees in the mirror, this whole
being, will be a "self," the entity designated by the word "I." What
is really happening, however, is an identification that is a
MISRECOGNITION. The child sees an image in the mirror; it thinks, that
image is "ME". But it's NOT the child; it's only an image. But another
person (usually the mother) is there to reinforce the misrecognition.
The baby looks in the mirror, and looks back at mother, and the mother
says, "Yes, it's you!" She guarantees the "reality" of the connection
between the child and its image, and the idea of the integrated whole
body the child is seeing and identifying with.


The child takes that image in the mirror as the summation of its
entire being, its "self." This process, of misrecognizing one's self
in the image in the mirror, creates the EGO, the thing that says "I."
In Lacan's terms, this misrecognition creates the "armor" of the
subject, an illusion or misperception of wholeness, integration, and
totality that surrounds and protects the fragmented body. To Lacan,
ego, or self, or "I"dentity, is always on some level a FANTASY, an
identification with an external image, and not an internal sense of
separate whole identity.


This is why Lacan calls the phase of demand, and the mirror stage, the
realm of the IMAGINARY. The idea of a self is created through an
Imaginary identification with the image in the mirror. The realm of
the Imaginary is where the alienated relation of self to its own image
is created and maintained. The Imaginary is a realm of images, whether
conscious or unconscious. It's prelinguistic, and preoedipal, but very
much based in visual perception, or what Lacan calls specular
imaging.


The mirror image, the whole person the baby mistakes as itself, is
known in psychoanalytic terminology as an "ideal ego," a perfect whole
self who has no insufficiency. This "ideal ego" becomes internalized;
we build our sense of "self," our "I"dentity, by (mis)identifying with
this ideal ego. By doing this, according to Lacan, we imagine a self
that has no lack, no notion of absence or incompleteness. The fiction
of the stable, whole, unified self that we see in the mirror becomes a
compensation for having lost the original oneness with the mother's
body. In short, according to Lacan, we lose our unity with the
mother's body, the state of "nature," in order to enter culture, but
we protect ourselves from the knowledge of that loss by misperceiving
ourselves as not lacking anything--as being complete unto ourselves.


Lacan says that the child's self-concept (its ego or "I"dentity) will
never match up to its own being. Its IMAGO in the mirror is both
smaller and more stable than the child, and is always "other" than the
child--something outside it. The child, for the rest of its life, will
misrecognize its self as "other, as the image in the mirror that
provides an illusion of self and of mastery.


The Imaginary is the psychic place, or phase, where the child projects
its ideas of "self" onto the mirror image it sees. The mirror stage
cements a self/other dichotomy, where previously the child had known
only "other," but not "self." For Lacan, the identification of "self"
is always in terms of "other." This is not the same as a binary
opposition, where "self"= what is not "other," and "other" = what is
not "self." Rather, "self" IS "other", in Lacan's view; the idea of
the self, that inner being we designate by "I," is based on an image,
an other. The concept of self relies on one's misidentification with
this image of an other.


Lacan uses the term "other" in a number of ways, which make it even
harder to grasp. First, and perhaps the easiest, is in the sense of
self/other, where "other" is the "not-me;" but, as we have seen, the
"other" becomes "me" in the mirror stage. Lacan also uses an idea of
Other, with a capital "o", to distinguish between the concept of the
other and actual others. The image the child sees in the mirror is an
other, and it gives the child the idea of Other as a structural
possibility, one which makes possible the structural possibility of
"I" or self. In other words, the child encounters actual others--its
own image, other people--and understands the idea of "Otherness,"
things that are not itself. According to Lacan, the notion of
Otherness, encountered in the Imaginary phase (and associated with
demand), comes before the sense of "self," which is built on the idea
of Otherness.


When the child has formulated some idea of Otherness, and of a self
identified with its own "other," its own mirror image, then the child
begins to enter the Symbolic realm. The Symbolic and the Imaginary are
overlapping, unlike Freud's phases of development; there's no clear
marker or division between the two, and in some respects they always
coexist. The Symbolic order is the structure of language itself; we
have to enter it in order to become speaking subjects, and to
designate ourselves by "I." The foundation for having a self lies in
the Imaginary projection of the self onto the specular image, the
other in the mirror, and having a self is expressed in saying "I,"
which can only occur within the Symbolic, which is why the two
coexist.


The fort/da game that the nephew played, in Freud's account, is in
Lacan's view a marker of the entry into the Symbolic, because Hans is
using language to negotiate the idea of absence and the idea of
Otherness as a category or structural possibility. The spool,
according to Lacan, serves as an "objet petit a," or "objet petit
autre"--an object which is a little "other," a small-o other. In
throwing it away, the child recognizes that others can disappear; in
pulling it back, the child recognizes that others can return. Lacan
emphasizes the former, insisting that Little Hans is primarily
concerned with the idea of lack or absence of the "objet petit
autre."


The "little other" illustrates for the child the idea of lack, of
loss, of absence, showing the child that it isn't complete in and of
itself. It is also the gateway to the Symbolic order, to language,
since language itself is premised on the idea of lack or absence.


Lacan says these ideas--of other and Other, of lack and absence, of
the (mis)identification of self with o/Other--are all worked out on an
individual level, with each child, but they form the basic structures
of the Symbolic order, of language, which the child must enter in
order to become an adult member of culture. Thus the otherness acted
out in the fort/da game (as well as by the distinctions made in the
Mirror Phase between self and other, mother and child) become
categorical or structural ideas. So, in the Symbolic, there is a
structure (or structuring principle) of Otherness, and a structuring
principle of Lack.


The Other (capital O) is a structural position in the Symbolic order.
It is the place that everyone is trying to get to, to merge with, in
order to get rid of the separation between "self" and "other." It is,
in Derrida's sense, the CENTER of the system, of the Symbolic and/or
of language itself. As such, the Other is the thing to which every
element relates. But, as the center, the Other (again, not a person
but a position) can't be merged with. Nothing can be in the center
with the Other, even though everything in the system (people, e.g.)
want to be. So the position of the Other creates and sustains a never-
ending LACK, which Lacan calls DESIRE. Desire is the desire to be the
Other. By definition, desire can never be fulfilled: it's not desire
for some object (which would be need) or desire for love or another
person's recognition of oneself (which would be demand), but desire to
be the center of the system, the center of the Symbolic, the center of
language itself.


The center has a lot of names in Lacanian theory. It's the Other; it's
also called the PHALLUS. Here's where Lacan borrows again from Freud's
original Oedipus theory.


The mirror stage is pre-oedipal. The self is constructed in relation
to an other, to the idea of Other, and the self wants to merge with
the Other. As in Freud's world, the most important other in the
child's life is the mother; so the child wants to merge with its
mother. In Lacan's terms, this is the child's demand that the self/
other split be erased. The child decides that it can merge with the
mother if it becomes what the mother wants it to be--in Lacan's terms,
the child tries to fulfill the mother's desire. The mother's desire
(formed by her own entry into the Symbolic, because she is already an
adult) is to not have lack, or Lack (or to be the Other, the center,
the place where nothing is lacking). This fits with the Freudian
version of the Oedipus complex, where the child wants to merge with
its mother by having sexual intercourse with her. In Freud's model,
the idea of lack is represented by the lack of a penis. The boy who
wants to sleep with his mother wants to complete her lack by filling
her up with his penis.


In Freud's view, what breaks this oedipal desire up, for boys anyway,
is the father, who threatens castration. The father threatens to make
the boy experience lack, the absence of the penis, if he tries to use
his penis to make up for the mother's lack of a penis. In Lacan's
terms, the threat of castration is a metaphor for the whole idea of
Lack as a structural concept. For Lacan, it isn't the real father who
threatens castration. Rather, because the idea of lack, or Lack, is
essential to the concept of language, because the concept of Lack is
part of the basic structuration of language, the father becomes a
function of the linguistic structure. The Father, rather than being a
person, becomes a structuring principle of the Symbolic order.


For Lacan, Freud's angry father becomes the Name-of-the-Father, or the
Law-of-the-Father, or sometimes just the Law. Submission to the rules
of language itself--the Law of the Father--is required in order to
enter into the Symbolic order. To become a speaking subject, you have
to be subjected to, you have to obey, the laws and rules of language.
Lacan designates the idea of the structure of language, and its rules,
as specifically paternal. He calls the rules of language the Law-of-
the-Father in order to link the entry into the Symbolic, the structure
of language, to Freud's notion of the oedipus and castration
complexes.


The Law-of-the-Father, or Name-of-the-Father, is another term for the
Other, for the center of the system, the thing that governs the whole
structure--its shape and how all the elements in the system can move
and form relationships. This center is also called the PHALLUS, to
underline even more the patriarchal nature of the Symbolic order. The
Phallus, as center, limits the play of elements, and gives stability
to the whole structure. The Phallus anchors the chains of signifiers
which, in the unconscious, are just floating and unfixed, always
sliding and shifting. The Phallus stops play, so that signifiers can
have some stable meaning. It is because the Phallus is the center of
the Symbolic order, of language, that the term "I" designates the idea
of the self (and, additionally, why any other word has stable
meaning).


The Phallus is not the same as the penis. Penises belong to
individuals; the Phallus belongs to the structure of language itself.
No one has it, just like no one governs language or rules language.
Rather, the Phallus is the center. It governs the whole structure,
it's what everyone wants to be (or have), but no one can get there (no
element of the system can take the place of the center). That's what
Lacan calls DESIRE: the desire, which is never satisfied, because it
can never be satisfied, to be the center, to rule the system.


Lacan says that boys can think they have a shot at being the Phallus,
at occupying the position of center, because they have penises. Girls
have a harder time misperceiving themselves as having a shot at the
Phallus because they are (as Freud says) constituted by and as lack,
lacking a penis, and the Phallus is a place where there is no lack.
But, Lacan says, every subject in language is constituted by/as lack,
or Lack. The only reason we have language at all is because of the
loss, or lack, of the union with the maternal body. In fact, it is the
necessity to become part of "culture," to become subjects in language,
that forces that absence, loss, lack.


The distinction between the sexes is significant in Lacan's theory,
though not in the same way it is in Freud's. This is what Lacan talks
about in "The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious," on p. 741. He
has two drawings there. One is of the word "Tree" over a picture of a
tree--the basic Saussurean concept, of signifier (word) over signified
(object). Then he has another drawing, of two identical doors (the
signifieds). But over each door is a different word: one says "Ladies"
and the other says "Gentlemen." Lacan explains, on p. 742:


"A train arrives at a station. A little boy and a little girl, brother
and sister, are seated in a compartment face to face next to the
window through which the buildings along the station platform can be
seen passing as the train pulls to a stop. 'Look,' says the brother,
'We're at Ladies!' 'Idiot!' replies his sister, 'Can't you see we're
at Gentlemen.'"


This anecdote shows how boys and girls enter the Symbolic order, the
structure of language, differently. In Lacan's view, each child can
only see the signifier of the other gender; each child constructs its
world view, its understanding of the relation between sfr and sfd in
naming locations, as the consequence of seeing an "other." As Lacan
puts it (742), "For these children, Ladies and Gentlemen will be
henceforth two countries toward which each of their souls will strive
on divergent wings..." Each child, each sex, has a particular position
within the Symbolic order; from that position, each sex can only see
(or signify) the otherness of the other sex. You might take Lacan's
drawing of the two doors literally: these are the doors, with their
gender distinctions, through which each child must pass in order to
enter into the Symbolic realm.


So, to summarize. Lacan's theory starts with the idea of the Real;
this is the union with the mother's body, which is a state of nature,
and must be broken up in order to build culture. Once you move out of
the Real, you can never get back, but you always want to. This is the
first idea of an irretrievable loss or lack.


Next comes the Mirror stage, which constitutes the Imaginary. Here you
grasp the idea of others, and begin to understand Otherness as a
concept or a structuring principle, and thus begin to formulate a
notion of "self". This "self" (as seen in the mirror) is in fact an
other, but you misrecognize it as you, and call it "self." (Or, in non-
theory language, you look in the mirror and say "hey, that's me." But
it's not--it's just an image).


This sense of self, and its relation to others and to Other, sets you
up to take up a position in the Symbolic order, in language. Such a
position allows you to say "I", to be a speaking subject. "I" (and all
other words) have a stable meaning because they are fixed, or
anchored, by the Other/Phallus/Name-of-the-Father/Law, which is the
center of the Symbolic, the center of language.


In taking up a position in the Symbolic, you enter through a gender-
marked doorway; the position for girls is different than the position
for boys. Boys are closer to the Phallus than girls, but no one is or
has the Phallus--it's the center. Your position in the Symbolic, like
the position of all other signifying elements (signifiers) is fixed by
the Phallus; unlike the unconscious, the chains of signifiers in the
Symbolic don't circulate and slide endlessly because the Phallus
limits play.


Paradoxically--as if all this wasn't bad enough!--the Phallus and the
Real are pretty similar. Both are places where things are whole,
complete, full, unified, where there's no lack, or Lack. Both are
places that are inaccessible to the human subject-in-language. But
they are also opposite: the Real is the maternal, the ground from
which we spring, the nature we have to separate from in order to have
culture; the Phallus is the idea of the Father, the patriarchal order
of culture, the ultimate idea of culture, the position which rules
everything in the world.
ichorwhip
2007-06-22 00:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Didn't this "Lacan" fellow apply "structuralism" to psychoanalysis
in the same way that Claude Levi-Strauss did for anthropology?
Your fondness for SCARE "quotes" is intriguing, the contents therein
being smugly dismissed as some kind of deluded phantasmatic
construction. As I already said, I don't wish to enter into that ego-
maniacal abyss of which you are so eager to defend, so instead I'll
just post here a reasonable "summary" of some of Lacan's principal
ideas, their connection or relevance to an analysis of EWS to follow
sometime again ...
---------------------------------
In his discussion of the absolute division between the unconscious and
the consciousness (or between id and ego), Freud introduces the idea
of the human self, or subject, as radically split, divided between
these two realms of conscious and unconscious. On the one hand, our
usual (Western humanist) ideas of self or personhood are defined by
operations of consciousness, including rationality, free will, and
self-reflection. For Freud and for psychoanalysis in general, however,
actions, thought, belief, and the concepts of "self" are all
determined or shaped by the unconscious, and its drives and desires.
Jacques Lacan is a French psychoanalyst. He was originally trained as
a psychiatrist, and in the 1930s and 40s worked with psychotic
patients; he began in the 1950s to develop his own version of
psychoanalysis, based on the ideas articulated in structuralist
linguistics and anthropology. You might think of Lacan as Freud +
Saussure, with a dash of Levi-Strauss, and even some seasoning of
Derrida. But his main influence/precursor is Freud. Lacan reinterprets
Freud in light of structuralist and post-structuralist theories,
turning psychoanalysis from an essentially humanist philosophy or
theory into a post-structuralist one.
One of the basic premises of humanism, as you recall, is that there is
such a thing as a stable self, that has all those nice things like
free will and self-determination. Freud's notion of the unconscious
was one of the ideas that began to question, or to destabilize, that
humanist ideal of the self; he was one of the precursors of post-
structuralism in that regard. But Freud hoped that, by bringing the
contents of the unconscious into consciousness, he could minimize
repression and neurosis--he makes a famous declaration about the
relation between the unconscious and conscious, saying that "Wo Es
war, soll Ich werden": Where It was, shall I be." In other words, the
"it," or "id" (unconscious) will be replaced by the "I", by
consciousness and self-identity. Freud's goal was to strengthen the
ego, the "I" self, the conscious/rational identity, so it would be
more powerful than the unconscious.
For Lacan, this project is impossible. The ego can never take the
place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for
Lacan, the ego or "I" self is only an illusion, a product of the
unconscious itself. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the unconscious is the
ground of all being.
Where Freud is interested in investigating how the polymorphously
perverse child forms an unconscious and a superego and becomes a
civilized and productive (as well as correctly heterosexual) adult,
Lacan is interested in how the infant gets this illusion we call a
"self." His essay on the Mirror Stage describes that process, showing
how the infant forms an illusion of an ego, of a unified conscious
self identified by the word "I."
Central to the conception of the human, in Lacan, is the notion that
the unconscious, which governs all factors of human existence, is
structured like a language. He bases this on Freud's account of the
two main mechanisms of unconscious processes, condensation and
displacement. Both are essentially linguistic phenomena, where meaning
is either condensed (in metaphor) or displaced (in metonymy). Lacan
notes that Freud's dream analyses, and most of his analyses of the
unconscious symbolism used by his patients, depend on word-play--on
puns, associations, etc. that are chiefly verbal. Lacan says that the
contents of the unconscious are acutely aware of language, and
particularly of the structure of language.
And here he follows ideas laid out by Saussure, but modifies them a
bit. Where Saussure talked about the relations between signifier and
signified, which form a sign, and insisted that the structure of
language is the negative relation among signs (one sign is what it is
because it is not another sign), Lacan focuses on relations between
signifiers alone. The elements in the unconscious--wishes, desires,
images--all form signifiers (and they're usually expressed in verbal
terms), and these signifiers form a "signifying chain"--one signifier
has meaning only because it is not some other signifier. For Lacan,
there are no signifieds; there is nothing that a signifier ultimately
refers to. If there were, then the meaning of any particular signifier
would be relatively stable--there would be (in Saussure's terms) a
relation of signification between signifier and signified, and that
relation would create or guarantee some kind of meaning. Lacan says
those relations of signification don't exist (in the unconscious, at
least); rather, there are only the negative relations, relations of
value, where one signifier is what it is because it's not something
else.
Because of this lack of signifieds, Lacan says, the chain of
signifiers--x=y=z=b=q=0=%=|=s (etc.)--is constantly sliding and
shifting and circulating. There is no anchor, nothing that ultimately
gives meaning or stability to the whole system. The chain of
signifiers is constantly in play (in Derrida's sense); there's no way
to stop sliding down the chain--no way to say "oh, x means this," and
have it be definitive. Rather, one signifier only leads to another
signifier, and never to a signified. It's kind of like a dictionary--
one word only leads you to more words, but never to the things the
words supposedly represent.
Lacan says this is what the unconscious looks like--a continually
circulating chain (or multiple chains) of signifiers, with no anchor--
or, to use Derrida's terms, no center. This is Lacan's linguistic
translation of Freud's picture of the unconscious as this chaotic
realm of constantly shifting drives and desires. Freud is interested
in how to bring those chaotic drives and desires into consciousness,
so that they can have some order and sense and meaning, so they can be
understood and made manageable. Lacan, on the other hand, says that
the process of becoming an adult, a "self," is the process of trying
to fix, to stabilize, to stop the chain of signifiers so that stable
meaning--including the meaning of "I"--becomes possible. Though of
course Lacan says that this possibility is only an illusion, an image
created by a misperception of the relation between body and self.
But I'm getting too far ahead of where we're going.
the oral, the anal, and the phallic; it's the Oedipus complex and
Castration complex that end polymorphous perversity and create "adult"
beings. Lacan creates different categories to explain a similar
trajectory, from infant to "adult." He talks about 3 concepts--need,
demand, and desire--that roughly correspond to 3 phases of
development, or 3 fields in which humans develop--the Real, the
Imaginary, and the Symbolic. The Symbolic realm, which is marked by
the concept of desire (I'll explain this in more detail later) is the
equivalent of adulthood; or, more specifically for Lacan, the Symbolic
realm is the structure of language itself, which we have to enter into
in order to become speaking subjects, in order to say "I" and have "I"
designate something which appears to be stable.
Like Freud, Lacan's infant starts out as something inseparable from
its mother; there's no distinction between self and other, between
baby and mother (at least, from the baby's perspective). In fact, the
baby (for both Freud and Lacan) is a kind of blob, with no sense of
self or individuated identity, and no sense even of its body as a
coherent unified whole. This baby-blob is driven by NEED; it needs
food, it needs comfort/safety, it needs to be changed, etc. These
needs are satisfiable, and can be satisfied by an object. When the
baby needs food, it gets a breast (or a bottle); when it needs safety,
it gets hugged. The baby, in this state of NEED, doesn't recognize any
distinction between itself and the objects that meet its needs; it
doesn't recognize that an object (like a breast) is part of another
whole person (because it doesn't have any concept yet of "whole
person"). There's no distinction between it and anyone or anything
else; there are only needs and things that satisfy those needs.
This is the state of "nature," which has to be broken up in order for
culture to be formed. This is true in both Freud's psychoanalysis and
in Lacan's: the infant must separate from its mother, form a separate
identity, in order to enter into civilization. That separation entails
some kind of LOSS; when the child knows the difference between itself
and its mother, and starts to become an individuated being, it loses
that primal sense of unity (and safety/security) that it originally
had. This is the element of the tragic built into psychoanalytic
theory (whether Freudian or Lacanian): to become a civilized "adult"
always entails the profound loss of an original unity, a non-
differentiation, a merging with others (particularly the mother).
The baby who has not yet made this separation, who has only needs
which are satisfiable, and which makes no distinction between itself
and the objects that satisfy its needs, exists in the realm of the
REAL, according to Lacan. The Real is a place (a psychic place, not a
physical place) where there is this original unity. Because of that,
there is no absence or loss or lack; the Real is all fullness and
completeness, where there's no need that can't be satisfied. And
because there is no absence or loss or lack, there is no language in
the Real.
Let me back up a bit to explain that. Lacan here follows an argument
Freud made about the idea of loss. In a case study which appears in
Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud talks about his nephew,
aged about 18 months, who is playing a game with a spool tied with
yarn. The kid throws the spool away, and says "Fort," which is German
for "gone." He pulls the spool back in, and says "Da," which is German
for "here." Freud says that this game was symbolic for the kid, a way
of working out his anxiety about his mother's absence. When he threw
the spool and said "Fort," he replayed the experience of the loss of a
beloved object; when he reeled it in and said "Da," he got pleasure
from the restoration of the object.
Lacan takes this case and focuses, of course, on the aspect of
language it displays. Lacan says that the fort/da game, which Freud
said happened when his nephew was about 18 months old, is about the
child's entry into the Symbolic, or into the structure of language
itself. Lacan says that language is always about loss or absence; you
only need words when the object you want is gone. If your world was
all fullness, with no absence, then you wouldn't need language.
(Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels, has a version of this: a
culture where there is no language, and people carry all the objects
they need to refer to on their backs).
Thus in the realm of the Real, according to Lacan, there is no
language because there is no loss, no lack, no absence; there is only
complete fullness, needs and the satisfaction of needs. Hence the Real
is always beyond language, unrepresentable in language (and therefore
irretrievably lost when one enters into language).
The Real, and the phase of need, last from birth till somewhere
between 6 and 18 months, when the baby blob starts to be able to
distinguish between its body and everything else in the world. At this
point, the baby shifts from having needs to having DEMANDS. Demands
are not satisfiable with objects; a demand is always a demand for
recognition from another, for love from another. The process works
like this: the baby starts to become aware that it is separate from
the mother, and that there exist things that are not part of it; thus
the idea of "other" is created. (Note, however, that as yet the binary
opposition of "self/other" doesn't yet exist, because the baby still
doesn't have a coherent sense of "self"). That awareness of
separation, or the fact of otherness, creates an anxiety, a sense of
loss. The baby then demands a reunion, a return to that original sense
of fullness and non-separation that it had in the Real. But that is
impossible, once the baby knows (and this knowing, remember, is all
happening on an unconscious level) that the idea of an "other" exists.
The baby demands to be filled by the other, to return to the sense of
original unity; the baby wants the idea of "other" to disappear.
Demand is thus the demand for the fullness, the completeness, of the
other that will stop up the lack the baby is experiencing. But of
course this is impossible, because that lack, or absence, the sense of
"other"ness, is the condition for the baby becoming a self/subject, a
functioning cultural being.
Because the demand is for recognition from the other, it can't really
be satisfied, if only because the 6-to-18 month infant can't SAY what
it wants. The baby cries, and the mother gives it a bottle, or a
breast, or a pacifier, or something, but no object can satisfy the
demand--the demand is for a response on a different level. The baby
can't recognize the ways the mother does respond to it, and recognize
it, because it doesn't yet have a conception of itself as a thing--it
only knows that this idea of "other" exists, and that it is separate
from the "other", but it doesn't yet have an idea of what its "self"
is.
This is where Lacan's MIRROR STAGE happens. At this age--between 6 and
18 months--the baby or child hasn't yet mastered its own body; it
doesn't have control over its own movements, and it doesn't have a
sense of its body as a whole. Rather, the baby experiences its body as
fragmented, or in pieces--whatever part is within its field of vision
is there as long as the baby can see it, but gone when the baby can't
see it. It may see its own hand, but it doesn't know that that hand
belongs to it--the hand could belong to anyone, or no one. However,
the child in this stage can imagine itself as whole--because it has
seen other people, and perceived them as whole beings.
Lacan says that at some point in this period, the baby will see itself
in a mirror. It will look at its reflection, then look back at a real
person--its mother, or some other person--then look again at the
mirror image. The child moves "from insufficiency to anticipation" in
this action; the mirror, and the moving back and forth from mirror
image to other people, gives it a sense that it, too, is an integrated
being, a whole person. The child, still unable to be whole, and hence
separate from others (though it has this notion of separation), in the
mirror stage begins to anticipate being whole. It moves from a
"fragmented body" to an "orthopedic vision of its totality", to a
vision of itself as whole and integrated, which is "orthopedic"
because it serves as a crutch, a corrective instrument, an aid to help
the child achieve the status of wholeness.
What the child anticipates is a sense of self as a unified separate
whole; the child sees that it looks like what "others" look like.
Eventually, this entity the child sees in the mirror, this whole
being, will be a "self," the entity designated by the word "I." What
is really happening, however, is an identification that is a
MISRECOGNITION. The child sees an image in the mirror; it thinks, that
image is "ME". But it's NOT the child; it's only an image. But another
person (usually the mother) is there to reinforce the misrecognition.
The baby looks in the mirror, and looks back at mother, and the mother
says, "Yes, it's you!" She guarantees the "reality" of the connection
between the child and its image, and the idea of the integrated whole
body the child is seeing and identifying with.
The child takes that image in the mirror as the summation of its
entire being, its "self." This process, of misrecognizing one's self
in the image in the mirror, creates the EGO, the thing that says "I."
In Lacan's terms, this misrecognition creates the "armor" of the
subject, an illusion or misperception of wholeness, integration, and
totality that surrounds and protects the fragmented body. To Lacan,
ego, or self, or "I"dentity, is always on some level a FANTASY, an
identification with an external image, and not an internal sense of
separate whole identity.
This is why Lacan calls the phase of demand, and the mirror stage, the
realm of the IMAGINARY. The idea of a self is created through an
Imaginary identification with the image in the mirror. The realm of
the Imaginary is where the alienated relation of self to its own image
is created and maintained. The Imaginary is a realm of images, whether
conscious or unconscious. It's prelinguistic, and preoedipal, but very
much based in visual perception, or what Lacan calls specular
imaging.
The mirror image, the whole person the baby mistakes as itself, is
known in psychoanalytic terminology as an "ideal ego," a perfect whole
self who has no insufficiency. This "ideal ego" becomes internalized;
we build our sense of "self," our "I"dentity, by (mis)identifying with
this ideal ego. By doing this, according to Lacan, we imagine a self
that has no lack, no notion of absence or incompleteness. The fiction
of the stable, whole, unified self that we see in the mirror becomes a
compensation for having lost the original oneness with the mother's
body. In short, according to Lacan, we lose our unity with the
mother's body, the state of "nature," in order to enter culture, but
we protect ourselves from the knowledge of that loss by misperceiving
ourselves as not lacking anything--as being complete unto ourselves.
Lacan says that the child's self-concept (its ego or "I"dentity) will
never match up to its own being. Its IMAGO in the mirror is both
smaller and more stable than the child, and is always "other" than the
child--something outside it. The child, for the rest of its life, will
misrecognize its self as "other, as the image in the mirror that
provides an illusion of self and of mastery.
The Imaginary is the psychic place, or phase, where the child projects
its ideas of "self" onto the mirror image it sees. The mirror stage
cements a self/other dichotomy, where previously the child had known
only "other," but not "self." For Lacan, the identification of "self"
is always in terms of "other." This is not the same as a binary
opposition, where "self"= what is not "other," and "other" = what is
not "self." Rather, "self" IS "other", in Lacan's view; the idea of
the self, that inner being we designate by "I," is based on an image,
an other. The concept of self relies on one's misidentification with
this image of an other.
Lacan uses the term "other" in a number of ways, which make it even
harder to grasp. First, and perhaps the easiest, is in the sense of
self/other, where "other" is the "not-me;" but, as we have seen, the
"other" becomes "me" in the mirror stage. Lacan also uses an idea of
Other, with a capital "o", to distinguish between the concept of the
other and actual others. The image the child sees in the mirror is an
other, and it gives the child the idea of Other as a structural
possibility, one which makes possible the structural possibility of
"I" or self. In other words, the child encounters actual others--its
own image, other people--and understands the idea of "Otherness,"
things that are not itself. According to Lacan, the notion of
Otherness, encountered in the Imaginary phase (and associated with
demand), comes before the sense of "self," which is built on the idea
of Otherness.
When the child has formulated some idea of Otherness, and of a self
identified with its own "other," its own mirror image, then the child
begins to enter the Symbolic realm. The Symbolic and the Imaginary are
overlapping, unlike Freud's phases of development; there's no clear
marker or division between the two, and in some respects they always
coexist. The Symbolic order is the structure of language itself; we
have to enter it in order to become speaking subjects, and to
designate ourselves by "I." The foundation for having a self lies in
the Imaginary projection of the self onto the specular image, the
other in the mirror, and having a self is expressed in saying "I,"
which can only occur within the Symbolic, which is why the two
coexist.
The fort/da game that the nephew played, in Freud's account, is in
Lacan's view a marker of the entry into the Symbolic, because Hans is
using language to negotiate the idea of absence and the idea of
Otherness as a category or structural possibility. The spool,
according to Lacan, serves as an "objet petit a," or "objet petit
autre"--an object which is a little "other," a small-o other. In
throwing it away, the child recognizes that others can disappear; in
pulling it back, the child recognizes that others can return. Lacan
emphasizes the former, insisting that Little Hans is primarily
concerned with the idea of lack or absence of the "objet petit
autre."
The "little other" illustrates for the child the idea of lack, of
loss, of absence, showing the child that it isn't complete in and of
itself. It is also the gateway to the Symbolic order, to language,
since language itself is premised on the idea of lack or absence.
Lacan says these ideas--of other and Other, of lack and absence, of
the (mis)identification of self with o/Other--are all worked out on an
individual level, with each child, but they form the basic structures
of the Symbolic order, of language, which the child must enter in
order to become an adult member of culture. Thus the otherness acted
out in the fort/da game (as well as by the distinctions made in the
Mirror Phase between self and other, mother and child) become
categorical or structural ideas. So, in the Symbolic, there is a
structure (or structuring principle) of Otherness, and a structuring
principle of Lack.
The Other (capital O) is a structural position in the Symbolic order.
It is the place that everyone is trying to get to, to merge with, in
order to get rid of the separation between "self" and "other." It is,
in Derrida's sense, the CENTER of the system, of the Symbolic and/or
of language itself. As such, the Other is the thing to which every
element relates. But, as the center, the Other (again, not a person
but a position) can't be merged with. Nothing can be in the center
with the Other, even though everything in the system (people, e.g.)
want to be. So the position of the Other creates and sustains a never-
ending LACK, which Lacan calls DESIRE. Desire is the desire to be the
Other. By definition, desire can never be fulfilled: it's not desire
for some object (which would be need) or desire for love or another
person's recognition of oneself (which would be demand), but desire to
be the center of the system, the center of the Symbolic, the center of
language itself.
The center has a lot of names in Lacanian theory. It's the Other; it's
also called the PHALLUS. Here's where Lacan borrows again from Freud's
original Oedipus theory.
The mirror stage is pre-oedipal. The self is constructed in relation
to an other, to the idea of Other, and the self wants to merge with
the Other. As in Freud's world, the most important other in the
child's life is the mother; so the child wants to merge with its
mother. In Lacan's terms, this is the child's demand that the self/
other split be erased. The child decides that it can merge with the
mother if it becomes what the mother wants it to be--in Lacan's terms,
the child tries to fulfill the mother's desire. The mother's desire
(formed by her own entry into the Symbolic, because she is already an
adult) is to not have lack, or Lack (or to be the Other, the center,
the place where nothing is lacking). This fits with the Freudian
version of the Oedipus complex, where the child wants to merge with
its mother by having sexual intercourse with her. In Freud's model,
the idea of lack is represented by the lack of a penis. The boy who
wants to sleep with his mother wants to complete her lack by filling
her up with his penis.
In Freud's view, what breaks this oedipal desire up, for boys anyway,
is the father, who threatens castration. The father threatens to make
the boy experience lack, the absence of the penis, if he tries to use
his penis to make up for the mother's lack of a penis. In Lacan's
terms, the threat of castration is a metaphor for the whole idea of
Lack as a structural concept. For Lacan, it isn't the real father who
threatens castration. Rather, because the idea of lack, or Lack, is
essential to the concept of language, because the concept of Lack is
part of the basic structuration of language, the father becomes a
function of the linguistic structure. The Father, rather than being a
person, becomes a structuring principle of the Symbolic order.
For Lacan, Freud's angry father becomes the Name-of-the-Father, or the
Law-of-the-Father, or sometimes just the Law. Submission to the rules
of language itself--the Law of the Father--is required in order to
enter into the Symbolic order. To become a speaking subject, you have
to be subjected to, you have to obey, the laws and rules of language.
Lacan designates the idea of the structure of language, and its rules,
as specifically paternal. He calls the rules of language the Law-of-
the-Father in order to link the entry into the Symbolic, the structure
of language, to Freud's notion of the oedipus and castration
complexes.
The Law-of-the-Father, or Name-of-the-Father, is another term for the
Other, for the center of the system, the thing that governs the whole
structure--its shape and how all the elements in the system can move
and form relationships. This center is also called the PHALLUS, to
underline even more the patriarchal nature of the Symbolic order. The
Phallus, as center, limits the play of elements, and gives stability
to the whole structure. The Phallus anchors the chains of signifiers
which, in the unconscious, are just floating and unfixed, always
sliding and shifting. The Phallus stops play, so that signifiers can
have some stable meaning. It is because the Phallus is the center of
the Symbolic order, of language, that the term "I" designates the idea
of the self (and, additionally, why any other word has stable
meaning).
The Phallus is not the same as the penis. Penises belong to
individuals; the Phallus belongs to the structure of language itself.
No one has it, just like no one governs language or rules language.
Rather, the Phallus is the center. It governs the whole structure,
it's what everyone wants to be (or have), but no one can get there (no
element of the system can take the place of the center). That's what
Lacan calls DESIRE: the desire, which is never satisfied, because it
can never be satisfied, to be the center, to rule the system.
Lacan says that boys can think they have a shot at being the Phallus,
at occupying the position of center, because they have penises. Girls
have a harder time misperceiving themselves as having a shot at the
Phallus because they are (as Freud says) constituted by and as lack,
lacking a penis, and the Phallus is a place where there is no lack.
But, Lacan says, every subject in language is constituted by/as lack,
or Lack. The only reason we have language at all is because of the
loss, or lack, of the union with the maternal body. In fact, it is the
necessity to become part of "culture," to become subjects in language,
that forces that absence, loss, lack.
The distinction between the sexes is significant in Lacan's theory,
though not in the same way it is in Freud's. This is what Lacan talks
about in "The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious," on p. 741. He
has two drawings there. One is of the word "Tree" over a picture of a
tree--the basic Saussurean concept, of signifier (word) over signified
(object). Then he has another drawing, of two identical doors (the
signifieds). But over each door is a different word: one says "Ladies"
"A train arrives at a station. A little boy and a little girl, brother
and sister, are seated in a compartment face to face next to the
window through which the buildings along the station platform can be
seen passing as the train pulls to a stop. 'Look,' says the brother,
'We're at Ladies!' 'Idiot!' replies his sister, 'Can't you see we're
at Gentlemen.'"
This anecdote shows how boys and girls enter the Symbolic order, the
structure of language, differently. In Lacan's view, each child can
only see the signifier of the other gender; each child constructs its
world view, its understanding of the relation between sfr and sfd in
naming locations, as the consequence of seeing an "other." As Lacan
puts it (742), "For these children, Ladies and Gentlemen will be
henceforth two countries toward which each of their souls will strive
on divergent wings..." Each child, each sex, has a particular position
within the Symbolic order; from that position, each sex can only see
(or signify) the otherness of the other sex. You might take Lacan's
drawing of the two doors literally: these are the doors, with their
gender distinctions, through which each child must pass in order to
enter into the Symbolic realm.
So, to summarize. Lacan's theory starts with the idea of the Real;
this is the union with the mother's body, which is a state of nature,
and must be broken up in order to build culture. Once you move out of
the Real, you can never get back, but you always want to. This is the
first idea of an irretrievable loss or lack.
Next comes the Mirror stage, which constitutes the Imaginary. Here you
grasp the idea of others, and begin to understand Otherness as a
concept or a structuring principle, and thus begin to formulate a
notion of "self". This "self" (as seen in the mirror) is in fact an
other, but you misrecognize it as you, and call it "self." (Or, in non-
theory language, you look in the mirror and say "hey, that's me." But
it's not--it's just an image).
This sense of self, and its relation to others and to Other, sets you
up to take up a position in the Symbolic order, in language. Such a
position allows you to say "I", to be a speaking subject. "I" (and all
other words) have a stable meaning because they are fixed, or
anchored, by the Other/Phallus/Name-of-the-Father/Law, which is the
center of the Symbolic, the center of language.
In taking up a position in the Symbolic, you enter through a gender-
marked doorway; the position for girls is different than the position
for boys. Boys are closer to the Phallus than girls, but no one is or
has the Phallus--it's the center. Your position in the Symbolic, like
the position of all other signifying elements (signifiers) is fixed by
the Phallus; unlike the unconscious, the chains of signifiers in the
Symbolic don't circulate and slide endlessly because the Phallus
limits play.
Paradoxically--as if all this wasn't bad enough!--the Phallus and the
Real are pretty similar. Both are places where things are whole,
complete, full, unified, where there's no lack, or Lack. Both are
places that are inaccessible to the human subject-in-language. But
they are also opposite: the Real is the maternal, the ground from
which we spring, the nature we have to separate from in order to have
culture; the Phallus is the idea of the Father, the patriarchal order
of culture, the ultimate idea of culture, the position which rules
everything in the world.
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Harry Bailey
2007-06-24 02:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Cheers. It's easy to see why psychoanalytic theories beginning with
Freud (especially his key discovery of the Unconscious) continue to be
met - particularly during today's widespread fetishistic retreat into
the precious ontology of the 'inner self' - with such irrational
hostility. Like other 'revolutions' in knowledge, it is hardly
reassuring - it has a tragic dimension (it is not - like most of ego
psychology, 'self-help' guruism, NewAgeism, Jungian stock-type
fantasising, religious cults, and on and on - a snake-oil salesman).

Psychoanalysis, when considered from the perspective of the
development of both Enlightenment thinking and the history of science,
has, in fact, all the subversive and scandalous features that key
scientific revolutions/paradigm-shifts entailed. Consider some of the
principle ones:

[1] The Copernican de-centering, his advancement of the hypothesis
that the universe is not geocentric, but heliocentric, and the effect
this shift had in the cosmic order: the earth, that place inhabited by
man, was no longer the center of the universe! Man was not at the
centre of things: man's First narcissistic humiliation ...[Boo-hoo-
hoo :-)]

[2] The Darwinian de-centering: man is not at the centre of Nature,
not presiding over it as the ultimate, higher, 'special' being/
creature, but a product of naturalistic evolution just like all other
life-forms, right down to that grabastic piece of amphibian parasitic
slime on the toilet bowl! Man's Second narcissistic humiliation ...

[3] The Relativity and Quantum Mechanical de-centerings: the world is
in flux, is chaotic - from the largest structures right down to the
smallest sub-atomic ones.

And it is just around this - third - paradigm shift that
Psychoanalysis, via Freud, enters the picture and announces that you
are no longer even the center of YOURSELF, that the Self does not
'belong' to one's self, that the self (or rather the Subject) is
constitutively split, since there is another subject, another force,
within you, the Unconscious. Man's Third narcissistic humiliation ...
[Heeheehee!]

... and much more difficut to accept (because it is so Personal,
because it interrupts one's very (totally conditioned) sense of
oneself - it obliterates the very notion of the personal - and how we
relate to the world at the level of everyday experience. Whereas its
still possible for, say, Creationists/Intelligent Design believers or
"Hiinayaana with the Mahaayaana" Buddhist obscurantist mysticists,
or consumer fetishists etc, to accept Copernican and Darwinian
conceptions of the 'outside' world because such constructs don't
interfere or challenge their subjectivist fairy tales and their sense
of 'wholeness' in relation to their precious, untouchable 'inner
selves', Psychoanalytic findings undermine all of these fanciful
illusions at the level of SUBJECTIVE everyday experience and so remain
radically SUBVERSIVE. [Imagine explaining THAT to Osama Bin Laden ...
or 'we got 'em' George W Bush, or 'let me feel your pain' Clinton,
or ... Oprah, Bono, End Timers, Zionists, Disneyworldists, Catholics,
Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jack Torrance, Prof
Hobby, Usenet users ... even 'me'?].

Indeed, even formal SCIENCE, along with psychiatry and 'consumer free-
choice', also wishes to marginalise the psychoanalytic, and in three
ways, claiming that psychoanalysis today is 'outdated': (1) The claim
that scientific knowledge, via the cognitivist-neurobiological model
of human mind (Dennett, Pinker, etc), appears to supersede the
Freudian model, when in fact it actually CONFIRMS Freud's and Lacan's
findings: that there is nobody 'home', that the brain has no center,
no unified 'seat of consciousness'; no Cartesian subject (2) The
psychiatric and pharmacological imperative, where psychoanalytic
approaches have long since been replaced by chemotherapy and
behavioral therapy and psychothropic 'quick fixes' from Prozac to
Viagra; (3) The social and economic context of mass consumer
mediatised and reflexivised hysteria, where the image of society, of
social norms, which "repress" individual's sexual drives and pleasure-
seeking, no longer appears valid with regard to today's predominant
hedonistic permissiveness. No need to analyse or even question
Anything anymore when you have direct access to Anything right now, 24-
hours-a-day, do it all have it all RIGHT NOW! THE WHOLE WORLD as your
personal entertainment system, there to serve all our mad, delirious
and neurotic fantasies/anxieties. You can become EVERYTHING, become
your own ready-made God, RIGHT NOW! But hurry!! Offer only available
while stocks last ...

One could say then that it is only today, with the increasing retreat
into hopelessly narcissistic and destructive Cartesian subjectivity
[Descartes' unimagined legacy], that Psychoanalysis' time has truly
arrived.

[But it may be too late: the Victor Zieglers would rather have
psychoanalysis even be late for its own funeral ... but we all already
know that, don't we?]



BTW, the summary of Lacan's ideas above does, however, omit many other
central Lacanian concepts, including: Jouissance (meaning not simply
enjoyment or pleasure, but that which lies "beyond the pleasure
principle", which is why this French term, rather than 'enjoyment'
remains untranslated): a development from Freud's ideas of the
pleasure principle and the reality principle, jouissance is opposed to
'pleasure' ; The Gaze: the blind spot that is the object-cause of
desire ; The Symptom verses the Simpthome ; Death Drive (that which
persists in spite of everything - desire at its purest); Traversing
the 'fundamental fantasy' that 'grounds' the subject (the aim of
psychoanalytic practice); and so on.
kelps
2007-06-24 02:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by ichorwhip
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Cheers. It's easy to see why psychoanalytic theories beginning with
Freud (especially his key discovery of the Unconscious) continue to be
met - particularly during today's widespread fetishistic retreat into
the precious ontology of the 'inner self' - with such irrational
hostility. Like other 'revolutions' in knowledge, it is hardly
reassuring - it has a tragic dimension (it is not - like most of ego
psychology, 'self-help' guruism, NewAgeism, Jungian stock-type
fantasising, religious cults, and on and on - a snake-oil salesman).
Psychoanalysis, when considered from the perspective of the
development of both Enlightenment thinking and the history of science,
has, in fact, all the subversive and scandalous features that key
scientific revolutions/paradigm-shifts entailed. Consider some of the
[1] The Copernican de-centering, his advancement of the hypothesis
that the universe is not geocentric, but heliocentric, and the effect
this shift had in the cosmic order: the earth, that place inhabited by
man, was no longer the center of the universe! Man was not at the
centre of things: man's First narcissistic humiliation ...[Boo-hoo-
hoo :-)]
[2] The Darwinian de-centering: man is not at the centre of Nature,
not presiding over it as the ultimate, higher, 'special' being/
creature, but a product of naturalistic evolution just like all other
life-forms, right down to that grabastic piece of amphibian parasitic
slime on the toilet bowl! Man's Second narcissistic humiliation ...
[3] The Relativity and Quantum Mechanical de-centerings: the world is
in flux, is chaotic - from the largest structures right down to the
smallest sub-atomic ones.
And it is just around this - third - paradigm shift that
Psychoanalysis, via Freud, enters the picture and announces that you
are no longer even the center of YOURSELF, that the Self does not
'belong' to one's self, that the self (or rather the Subject) is
constitutively split, since there is another subject, another force,
within you, the Unconscious. Man's Third narcissistic humiliation ...
[Heeheehee!]
... and much more difficut to accept (because it is so Personal,
because it interrupts one's very (totally conditioned) sense of
oneself - it obliterates the very notion of the personal - and how we
relate to the world at the level of everyday experience. Whereas its
still possible for, say, Creationists/Intelligent Design believers or
"Hiinayaana with the Mahaayaana" Buddhist obscurantist mysticists,
or consumer fetishists etc, to accept Copernican and Darwinian
conceptions of the 'outside' world because such constructs don't
interfere or challenge their subjectivist fairy tales and their sense
of 'wholeness' in relation to their precious, untouchable 'inner
selves', Psychoanalytic findings undermine all of these fanciful
illusions at the level of SUBJECTIVE everyday experience and so remain
radically SUBVERSIVE. [Imagine explaining THAT to Osama Bin Laden ...
or 'we got 'em' George W Bush, or 'let me feel your pain' Clinton,
or ... Oprah, Bono, End Timers, Zionists, Disneyworldists, Catholics,
Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jack Torrance, Prof
Hobby, Usenet users ... even 'me'?].
Indeed, even formal SCIENCE, along with psychiatry and 'consumer free-
choice', also wishes to marginalise the psychoanalytic, and in three
ways, claiming that psychoanalysis today is 'outdated': (1) The claim
that scientific knowledge, via the cognitivist-neurobiological model
of human mind (Dennett, Pinker, etc), appears to supersede the
Freudian model, when in fact it actually CONFIRMS Freud's and Lacan's
findings: that there is nobody 'home', that the brain has no center,
no unified 'seat of consciousness'; no Cartesian subject (2) The
psychiatric and pharmacological imperative, where psychoanalytic
approaches have long since been replaced by chemotherapy and
behavioral therapy and psychothropic 'quick fixes' from Prozac to
Viagra; (3) The social and economic context of mass consumer
mediatised and reflexivised hysteria, where the image of society, of
social norms, which "repress" individual's sexual drives and pleasure-
seeking, no longer appears valid with regard to today's predominant
hedonistic permissiveness. No need to analyse or even question
Anything anymore when you have direct access to Anything right now, 24-
hours-a-day, do it all have it all RIGHT NOW! THE WHOLE WORLD as your
personal entertainment system, there to serve all our mad, delirious
and neurotic fantasies/anxieties. You can become EVERYTHING, become
your own ready-made God, RIGHT NOW! But hurry!! Offer only available
while stocks last ...
One could say then that it is only today, with the increasing retreat
into hopelessly narcissistic and destructive Cartesian subjectivity
[Descartes' unimagined legacy], that Psychoanalysis' time has truly
arrived.
[But it may be too late: the Victor Zieglers would rather have
psychoanalysis even be late for its own funeral ... but we all already
know that, don't we?]
BTW, the summary of Lacan's ideas above does, however, omit many other
central Lacanian concepts, including: Jouissance (meaning not simply
enjoyment or pleasure, but that which lies "beyond the pleasure
principle", which is why this French term, rather than 'enjoyment'
remains untranslated): a development from Freud's ideas of the
pleasure principle and the reality principle, jouissance is opposed to
'pleasure' ; The Gaze: the blind spot that is the object-cause of
desire ; The Symptom verses the Simpthome ; Death Drive (that which
persists in spite of everything - desire at its purest); Traversing
the 'fundamental fantasy' that 'grounds' the subject (the aim of
psychoanalytic practice); and so on.
You really are barking up the wrong tree, with Psychoanalytic theory. Its
interesting historically, but it was way primitive and naive and never
has done a thing to improve the world because it is too theoretical and
self-absorbed. It's nonsense at worst and lacking experience at best. It
falls into the category of "childish theory."


dc
Harry Bailey
2007-06-24 23:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by kelps
You really are barking up the wrong tree, with Psychoanalytic theory. Its
interesting historically,
I'm neither barking nor anywhere near a tree. Claiming that
contemporary psychoanalytic theory is 'historical' is like claiming
that theoretical physics is, uh, 'historical'. And how exactly would
you find its history 'interesting' when you know absolutely nothing
about it?
Post by kelps
but it was way primitive and naive and never
has done a thing to improve the world
... as opposed to eating magic mushrooms and chanting "It's cosmic,
man! it's so ... religious!" ... as opposed to appropriating primitive
religions you don't understand to further your narcissistic, hedonic
Newageism ...
Post by kelps
because it is too theoretical and
self-absorbed. It's nonsense at worst and lacking experience at best. It
falls into the category of "childish theory."
Anyone who isn't a yogic, hedonistic drug addict lacks 'experience',
All theory is 'childish' 'cos its not cosmic, man!

You're a basket case. Worse than Creationists ...
kelps
2007-06-25 05:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by kelps
You really are barking up the wrong tree, with Psychoanalytic theory.
Its
interesting historically,
I'm neither barking nor anywhere near a tree. Claiming that
contemporary psychoanalytic theory is 'historical' is like claiming
that theoretical physics is, uh, 'historical'. And how exactly would
you find its history 'interesting' when you know absolutely nothing
about it?
You are dreaming. Psychoanalytic theory is pseudo scientific and incredibly
naive.
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by kelps
but it was way primitive and naive and never
has done a thing to improve the world
... as opposed to eating magic mushrooms and chanting "It's cosmic,
man! it's so ... religious!" ... as opposed to appropriating primitive
religions you don't understand to further your narcissistic, hedonic
Newageism ...
You haven't a clue about it. You'd rather listen to old coke heads with sex
hangups.

You do not understand this subject at all. In your confusion you think real
Buddhism is new age....thats pretty ignorant. Psychoanalytic theory, is all
"new age" nonsense. Stuffed with arrogance and lots of words that occupy the
mind.
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by kelps
because it is too theoretical and
self-absorbed. It's nonsense at worst and lacking experience at best. It
falls into the category of "childish theory."
Anyone who isn't a yogic, hedonistic drug addict lacks 'experience',
All theory is 'childish' 'cos its not cosmic, man!
You're a basket case. Worse than Creationists ...
Oh too bad the big psychoanalyst has no clue what he is talking about.
"Worse then a creationist," "drug addict," "hedonistic," "basket case,"
etc.....you have zero idea what you are talking about. You are a big
loser thats all.

The least hedonistic thing a person can do is practice proper buddhism you
silly fool.

And drug addict thats a laugh....you are following a bunch of hedonistic
drug addicts. Coke freaks.

You will get NO where with your silly word theories. No one does. It's just
roof brain chatter of the dumbest kind, designed to create dependancy.


dc
kelps
2007-06-25 06:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Freud was a tough task master, and much of his students, tended to be closer
to being his patients then actual, collegues. Even those who came after
his death.
It was a dependancy.

The Jungians are even more dependent and the Lacan followers like the
Jungians, are trying to pin down and justify their fetishes.

In terms of any useful system to relieve human suffering, Psychoanalysis is
for a certain segment of self-absorbed people, and it's all about words,
words, words and has no means to go beyond them.

Piling words on more words and reading them in a book, writing or voicing
words, or arguing about them, is all in the domain of------ "Theory"
(Jap: Ri-no).

"Practice" ------is what you do when you clock in at the mental hospital or
have a patient-person, walk in your door, or how one can inspire others to
seek out the truth and also practice to reveal it. (Mahayana Buddhist term:
Ji-no).

Correct practice is important if one is ever to accomplish the goal of
Enlightenment which is a superior life-state to mere Self-Realization. (Jap:
Engyaku) So the real question is "What Practice did Freud, Lacan or Jung,
advocate and are these practices, actually, effective to release suffering
and provide more then just a theoretical model, or are they just theories in
words, replacing exisitng words in one's head with, other words, to
distract one from the real issue that they are like an inchworm climbing up
the wall of a greenhouse, and falling down again to have to start all over
again? Desire? Instinct? Not hardly. No cure.

Without understanding with one's life, the true nature of cause and
effect, through a specific practice of Stopping-
and-observing-the-mind-meditation, (Shikan), one cannot get beyond words and
see reality as it is. All Buddha's already agree to this.

Being hung up in theory, is actually a roadblock to actual practice. It's
not different then any other preconceived idea, composed with words,
theories and explanatory psychologies, when compared to direct experience
of profound awakening.

If a person can take correct theory, and their direct experience, and out
of mercy for others, help them wake up, then it is useful, beyond mere,
theoretical platitudes. But in the real world trying to do this inside a
mental health system, or as a individual psychoanalyst, there would be no
way to do this, and the method has been inappropriate and impractical,
merely strengthening dependence on the therapist. So the psychoanalytic
school was really just an academic discussion, not a movement to come
together altruistically, to relieve suffering in the world. So they do not
qualify as "Bodhisattvas." Although some of them are bodhisattvas in their
heart, they had no unified vehicle to accomplish anything but generate a lot
of books and spun a lot of hamster wheels into word placeboes.

First of all, Psychoanalysts all have to make an income doing a job,
similar to priests living off donations and tithies, so right there, they
are disqualified. The theories they expounded are transient and partial,
lacking direct experience and instead are based in word play, reinforcing,
the Mind-as-a Word Pendulum otherwise known in common vernacular as mental
masturbation.

"Award, benefaction, benefit, bequest, bestowal, boon, bounty, dispensation,
donation, fund, funding, gifting, grant, gratuity, income, inheritance,
largess, legacy, nest egg, pension, presentation, property, provision,
revenue, stake, stipend, subsidy, trust
Antonyms: receipt."

" tithe (from Old English teogoþa "tenth") is a one-tenth part of something,
paid as a (usually) voluntary contribution or as a tax or levy, usually to
support a Jewish or Christian religious organization. Today, tithes (or
tithing) are normally voluntary and paid in cash, cheques, or stocks,
whereas historically tithes could be paid in kind, such as agricultural
products. Several European countries operate a formal process linked to the
tax system allowing some churches to assess tithes."

So the real trick of doctors and priests was to earn your tithe and
convince (con) others of your understanding, superior intellect,
comprehension, purity and validation for taking money for services rendered.
in some cases there are even political motivations for them, against the
backdrop of their country and the social milieu in which they lived, which
generated support much like a politician gathering their constituency..

People stuck in intellectualitis, are the kind of people who tend to forget
about Practice and instead. that they get lodged in their heads like an
agoraphobic, not wanting to leave the house. A kind of Anal Retension of
the mind and heart.

Although you can find mental masturbations in some buddhist interpretations,
amonst people who mistakenly see buddhismn as an intellectual pursuit, Real
Mahayana buddhism, instead of funding priest's rice and temples, and
creating elite schools buddhist psychology, was all about volunteer
actions and self-less giving. If a poor Bodhisattva, gives another, the
means to attain the "Princeless Jewel that cannot be destroyed," then that
in itself is the true example
of correct behavior, that in itself would solve all the world's problems
were that kind of practice to become widespread in the world.

A simple practice of correct meditation, is what allows a person to see for
themselves, reality as it is and find the timeless understanding they seek.

There is no "Lacanian terms." They are empty words like Freudian theories
or Jungian machinations---mental mumbo jumbo, counter productive to emptying
the mind and seeing the light.

What I am taking about was first written in Sanskrit, but in your flaky mind
I'm the "new ager"....fact is the arrogant psychoanalyitic school was just
another attempt to rationalize and avoid real enlightenment. Its all old
news. Even Jung had the sense to figure that part out...but try as he
could, he couldn't break away form his words and actually learn to practice.

Freud was a Jew, Jung was a Christian and Lacan was an Atheist.

Anyone silly enough to think they used scientific methodology are completely
naive. They were just old hung up dudes, trappped in their minds and their
arrogance, who never had the karmic fortune to learn the real thing.

dc
Bill Reid
2007-06-24 17:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by ichorwhip
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Cheers. It's easy to see why psychoanalytic theories beginning with
Freud (especially his key discovery of the Unconscious) continue to be
met - particularly during today's widespread fetishistic retreat into
the precious ontology of the 'inner self' - with such irrational
hostility.
And 7 Kbytes more to respond to a three-word post with a
winking smiley...analyze THAT "irrational hostility"...

My analysis would be that if such over-reactions are truly
believed by the subject to be the result of a realized "lack"
of a "phallus", said subject's "phallus" must REALLY be
lacking, like friggin' indented or sumpin'...

But it confirms once again one of my primary principles of human
behavior: the most vigorously and hysterically defended beliefs are
those with the least supporting evidence. We are witnessing a
personal "jihad" to proseletyze a theory of personal development
based on a single observation of kid playing with a ball and cup...

Of course there is no hostility towards "Lacan" or "Freud" these
days, just boredom and some amusement at their quaint fixations
on their "phalluses" and mommas. The world has moved on from
the 19th century, perhaps for no practical betterment, but what
was the line in the song about "we'll meet again"?

I mean frankly, I thought Freud was as dead as "God", but
I keep getting surprised by what I've always known...

---
William Ernest "Have Brain, Will Travel" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-06-24 22:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by ichorwhip
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Cheers. It's easy to see why psychoanalytic theories beginning with
Freud (especially his key discovery of the Unconscious) continue to be
met - particularly during today's widespread fetishistic retreat into
the precious ontology of the 'inner self' - with such irrational
hostility.
And 7 Kbytes more to respond to a three-word post with a
winking smiley...analyze THAT "irrational hostility"...
It's what some of us call irony, Doctored Bill (ie. referring to a
lengthy overview of Lacan's ideas as a "summary"), not 'irrational
hostility.'
Post by Bill Reid
My analysis would be that if such over-reactions are truly
believed by the subject to be the result of a realized "lack"
of a "phallus", said subject's "phallus" must REALLY be
lacking, like friggin' indented or sumpin'...
What 'over-reactions'? The only - hysterical - over-reactions here
have been those of yourself and Kelps. And your responses are not
evidence of any rational analysis or discussion, but of infantile
name-calling and abuse. [The subject does NOT have a phallus; nobody
has a phallus, it's a symbolic construct, not a concrete thing]. Even
your statement above regarding the phallus serves to yet again confirm
that you really don't know what you're talking about, do not even
understand the basic concepts you're so desperate to reject. Lacan
chose the term 'phallus' in order to emphasise even more the
patriarchal basis of the Symbolic order. The Phallus, denoting the
center of that order (the 'master-signifier' of the Big Other), limits
the play of elements, and gives stability to the whole structure. It
is a symbolic CONSTRUCT; it does not actually exist - as Lacan stated,
"The Big Other does not exist". And as already stated, "The Phallus is
not the same as the penis. Penises belong to individuals; the Phallus
belongs to the structure of language itself. No one has it, just like
no one governs language or rules language. Rather, the Phallus is the
center. It governs the whole structure, it's what everyone wants to be
(or have), but no one can get there (no element of the system can take
the place of the center). That's what Lacan calls DESIRE: the desire,
which is never satisfied, because it can never be satisfied, to be the
center, to rule the system." Because there is no center, only lack.
Post by Bill Reid
But it confirms once again one of my primary principles of human
behavior: the most vigorously and hysterically defended beliefs are
those with the least supporting evidence.
You're the most obvious example of such a 'principle': your posts here
hysterically defending your unspecified beliefs (oh wait, you don't
have any, right? Beliefs are so passe!) without supporting them with
either reason or evidence, just childish insults. Psychoanalysis is a
set of developing theories, not 'hysterically defended beliefs', such
theories arising from rigorous reasoning and research. The beliefs you
are referring to are what are normally called RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, ie
beliefs not dependent on either empirical evidence or rational
reasoning - what we also call Faith. So, for instance, those who
ACTUALLY believe that there is ACTUALLY a center to the universe, or a
center to the symbolic order of society (a phallus, as Lacan also
calls it), are subscribing to a religious belief (as belief in such a
center, such an ultimate truth, such an ultimate power, amounts to a
belief in some form of a God) ...
Post by Bill Reid
We are witnessing a
personal "jihad" to proseletyze a theory of personal development
based on a single observation of kid playing with a ball and cup...
Psychoanalysis is entirely impersonal (there is no 'personal') and so
is not a theory of personal development; you're confusing it with ego
psychology and the cult of the 'personal', an imaginary construct.
Post by Bill Reid
Of course there is no hostility towards "Lacan" or "Freud" these
days, just boredom and some amusement at their quaint fixations
on their "phalluses" and mommas.
Um, could this 'boredom' actually be because they are not sufficiently
sexy, because they deconstruct the sexual? Such a knee-jerk remark is
usually made by those who have never actually bothered to read [much
less understood] anything by Freud or Lacan (who were both, as if it
needs to be repeated, extremely critical of human sexuality). And this
in a society, today, where everything is being obsessively sexualised
- from politics to children's toys to children themselves - where
anything that isn't so seductively ['make it more real!'] sexualised
[or that challenges or questions this ideology] in some way is
dismissed as 'boring.' As with EWS. In short, such a 'criticism' is
invariably made by those who are cluelessly obsessed with sex and
sexuality, who - as disavowed sex zombies - can never get enough of
it.
ichorwhip
2007-06-25 00:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by ichorwhip
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Cheers. It's easy to see why psychoanalytic theories beginning with
Freud (especially his key discovery of the Unconscious) continue to be
met - particularly during today's widespread fetishistic retreat into
the precious ontology of the 'inner self' - with such irrational
hostility.
And 7 Kbytes more to respond to a three-word post with a
winking smiley...analyze THAT "irrational hostility"...
It's what some of us call irony, Doctored Bill (ie. referring to a
lengthy overview of Lacan's ideas as a "summary"), not 'irrational
hostility.'
Thank you Harry. I can mainly seem to rely on you to read things for
what they are. Of course, knowing a bit of where you're coming from
helps immensely. Reidiot(TM) is practically Shadow-boxing with you.
His utter ignorance is highly apparent.
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
My analysis would be that if such over-reactions are truly
believed by the subject to be the result of a realized "lack"
of a "phallus", said subject's "phallus" must REALLY be
lacking, like friggin' indented or sumpin'...
What 'over-reactions'? The only - hysterical - over-reactions here
have been those of yourself and Kelps.
What's this? The plain truth? Where are my welding glasses?
Post by Harry Bailey
And your responses are not
evidence of any rational analysis or discussion, but of infantile
name-calling and abuse. [The subject does NOT have a phallus; nobody
has a phallus, it's a symbolic construct, not a concrete thing].
I have something looking like a phallus.... oh nevermind... ;-)
Post by Harry Bailey
Even
your statement above regarding the phallus serves to yet again confirm
that you really don't know what you're talking about, do not even
understand the basic concepts you're so desperate to reject.
This is bliss! It's like a self affirmation of all my trials with
this vacuous idiot!
Post by Harry Bailey
Lacan
chose the term 'phallus' in order to emphasise even more the
patriarchal basis of the Symbolic order.
Dicks rule the world! prolly not....
Post by Harry Bailey
The Phallus, denoting the
center of that order (the 'master-signifier' of the Big Other), limits
the play of elements, and gives stability to the whole structure. It
is a symbolic CONSTRUCT; it does not actually exist - as Lacan stated,
"The Big Other does not exist". And as already stated, "The Phallus is
not the same as the penis. Penises belong to individuals; the Phallus
belongs to the structure of language itself.
It's a form! MY GOD I SEE IT!!!!
Post by Harry Bailey
No one has it, just like
no one governs language or rules language.
Not even Reidiot(TM)? <Irony Alert for the philosophically retarded> I
don't like all this abstract thinking. It makes the enemies of higher
thought seem like simple components of a much larger scheme. It's not
as fun to insult such "idiots" if I don't think they are tangibly
"real", and it's very frustrating because they invariably don't
comprehend how well they are being insulted.
Post by Harry Bailey
Rather, the Phallus is the
center. It governs the whole structure, it's what everyone wants to be
(or have), but no one can get there (no element of the system can take
the place of the center). That's what Lacan calls DESIRE: the desire,
which is never satisfied, because it can never be satisfied, to be the
center, to rule the system." Because there is no center, only lack.
That was far too clear Harry. Could you please back up and make it
more obscure? Afterall we don't REALLY want the baboons to catch on
do we?
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
But it confirms once again one of my primary principles of human
behavior: the most vigorously and hysterically defended beliefs are
those with the least supporting evidence.
You're the most obvious example of such a 'principle': your posts here
hysterically defending your unspecified beliefs (oh wait, you don't
have any, right? Beliefs are so passe!) without supporting them with
either reason or evidence, just childish insults.
That's very true. Thanks for noticing. I was beginning to think it
was only me, but enduring marathon sessions with this sociopathic liar
fatigues the very soul, making it seem like it really might exist in
fact!
Post by Harry Bailey
Psychoanalysis is a
set of developing theories, not 'hysterically defended beliefs', such
theories arising from rigorous reasoning and research. The beliefs you
are referring to are what are normally called RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, ie
beliefs not dependent on either empirical evidence or rational
reasoning -
Rumors? LOL!
Post by Harry Bailey
what we also call Faith.
The weakest refuge for anything approaching scientific thought.
Post by Harry Bailey
So, for instance, those who
ACTUALLY believe that there is ACTUALLY a center to the universe, or a
center to the symbolic order of society (a phallus, as Lacan also
calls it), are subscribing to a religious belief (as belief in such a
center, such an ultimate truth, such an ultimate power, amounts to a
belief in some form of a God) ...
And since it can never be proven by mere
mortals............................
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
We are witnessing a
personal "jihad" to proseletyze a theory of personal development
based on a single observation of kid playing with a ball and cup...
Psychoanalysis is entirely impersonal (there is no 'personal') and so
is not a theory of personal development; you're confusing it with ego
psychology and the cult of the 'personal', an imaginary construct.
Reidiot(TM) in his response proves what you just said about the
"religious" "faith-based" igno-science of the narcissistic.
Proselytize? Sweet is a slip eh? LEgo-my-eGo!
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Of course there is no hostility towards "Lacan" or "Freud" these
days, just boredom and some amusement at their quaint fixations
on their "phalluses" and mommas.
What an idiotic thing to say... Can always count on him that way...
Post by Harry Bailey
Um, could this 'boredom' actually be because they are not sufficiently
sexy, because they deconstruct the sexual? Such a knee-jerk remark is
usually made by those who have never actually bothered to read [much
less understood] anything by Freud or Lacan (who were both, as if it
needs to be repeated, extremely critical of human sexuality). And this
in a society, today, where everything is being obsessively sexualised
- from politics to children's toys to children themselves - where
anything that isn't so seductively ['make it more real!'] sexualised
[or that challenges or questions this ideology] in some way is
dismissed as 'boring.' As with EWS. In short, such a 'criticism' is
invariably made by those who are cluelessly obsessed with sex and
sexuality, who - as disavowed sex zombies - can never get enough of
it
Or any of it at all? Poor lil' Pecos Billy. Maybe one day he'll "get
it."

"You can do whatever you like with these."
i
"piop"
Bill Reid
2007-06-25 02:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by ichorwhip
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Cheers. It's easy to see why psychoanalytic theories beginning with
Freud (especially his key discovery of the Unconscious) continue to be
met - particularly during today's widespread fetishistic retreat into
the precious ontology of the 'inner self' - with such irrational
hostility.
And 7 Kbytes more to respond to a three-word post with a
winking smiley...analyze THAT "irrational hostility"...
It's what some of us call irony, Doctored Bill (ie. referring to a
lengthy overview of Lacan's ideas as a "summary"), not 'irrational
hostility.'
Then who were you responding to for 7Kbytes? I remember
greater "hostility" towards Jung here, and I guarantee you the level
of any form of interest in psychoanalysis in the general public is
diminishing toward the nadir of irrelevancy. You seem to be
fighting the "windmills of your mind"...
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
My analysis would be that if such over-reactions are truly
believed by the subject to be the result of a realized "lack"
of a "phallus", said subject's "phallus" must REALLY be
lacking, like friggin' indented or sumpin'...
What 'over-reactions'?
I hate to repeat myself, I just hate to repeat myself, I just hate
to repeat myself...
Post by Harry Bailey
The only - hysterical - over-reactions here
have been those of yourself and Kelps.
You might more accurately lump yourself in with "Weedies".
He too is at war with the general populace and culture, I'm much
more lazy-fair...
Post by Harry Bailey
And your responses are not
evidence of any rational analysis or discussion, but of infantile
name-calling and abuse.
Ah, that's about all I've got left since I'm not about to be sucked into
your self-justifying rhetorical vortex, which I've told you several times.
Since this is a newsgroup about an "artist", I am taking the firmly-paved
road of non-political non-crazy, merely an observer and wry
commentator...
Post by Harry Bailey
[The subject does NOT have a phallus; nobody
has a phallus, it's a symbolic construct, not a concrete thing].
Don't they have a pill for that problem now?
Post by Harry Bailey
Even
your statement above regarding the phallus serves to yet again confirm
that you really don't know what you're talking about, do not even
understand the basic concepts you're so desperate to reject.
Sure I do. But since the only level of "understanding" that you
would accept would be agreement with you that Lacan's work
has some type of relevance or practical significance, I must,
as a REASONABLE person, continue with the "dumb act", if
only to salve YOUR fragile ego...how does it feel to be patronized?
Post by Harry Bailey
Lacan
chose the term 'phallus' in order to emphasise even more the
patriarchal basis of the Symbolic order.
He just grabbed right onto it, right...but wasn't the origin of the
'phallus' the non-"lack" or "lack" of a penis? Please do not answer
this question because I really don't care...
Post by Harry Bailey
The Phallus, denoting the
center of that order (the 'master-signifier' of the Big Other), limits
the play of elements, and gives stability to the whole structure. It
is a symbolic CONSTRUCT; it does not actually exist - as Lacan stated,
"The Big Other does not exist". And as already stated, "The Phallus is
not the same as the penis. Penises belong to individuals; the Phallus
belongs to the structure of language itself. No one has it, just like
no one governs language or rules language. Rather, the Phallus is the
center. It governs the whole structure, it's what everyone wants to be
(or have), but no one can get there (no element of the system can take
the place of the center). That's what Lacan calls DESIRE: the desire,
which is never satisfied, because it can never be satisfied, to be the
center, to rule the system." Because there is no center, only lack.
"Phallus envy"? Please don't bother to respond because I
REALLY don't care...
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
But it confirms once again one of my primary principles of human
behavior: the most vigorously and hysterically defended beliefs are
those with the least supporting evidence.
You're the most obvious example of such a 'principle': your posts here
hysterically defending your unspecified beliefs (oh wait, you don't
have any, right? Beliefs are so passe!) without supporting them with
either reason or evidence, just childish insults.
And the logic here is again the brilliant:

"I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!??!!"
Post by Harry Bailey
Psychoanalysis is a
set of developing theories, not 'hysterically defended beliefs', such
theories arising from rigorous reasoning and research.
I have not seen much in the way of the "scientific method" applied
to psychoanalytic theories (or even a lot of "science" for that matter,
at least rigorously, but that's another topic).
Post by Harry Bailey
The beliefs you
are referring to are what are normally called RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, ie
beliefs not dependent on either empirical evidence or rational
reasoning - what we also call Faith.
Wrong. "Religion", pseudo-science, philosophy, psychoanalytic
"theories", gambling and investment myths, etc., all spring from a
common background, and their commonality can quickly be deduced
from nothing more than the amount of emotion that their adherents
expend in their defense, particularly in the amount of hatred and
contempt heaped upon the non-"believers".

Watch for it...I do...don't just try to turn it around on one of the
few TRUE rational humans on this planet..."think" about it, about
YOURSELF for a second (this will be as hopeless as when I tried
to get "Icky" to understand why he wishes death on people just
because they don't like the same movies as he does, but I gotta
give it a try).
Post by Harry Bailey
So, for instance, those who
ACTUALLY believe that there is ACTUALLY a center to the universe, or a
center to the symbolic order of society (a phallus, as Lacan also
calls it), are subscribing to a religious belief (as belief in such a
center, such an ultimate truth, such an ultimate power, amounts to a
belief in some form of a God) ...
"Lacan" is the apparent center of YOUR universe, and "godless"
communism, and anti-"consumerism", and anti-"empiricism", and
anti-"scientisicism", et. al.
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
We are witnessing a
personal "jihad" to proseletyze a theory of personal development
based on a single observation of kid playing with a ball and cup...
Psychoanalysis is entirely impersonal (there is no 'personal') and so
is not a theory of personal development; you're confusing it with ego
psychology and the cult of the 'personal', an imaginary construct.
Whoops, my bad, whatever it is, the only supporting evidence
in your "rational" discourse was a kid with a ball and cup...
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Of course there is no hostility towards "Lacan" or "Freud" these
days, just boredom and some amusement at their quaint fixations
on their "phalluses" and mommas.
Um, could this 'boredom' actually be because they are not sufficiently
sexy, because they deconstruct the sexual?
Maybe, though it sounds like just the opposite! Those guys
really liked to sling around a lot of "pee-pee" talk...their mommas
should have washed their intellects out with soap...
Post by Harry Bailey
Such a knee-jerk remark is
usually made by those who have never actually bothered to read [much
less understood] anything by Freud or Lacan (who were both, as if it
needs to be repeated, extremely critical of human sexuality).
Of course, if you don't agree, it's because you're not educated...what
a simple circle of logic you have to support your "beliefs"...
Post by Harry Bailey
And this
in a society, today, where everything is being obsessively sexualised
- from politics to children's toys to children themselves - where
anything that isn't so seductively ['make it more real!'] sexualised
[or that challenges or questions this ideology] in some way is
dismissed as 'boring.'
And never forget to blame "society", because they have challenged
your hard-fought relevancy with a gigantic and sincere YAWWWNN...
Post by Harry Bailey
As with EWS. In short, such a 'criticism' is
invariably made by those who are cluelessly obsessed with sex and
sexuality, who - as disavowed sex zombies - can never get enough of
it.
I've already supplied some supporting evidence of addictive/compulsive
behaviors being rooted in known animal behaviors, outside the symbolic
constructs of Lacan, which even you said were "non-controversial".
The only thing that remains then would be a practical method derived
from, and exclusive to, Lacan, of breaking very destructive addictive
behaviors, to acheive a mote of "significance" in my opinion.

As far as "Eyes Wide Shut" is concerned, please do post your
best efforts to relate the themes of the movie (or ALL Kubrick
movies if you wish) to the work of Lacan...unlike you and the
other creeps here I will not disparage it (I probably won't even
care, and just won't have sufficient emotional attachment to
respond).

But be aware that there is probably a thinner vein of evidence
that Kubrick was in any way actually INFLUENCED by Lacan,
because I cannot remember off-hand a single reference to him
by Kubrick or any of his collaborators, so the Nazi and Jung
and Freud theorists have at least that level of "empiricism" over
your guy...

---
William Ernest "Mind Wide Open" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-06-26 00:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Reid
"Lacan" is the apparent center of YOUR universe
You haven't really been listening, have you? Firstly, Lacan argued
(and he was hardly the first, being preceded by numerous philosophers,
scientists and social theorists) that the universe has no centre, an
argument I had been very much aware of long before I'd ever heard of
Lacan. Secondly, I use the term 'Lacan' as a signifier, as a label for
a set of coherent ideas and theories (just as the label 'Kubrick'
refers to a body of film work dealing with a set of consistent and
coherent themes and concerns), not as a reference to the private
'person' Lacan. Thirdly, I enter into a rational discourse with
Lacan's ideas, as with numerous other theorists, in philosophy, in
science, etc, in order to attempt to understand for myself those
ideas, concepts, and theories, not to accept them on 'faith', not to
simply 'believe' in them without any analysis or reason, but to
critically engage with such ideas as a basis for further rational
understanding. Indeed, Lacan refers to people who uncritically accept
the knowledge of some Other as Hysterical Subjects who seek out a
Subject Supposed To Know (a patriarchcal Master, a Father substitute,
a God), and there's no shortage of such ego-maniacal 'gurus'
throughout the Western world along with an unlimited supply of
hysterical subjects in search of quick-fix 'self-help' masters to
vainly boost their underlying 'lack', to boost their own egos.
Post by Bill Reid
But be aware that there is probably a thinner vein of evidence
that Kubrick was in any way actually INFLUENCED by Lacan,
because I cannot remember off-hand a single reference to him
by Kubrick or any of his collaborators, so the Nazi and Jung
and Freud theorists have at least that level of "empiricism" over
your guy...
My approaches to interpreting or analysing a film - or any other text
or art work - are not a function of the 'influences' of its author:
choosing to consider examining a film according to different social,
psychoanalytic, or other theories [including film theory, literary
theory, art theory, and so on), does not DEPEND on whether the
author(s) of a film etc have been influenced by - or are even aware of
- such theories. Are you demanding that, for instance, modern theories
of literary criticism applied to the works of Shakespeare are
'empirically' irrelevant because Shakespeare was not 'influenced' by
modern literary theory? Are you demanding that the application of
Einstein's theories of Relativity to a reading of Newtonian Mechanics
is 'irrelevant' because Newton's work and theories were not
'influenced' by those of Einstein? Or more generally, are you claiming
that contemporary social and cultural theories have NO RIGHT to be
applied to any work or event or phenomenon, past or present, because
the 'author' of such works, events, phenomena, was/is not 'influenced'
by (or aware of) contemporary theories? We could, of course, take your
subjectivist ideology in all its unexamined illogicality much further
and insist that all works, all texts, are only permitted to be
interpreted or read in accordance with the original 'author's'
INSTRUCTIONS (or intentions), so that we can then completely ignore
or discard the work itself (as a legitimate object in its own right)
and concentrate exclusively instead on the intentions (and 'feelings')
and 'influences' of the work's author, the work itself now reduced to
a mere deterministic 'projection' of the 'inner' feelings and
intentions of the author. So Kubrick's The Shining isn't about how
history and patriarchy perpetuates/replicates itself, but is instead a
'projection' of Kubrick's writers' block and his desire to slaughter
his family! And so on, and so on, to solipsistic imbecility.

The (original, earlier on this derailed thread)POINT is that modern
theories [along with uncritical, irrational knee-jerk imaginings] of
the world (and of film) can be relevantly applied to interpreting a
film, any film (indeed, always are, MUST be, in order to make ANY
sense of the film), enriching one's discourse or experience of that
film accordingly. So, in the case of Eyes Wide Shut, we can - if we
choose - interpret it from a psychoanalytic perspective, a
sociological perspective, various philosophical perspectives, a
feminist theoretic perspective, a soft-porn consumerist-subjectivist
perspective, a junk-food eye-candy zombie perspective (and maybe even
a Buddhist perspective, though Kelps has never actually bothered to
make the effort to even attempt to offer one). It's just that, of all
the analyses of the film I've read (just about all of them at this
stage), the theories of Lacanian psychoanalysis (among others, it
should be said - Baudrillard, Foucault, Marx, etc etc) are presently
the most comprehensively illuminating for facilitating a better
understanding of this film, as well as enriching its experience as an
important work of art.
kelps
2007-06-26 02:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
"Lacan" is the apparent center of YOUR universe
You haven't really been listening, have you? Firstly, Lacan argued
(and he was hardly the first, being preceded by numerous philosophers,
scientists and social theorists) that the universe has no centre, an
argument I had been very much aware of long before I'd ever heard of
Lacan. Secondly, I use the term 'Lacan' as a signifier, as a label for
a set of coherent ideas and theories (just as the label 'Kubrick'
refers to a body of film work dealing with a set of consistent and
coherent themes and concerns), not as a reference to the private
'person' Lacan. Thirdly, I enter into a rational discourse with
Lacan's ideas, as with numerous other theorists, in philosophy, in
science, etc, in order to attempt to understand for myself those
ideas, concepts, and theories, not to accept them on 'faith', not to
simply 'believe' in them without any analysis or reason, but to
critically engage with such ideas as a basis for further rational
understanding. Indeed, Lacan refers to people who uncritically accept
the knowledge of some Other as Hysterical Subjects who seek out a
Subject Supposed To Know (a patriarchcal Master, a Father substitute,
a God), and there's no shortage of such ego-maniacal 'gurus'
throughout the Western world along with an unlimited supply of
hysterical subjects in search of quick-fix 'self-help' masters to
vainly boost their underlying 'lack', to boost their own egos.
Post by Bill Reid
But be aware that there is probably a thinner vein of evidence
that Kubrick was in any way actually INFLUENCED by Lacan,
because I cannot remember off-hand a single reference to him
by Kubrick or any of his collaborators, so the Nazi and Jung
and Freud theorists have at least that level of "empiricism" over
your guy...
My approaches to interpreting or analysing a film - or any other text
choosing to consider examining a film according to different social,
psychoanalytic, or other theories [including film theory, literary
theory, art theory, and so on), does not DEPEND on whether the
author(s) of a film etc have been influenced by - or are even aware of
- such theories. Are you demanding that, for instance, modern theories
of literary criticism applied to the works of Shakespeare are
'empirically' irrelevant because Shakespeare was not 'influenced' by
modern literary theory? Are you demanding that the application of
Einstein's theories of Relativity to a reading of Newtonian Mechanics
is 'irrelevant' because Newton's work and theories were not
'influenced' by those of Einstein? Or more generally, are you claiming
that contemporary social and cultural theories have NO RIGHT to be
applied to any work or event or phenomenon, past or present, because
the 'author' of such works, events, phenomena, was/is not 'influenced'
by (or aware of) contemporary theories? We could, of course, take your
subjectivist ideology in all its unexamined illogicality much further
and insist that all works, all texts, are only permitted to be
interpreted or read in accordance with the original 'author's'
INSTRUCTIONS (or intentions), so that we can then completely ignore
or discard the work itself (as a legitimate object in its own right)
and concentrate exclusively instead on the intentions (and 'feelings')
and 'influences' of the work's author, the work itself now reduced to
a mere deterministic 'projection' of the 'inner' feelings and
intentions of the author. So Kubrick's The Shining isn't about how
history and patriarchy perpetuates/replicates itself, but is instead a
'projection' of Kubrick's writers' block and his desire to slaughter
his family! And so on, and so on, to solipsistic imbecility.
The (original, earlier on this derailed thread)POINT is that modern
theories [along with uncritical, irrational knee-jerk imaginings] of
the world (and of film) can be relevantly applied to interpreting a
film, any film (indeed, always are, MUST be, in order to make ANY
sense of the film), enriching one's discourse or experience of that
film accordingly. So, in the case of Eyes Wide Shut, we can - if we
choose - interpret it from a psychoanalytic perspective, a
sociological perspective, various philosophical perspectives, a
feminist theoretic perspective, a soft-porn consumerist-subjectivist
perspective, a junk-food eye-candy zombie perspective (and maybe even
a Buddhist perspective, though Kelps has never actually bothered to
make the effort to even attempt to offer one). It's just that, of all
the analyses of the film I've read (just about all of them at this
stage), the theories of Lacanian psychoanalysis (among others, it
should be said - Baudrillard, Foucault, Marx, etc etc) are presently
the most comprehensively illuminating for facilitating a better
understanding of this film, as well as enriching its experience as an
important work of art.
Geez. get a grip.


About EWS:
(and maybe even a Buddhist perspective, though Kelps has never actually
bothered to
make the effort to even attempt to offer one).

lol

I have given my perspectives on EWS.(not much recently) There is no theory
I need to add. Buddhism is about practice not theory so it would be silly
to play that game. Buddhism isn't a film critquing method. of
postcorruptionpostmodernismoronismpost posting.

Outside of the fact that I have explained on this NG that SK, during the
filming of 2001, had received intitation (the single precept) into a
buddhist world peace group I belong to, and Arthur Clarke's statements about
the sects, "black rectagular slab" and being a "crypto-buddhist" and the
content of ACC's work, being very buddhistic, I haven't said much about it.

This is the sect SK had been initiated into.

20 minute video:

http://www.sgi.org/media/sgi-dvd.html



I have mentioned that EWS music during the orgy, does use a central passage
from the Bhagavad gita, (removed from some versions of the film)
"paritranaya sadhunam, vinasaya ca duskritam, dharma-samstapanarthaya,
sambhavami yuge yuge",

which is basically: "I appear on earth, in order to free the faithful
persons, in order to destroy ignorance and to establish the principles of
the true dharma."


Now anyone who really knows the history of the Bhagavad Gita, knows that
there is evidence is, that it was added to the Mahabharata later. Buddhism
unseated the Hinduism in india for some time and then the tables turned as
buddhism become corrupt and institutionalized, and the upanshadic writings
came to the front in terms of popularity, then Mahayana Buddhism appeared
and buddhism spread out of India into China, Japan, Korea and Tibet.

The Saddharma Pundarika Sutra of Buddhism (Jap:: Myoho Renge kyo) has
virtually the same passage.

In Hinduism Gautama buddha was said to be a reincarnation of Krishna, but
Buddhism uses metaphor as a expedient means, depending on the culture and
time in any country and in truth Buddhism is referring to a Life States of
real people, not special beings.

As far as EWS shut goes, it can't be pidgeon-holed with any theories. It was
a huge private joke on humanity and a challenge to the powerful and corrupt.

dc
ichorwhip
2007-06-29 01:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
"Lacan" is the apparent center of YOUR universe
You haven't really been listening, have you?
Heh! You should get used to that talking to the these two. Tweedle-
dimebag and Tweedle-douche...
Post by Harry Bailey
Firstly, Lacan argued
Post by Harry Bailey
(and he was hardly the first, being preceded by numerous philosophers,
scientists and social theorists) that the universe has no centre, an
argument I had been very much aware of long before I'd ever heard of
Lacan. Secondly, I use the term 'Lacan' as a signifier, as a label for
a set of coherent ideas and theories (just as the label 'Kubrick'
refers to a body of film work dealing with a set of consistent and
coherent themes and concerns), not as a reference to the private
'person' Lacan. Thirdly, I enter into a rational discourse with
Lacan's ideas, as with numerous other theorists, in philosophy, in
science, etc, in order to attempt to understand for myself those
ideas, concepts, and theories, not to accept them on 'faith', not to
simply 'believe' in them without any analysis or reason, but to
critically engage with such ideas as a basis for further rational
understanding. Indeed, Lacan refers to people who uncritically accept
the knowledge of some Other as Hysterical Subjects who seek out a
Subject Supposed To Know (a patriarchcal Master, a Father substitute,
a God), and there's no shortage of such ego-maniacal 'gurus'
throughout the Western world along with an unlimited supply of
hysterical subjects in search of quick-fix 'self-help' masters to
vainly boost their underlying 'lack', to boost their own egos.
Post by Bill Reid
But be aware that there is probably a thinner vein of evidence
that Kubrick was in any way actually INFLUENCED by Lacan,
because I cannot remember off-hand a single reference to him
by Kubrick or any of his collaborators, so the Nazi and Jung
and Freud theorists have at least that level of "empiricism" over
your guy...
My approaches to interpreting or analysing a film - or any other text
That sounds like too valid of an approach... What need of all dem
fancy book-lernin' New Critterschisms and Otter theories? I just
wanna watch Moooovies! Pass me the bong and popcorn...
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Harry Bailey
choosing to consider examining a film according to different social,
psychoanalytic, or other theories [including film theory, literary
theory, art theory, and so on), does not DEPEND on whether the
author(s) of a film etc have been influenced by - or are even aware of
- such theories. Are you demanding that, for instance, modern theories
of literary criticism applied to the works of Shakespeare are
'empirically' irrelevant because Shakespeare was not 'influenced' by
modern literary theory? Are you demanding that the application of
Einstein's theories of Relativity to a reading of Newtonian Mechanics
is 'irrelevant' because Newton's work and theories were not
'influenced' by those of Einstein? Or more generally, are you claiming
that contemporary social and cultural theories have NO RIGHT to be
applied to any work or event or phenomenon, past or present, because
the 'author' of such works, events, phenomena, was/is not 'influenced'
by (or aware of) contemporary theories? We could, of course, take your
subjectivist ideology in all its unexamined illogicality much further
and insist that all works, all texts, are only permitted to be
interpreted or read in accordance with the original 'author's'
INSTRUCTIONS (or intentions), so that we can then completely ignore
or discard the work itself (as a legitimate object in its own right)
and concentrate exclusively instead on the intentions (and 'feelings')
and 'influences' of the work's author, the work itself now reduced to
a mere deterministic 'projection' of the 'inner' feelings and
intentions of the author. So Kubrick's The Shining isn't about how
history and patriarchy perpetuates/replicates itself, but is instead a
'projection' of Kubrick's writers' block and his desire to slaughter
his family! And so on, and so on, to solipsistic imbecility.
The (original, earlier on this derailed thread)POINT is that modern
theories [along with uncritical, irrational knee-jerk imaginings] of
the world (and of film) can be relevantly applied to interpreting a
film, any film (indeed, always are, MUST be, in order to make ANY
sense of the film), enriching one's discourse or experience of that
film accordingly. So, in the case of Eyes Wide Shut, we can - if we
choose - interpret it from a psychoanalytic perspective, a
sociological perspective, various philosophical perspectives, a
feminist theoretic perspective, a soft-porn consumerist-subjectivist
perspective, a junk-food eye-candy zombie perspective (and maybe even
a Buddhist perspective, though Kelps has never actually bothered to
make the effort to even attempt to offer one). It's just that, of all
the analyses of the film I've read (just about all of them at this
stage), the theories of Lacanian psychoanalysis (among others, it
should be said - Baudrillard, Foucault, Marx, etc etc) are presently
the most comprehensively illuminating for facilitating a better
understanding of this film, as well as enriching its experience as an
important work of art.
Geez. get a grip.
(and maybe even a Buddhist perspective, though Kelps has never actually
bothered to
make the effort to even attempt to offer one).
lol
Yeah, lol indeed. I'm sure glad you haven't attempted any thing like
what Harry's said. It makes me have much less to not read.
Post by Harry Bailey
I have given my perspectives on EWS.(not much recently) There is no theory
I need to add.
I don't think you understand what Harry is getting at either. Tell
the truth. Aren't you and Reidrum father and son?
Post by Harry Bailey
Buddhism is about practice not theory so it would be silly
to play that game. Buddhism isn't a film critquing method. of
postcorruptionpostmodernismoronismpost posting.
This makes as much sense as anything you could apply to the films as a
means of interpretation...
Post by Harry Bailey
Outside of the fact that I have explained on this NG that SK, during the
filming of 2001, had received intitation (the single precept) into a
buddhist world peace group I belong to, and Arthur Clarke's statements about
the sects, "black rectagular slab" and being a "crypto-buddhist" and the
content of ACC's work, being very buddhistic, I haven't said much about it.
This subject is brought up in Agel's book. Did you read that?
Post by Harry Bailey
This is the sect SK had been initiated into.
http://www.sgi.org/media/sgi-dvd.html
I have mentioned that EWS music during the orgy, does use a central passage
from the Bhagavad gita, (removed from some versions of the film)
"paritranaya sadhunam, vinasaya ca duskritam, dharma-samstapanarthaya,
sambhavami yuge yuge",
which is basically: "I appear on earth, in order to free the faithful
persons, in order to destroy ignorance and to establish the principles of
the true dharma."
Now anyone who really knows the history of the Bhagavad Gita, knows that
there is evidence is, that it was added to the Mahabharata later. Buddhism
unseated the Hinduism in india for some time and then the tables turned as
buddhism become corrupt and institutionalized, and the upanshadic writings
came to the front in terms of popularity, then Mahayana Buddhism appeared
and buddhism spread out of India into China, Japan, Korea and Tibet.
The Saddharma Pundarika Sutra of Buddhism (Jap:: Myoho Renge kyo) has
virtually the same passage.
In Hinduism Gautama buddha was said to be a reincarnation of Krishna, but
Buddhism uses metaphor as a expedient means, depending on the culture and
time in any country and in truth Buddhism is referring to a Life States of
real people, not special beings.
As far as EWS shut goes, it can't be pidgeon-holed with any theories.
He says totally oblivious as usual....
Post by Harry Bailey
It was
a huge private joke on humanity and a challenge to the powerful and corrupt.
Sounds like you're doing some "pigeon-holing" of your own(or what
comes out of pigeon's hole more likely...), but of course you consider
yourself exempt from your own bleary-eyed presumptions.

"Perfect for a child."
i
"piop"
kelps
2007-06-29 05:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
"Lacan" is the apparent center of YOUR universe
You haven't really been listening, have you?
Heh! You should get used to that talking to the these two. Tweedle-
dimebag and Tweedle-douche...
Post by Harry Bailey
Firstly, Lacan argued
Post by Harry Bailey
(and he was hardly the first, being preceded by numerous philosophers,
scientists and social theorists) that the universe has no centre, an
argument I had been very much aware of long before I'd ever heard of
Lacan. Secondly, I use the term 'Lacan' as a signifier, as a label for
a set of coherent ideas and theories (just as the label 'Kubrick'
refers to a body of film work dealing with a set of consistent and
coherent themes and concerns), not as a reference to the private
'person' Lacan. Thirdly, I enter into a rational discourse with
Lacan's ideas, as with numerous other theorists, in philosophy, in
science, etc, in order to attempt to understand for myself those
ideas, concepts, and theories, not to accept them on 'faith', not to
simply 'believe' in them without any analysis or reason, but to
critically engage with such ideas as a basis for further rational
understanding. Indeed, Lacan refers to people who uncritically accept
the knowledge of some Other as Hysterical Subjects who seek out a
Subject Supposed To Know (a patriarchcal Master, a Father substitute,
a God), and there's no shortage of such ego-maniacal 'gurus'
throughout the Western world along with an unlimited supply of
hysterical subjects in search of quick-fix 'self-help' masters to
vainly boost their underlying 'lack', to boost their own egos.
Post by Bill Reid
But be aware that there is probably a thinner vein of evidence
that Kubrick was in any way actually INFLUENCED by Lacan,
because I cannot remember off-hand a single reference to him
by Kubrick or any of his collaborators, so the Nazi and Jung
and Freud theorists have at least that level of "empiricism" over
your guy...
My approaches to interpreting or analysing a film - or any other text
That sounds like too valid of an approach... What need of all dem
fancy book-lernin' New Critterschisms and Otter theories? I just
wanna watch Moooovies! Pass me the bong and popcorn...
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Harry Bailey
choosing to consider examining a film according to different social,
psychoanalytic, or other theories [including film theory, literary
theory, art theory, and so on), does not DEPEND on whether the
author(s) of a film etc have been influenced by - or are even aware of
- such theories. Are you demanding that, for instance, modern theories
of literary criticism applied to the works of Shakespeare are
'empirically' irrelevant because Shakespeare was not 'influenced' by
modern literary theory? Are you demanding that the application of
Einstein's theories of Relativity to a reading of Newtonian Mechanics
is 'irrelevant' because Newton's work and theories were not
'influenced' by those of Einstein? Or more generally, are you claiming
that contemporary social and cultural theories have NO RIGHT to be
applied to any work or event or phenomenon, past or present, because
the 'author' of such works, events, phenomena, was/is not 'influenced'
by (or aware of) contemporary theories? We could, of course, take your
subjectivist ideology in all its unexamined illogicality much further
and insist that all works, all texts, are only permitted to be
interpreted or read in accordance with the original 'author's'
INSTRUCTIONS (or intentions), so that we can then completely ignore
or discard the work itself (as a legitimate object in its own right)
and concentrate exclusively instead on the intentions (and 'feelings')
and 'influences' of the work's author, the work itself now reduced to
a mere deterministic 'projection' of the 'inner' feelings and
intentions of the author. So Kubrick's The Shining isn't about how
history and patriarchy perpetuates/replicates itself, but is instead a
'projection' of Kubrick's writers' block and his desire to slaughter
his family! And so on, and so on, to solipsistic imbecility.
The (original, earlier on this derailed thread)POINT is that modern
theories [along with uncritical, irrational knee-jerk imaginings] of
the world (and of film) can be relevantly applied to interpreting a
film, any film (indeed, always are, MUST be, in order to make ANY
sense of the film), enriching one's discourse or experience of that
film accordingly. So, in the case of Eyes Wide Shut, we can - if we
choose - interpret it from a psychoanalytic perspective, a
sociological perspective, various philosophical perspectives, a
feminist theoretic perspective, a soft-porn consumerist-subjectivist
perspective, a junk-food eye-candy zombie perspective (and maybe even
a Buddhist perspective, though Kelps has never actually bothered to
make the effort to even attempt to offer one). It's just that, of all
the analyses of the film I've read (just about all of them at this
stage), the theories of Lacanian psychoanalysis (among others, it
should be said - Baudrillard, Foucault, Marx, etc etc) are presently
the most comprehensively illuminating for facilitating a better
understanding of this film, as well as enriching its experience as an
important work of art.
Geez. get a grip.
(and maybe even a Buddhist perspective, though Kelps has never actually
bothered to
make the effort to even attempt to offer one).
lol
Yeah, lol indeed. I'm sure glad you haven't attempted any thing like
what Harry's said. It makes me have much less to not read.
Post by Harry Bailey
I have given my perspectives on EWS.(not much recently) There is no theory
I need to add.
I don't think you understand what Harry is getting at either. Tell
the truth. Aren't you and Reidrum father and son?
Post by Harry Bailey
Buddhism is about practice not theory so it would be silly
to play that game. Buddhism isn't a film critquing method. of
postcorruptionpostmodernismoronismpost posting.
This makes as much sense as anything you could apply to the films as a
means of interpretation...
Post by Harry Bailey
Outside of the fact that I have explained on this NG that SK, during the
filming of 2001, had received intitation (the single precept) into a
buddhist world peace group I belong to, and Arthur Clarke's statements about
the sects, "black rectagular slab" and being a "crypto-buddhist" and the
content of ACC's work, being very buddhistic, I haven't said much about it.
This subject is brought up in Agel's book. Did you read that?
Post by Harry Bailey
This is the sect SK had been initiated into.
http://www.sgi.org/media/sgi-dvd.html
I have mentioned that EWS music during the orgy, does use a central passage
from the Bhagavad gita, (removed from some versions of the film)
"paritranaya sadhunam, vinasaya ca duskritam, dharma-samstapanarthaya,
sambhavami yuge yuge",
which is basically: "I appear on earth, in order to free the faithful
persons, in order to destroy ignorance and to establish the principles of
the true dharma."
Now anyone who really knows the history of the Bhagavad Gita, knows that
there is evidence is, that it was added to the Mahabharata later.
Buddhism
unseated the Hinduism in india for some time and then the tables turned as
buddhism become corrupt and institutionalized, and the upanshadic writings
came to the front in terms of popularity, then Mahayana Buddhism appeared
and buddhism spread out of India into China, Japan, Korea and Tibet.
The Saddharma Pundarika Sutra of Buddhism (Jap:: Myoho Renge kyo) has
virtually the same passage.
In Hinduism Gautama buddha was said to be a reincarnation of Krishna, but
Buddhism uses metaphor as a expedient means, depending on the culture and
time in any country and in truth Buddhism is referring to a Life States of
real people, not special beings.
As far as EWS shut goes, it can't be pidgeon-holed with any theories.
He says totally oblivious as usual....
Post by Harry Bailey
It was
a huge private joke on humanity and a challenge to the powerful and corrupt.
Sounds like you're doing some "pigeon-holing" of your own(or what
comes out of pigeon's hole more likely...), but of course you consider
yourself exempt from your own bleary-eyed presumptions.
"Perfect for a child."
i
"piop"
What exactly is the secret message imbedded in EWS?

"I appear on earth, in order to free the faithful persons, in order to
destroy ignorance and to establish the principles of the true dharma."


Oh wait. That was strictly an accident.SK just liked the way it sounded---?

And to be more precise for the imprecise readers of this NG:

"At that time the World-Honored One calmly arose from his samadhi and
addressed Shariputra, saying: "The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely
profound and immeasurable. The door to this wisdom is difficult to
understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice-hearers or
pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it.
"What is the reason for this? A Buddha has personally attended a hundred, a
thousand, ten thousand, a million, a countless number of Buddhas and has
fully carried out an immeasurable number of religious practices. He has
exerted himself bravely and vigorously, and his name is universally known.
He has realized the Law that is profound and never known before, and
preaches it in accordance with what is appropriate, yet his intention is
difficult to understand.

"Shariputra, ever since I attained Buddhahood I have through various causes
and various similes widely expounded my teachings and have used countless
expedient means to guide living beings and cause them to renounce
attachments. Why is this? Because the Thus Come One is fully possessed by
both expedient means and the paramita of wisdom.

"Shariputra, the wisdom of the Thus Come One is expansive and profound. He
has immeasurable [mercy], unlimited [eloquence], power, fearlessness,
concentration, emancipation, and samadhis, and has deeply entered the
boundless and awakened to the Law never before attained.

"Shariputra, the Thus Come One knows how to make various kinds of
distinctions and to expound the teachings skillfully. His words are soft and
gentle and delight the hearts of the assembly.

"Shariputra, to sum it up: the Buddha has fully realized the Law that is
limitless, boundless, never attained before.

"But stop, Shariputra, I will say no more. Why? Because what the Buddha has
achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand Law. The true entity
of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas. This
reality consists of the appearance, nature, entity, power, influence,
inherent cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect, and their
consistency from beginning to end."

**********************************

"Shakyamuni Buddha with the fingers of his right hand then opened the door
of the tower of seven treasures (hanging in the space above the saha world).
A loud sound issued from it, like the sound of a lock and crossbar being
removed from a great city gate, and at once all the members of the assembly
caught sight of Many Treasures Thus Come One seated on a lion seat inside
the treasure tower, his body whole and unimpaired, sitting as thought
engaged in meditation. And they heard him say, "excellent, excellent,
Shakyamuni Buddha! You have preached this Lotus Sutra in a spirited manner.
I have come here in order that I may hear this sutra."

At that time the four kinds of believers, observing this Buddha who had
passed into extinction immeasurable thousands, ten thousands, millions of
kalpas in the past speaking in this way, marveled at what they had never
known before and took the masses of heavenly jeweled flowers and scattered
them over Many Treasures Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha.
At that time Many Treasures Buddha offered half of his seat in the treasure
tower to Shakyamuni Buddha, saying, "Shakyamuni Buddha, sit here!"
Shakyamuni Buddha at once entered the tower and took half of the seat,
seating himself in cross-legged position.

At that time the members of the great assembly, seeing the two Thus Come
Ones seated cross-legged on the lion seat in the tower of seven treasures,
all thought to themselves, These Buddhas are seated high up and far away! If
only the Thus Come Ones would employ their transcendental powers to enable
all of us to join them there in the air!

Immediately Shakyamuni Buddha used his transcendental powers to lift the
members of the great assembly up into the air. And in a loud voice he
addressed all the four kinds of believers, saying, "Who is capable of
broadly preaching the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law in this saha world?
Now is the time to do so, for before long the Thus Come One will enter
nirvana. the Buddha wishes to entrust this Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law
to someone so that it may be preserved."


dc

kelps
2007-06-25 05:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by ichorwhip
Nice "summary" Harry... ;-)
Cheers. It's easy to see why psychoanalytic theories beginning with
Freud (especially his key discovery of the Unconscious) continue to be
met - particularly during today's widespread fetishistic retreat into
the precious ontology of the 'inner self' - with such irrational
hostility.
And 7 Kbytes more to respond to a three-word post with a
winking smiley...analyze THAT "irrational hostility"...
It's what some of us call irony, Doctored Bill (ie. referring to a
lengthy overview of Lacan's ideas as a "summary"), not 'irrational
hostility.'
Post by Bill Reid
My analysis would be that if such over-reactions are truly
believed by the subject to be the result of a realized "lack"
of a "phallus", said subject's "phallus" must REALLY be
lacking, like friggin' indented or sumpin'...
What 'over-reactions'? The only - hysterical - over-reactions here
have been those of yourself and Kelps. And your responses are not
evidence of any rational analysis or discussion, but of infantile
name-calling and abuse. [The subject does NOT have a phallus; nobody
has a phallus, it's a symbolic construct, not a concrete thing]. Even
your statement above regarding the phallus serves to yet again confirm
that you really don't know what you're talking about, do not even
understand the basic concepts you're so desperate to reject. Lacan
chose the term 'phallus' in order to emphasise even more the
patriarchal basis of the Symbolic order. The Phallus, denoting the
center of that order (the 'master-signifier' of the Big Other), limits
the play of elements, and gives stability to the whole structure. It
is a symbolic CONSTRUCT; it does not actually exist - as Lacan stated,
"The Big Other does not exist". And as already stated, "The Phallus is
not the same as the penis. Penises belong to individuals; the Phallus
belongs to the structure of language itself. No one has it, just like
no one governs language or rules language. Rather, the Phallus is the
center. It governs the whole structure, it's what everyone wants to be
(or have), but no one can get there (no element of the system can take
the place of the center). That's what Lacan calls DESIRE: the desire,
which is never satisfied, because it can never be satisfied, to be the
center, to rule the system." Because there is no center, only lack.
Post by Bill Reid
But it confirms once again one of my primary principles of human
behavior: the most vigorously and hysterically defended beliefs are
those with the least supporting evidence.
You're the most obvious example of such a 'principle': your posts here
hysterically defending your unspecified beliefs (oh wait, you don't
have any, right? Beliefs are so passe!) without supporting them with
either reason or evidence, just childish insults. Psychoanalysis is a
set of developing theories, not 'hysterically defended beliefs', such
theories arising from rigorous reasoning and research. The beliefs you
are referring to are what are normally called RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, ie
beliefs not dependent on either empirical evidence or rational
reasoning - what we also call Faith. So, for instance, those who
ACTUALLY believe that there is ACTUALLY a center to the universe, or a
center to the symbolic order of society (a phallus, as Lacan also
calls it), are subscribing to a religious belief (as belief in such a
center, such an ultimate truth, such an ultimate power, amounts to a
belief in some form of a God) ...
Post by Bill Reid
We are witnessing a
personal "jihad" to proseletyze a theory of personal development
based on a single observation of kid playing with a ball and cup...
Psychoanalysis is entirely impersonal (there is no 'personal') and so
is not a theory of personal development; you're confusing it with ego
psychology and the cult of the 'personal', an imaginary construct.
Post by Bill Reid
Of course there is no hostility towards "Lacan" or "Freud" these
days, just boredom and some amusement at their quaint fixations
on their "phalluses" and mommas.
Um, could this 'boredom' actually be because they are not sufficiently
sexy, because they deconstruct the sexual? Such a knee-jerk remark is
usually made by those who have never actually bothered to read [much
less understood] anything by Freud or Lacan (who were both, as if it
needs to be repeated, extremely critical of human sexuality). And this
in a society, today, where everything is being obsessively sexualised
- from politics to children's toys to children themselves - where
anything that isn't so seductively ['make it more real!'] sexualised
[or that challenges or questions this ideology] in some way is
dismissed as 'boring.' As with EWS. In short, such a 'criticism' is
invariably made by those who are cluelessly obsessed with sex and
sexuality, who - as disavowed sex zombies - can never get enough of
it.
My reactions have not been hysterically in any way. Just honest.

dc
Bill Reid
2007-06-22 04:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Holy mother of pearl, I knew I should have been careful
for what I asked for around here...
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Didn't this "Lacan" fellow apply "structuralism" to psychoanalysis
in the same way that Claude Levi-Strauss did for anthropology?
Your fondness for SCARE "quotes" is intriguing,
In my neighborhood, the worst they are called is "sarcastic
quotes", but they can be used for several purposes, just not
Halloween, to my knowledge...
Post by Harry Bailey
the contents therein
being smugly dismissed as some kind of deluded phantasmatic
construction.
Well...am I wrong?
Post by Harry Bailey
As I already said, I don't wish to enter into that ego-
maniacal abyss of which you are so eager to defend, so instead I'll
just post here a reasonable "summary" of some of Lacan's principal
ideas, their connection or relevance to an analysis of EWS to follow
sometime again ...
Thanks for the warning, I'll plan my suicide around it...

Look, I'll read this mess later, if at all, but since you ALMOST
followed instructions to compare Claude Levi-Strauss with Lacan
(which could have been accomplished with some quick Wikipedia
work, no doubt), I'll deliver on my end of the bargain:

So, as I said, I took this anthropology class from this fey
neurotic professor who claimed he was "one of three people
in America who understands the work of Claude Levi-Strauss",
and used to perpetually look down his twitching psuedo-intellectual
nose at us sophmores as he patronizingly attempted to explain
"structuralism" to us...not unlike you, "Harry Bailey", not to put
too fine a point on it!

So one day, on the last day you could drop a class without
penalty, a young woman annouced that she wanted the professor
sign her "drop form". Now this was a VERY physically attractive
young woman who I knew from other social sciences classes
I was taking, and I knew her to be somewhat of a "straight talker",
sexually aggressive/assertive, in no way a coy "girlie-girl".

So he asked her, "Why do you want to drop the class?" She
said "I don't have to give you a reason, I'm just asking you to
sign the form." He persisted, "I know you don't have to give me
a reason, but for my own information I'd like to know why you
don't want to continue." She repeated herself for the second
and last time, and he asked again, a HUGE mistake on his
part. She replied:

"Because you're an annoying stupid creepy faggot and I
don't want to sit through another one of your incredibly
boring stupid self-absorbed lectures."

He quickly signed her form, she left, and he burst into tears.
The lecture for THAT day turned out to consist of him relaying
through heaving sobs the whole sad story of his life, how his
problems started because he felt that the other boys in gym in
high school "all had bigger penises than me", how he didn't have
any friends ever, how he had considered suicide several times,
how desperately he wished he could change his life, and
on and on and on and on...

In other words, not really that different than most of his "lectures",
and those of many of the other weirdos that inhabit academia that
I suffered through...but his little "breakthrough" and the whole
scene was quite worthwhile gossip with my friends after the class
(I had been telling them for weeks that even in an school
with the usual number of prissy little self-involved low-income
psuedo-intellectual professors, he was "special", and my
anecdotes about his "lectures" greatly amused them)...

---
William Ernest "Good Will Reading" Reid
Harry Bailey
2007-06-24 23:58:14 UTC
Permalink
[snip Reid's 'theory' of pedagogy]

Interesting that you choose to defend a verbally abusive, hysterically
self-absorbed, student, who's educational 'choices' are exclusively
based on whether she finds the physical features and mannerisms of a
courses's lecturer attractive or repulsive, and not the subject-matter
of the course. And what were you doing, along with this sexist idiot,
studying a subject that you mystically 'knew' in advance to be a
supposed pile of shite, but wouldn't have been if, say, some brain-
dead 'sexy' alpha-male had been 'delivering' it? She, and you of
course, wanted instead a 'phallic' Arnold Schwarzenneger whose
'personality' you could salivate over rather than undertaking any
actual study, and Arny would deliver: "Listen to me, admire me, if you
want to pass your exam, if you want to live." Or maybe you'd prefer to
have been 'lectured' by a Paris Hilton clone, spending the class
gossiping, as appears to have been your principal preferred activity
during your 'education', and chatting about shopping ... and fucking.
Universities as schools-of-sex ...
Bill Reid
2007-06-25 02:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
[snip Reid's 'theory' of pedagogy]
Interesting that you choose to defend a verbally abusive, hysterically
self-absorbed, student, who's educational 'choices' are exclusively
based on whether she finds the physical features and mannerisms of a
courses's lecturer attractive or repulsive, and not the subject-matter
of the course.
I never said I "defended" her, and as a matter of fact was quite
shocked by what she said, and NEVER would have said the same
(I would have lied and said I was changing my major or sumpin').

But you snipped out the part of the story where she was
goaded into revealing her HONEST feelings, and I would
not (and DID not) describe ANY of her behavior as "hysterical"
in any way...
Post by Harry Bailey
And what were you doing, along with this sexist idiot,
studying a subject that you mystically 'knew' in advance to be a
supposed pile of shite, but wouldn't have been if, say, some brain-
dead 'sexy' alpha-male had been 'delivering' it?
Well, it WAS six weeks into the course, so we all knew it
wasn't gonna get any better...he was a neurotic self-absorbed
jerk with little to impart but his lack of self-esteem.

And yes, several co-eds at the time I suspected enjoyed classes
from certain younger and better-looking professors, but that was
just my suspiscion and a) who cares? looks DO count, one way
OR another, b) I didn't suspect HER of that, and c) who cares?
Post by Harry Bailey
She, and you of
course, wanted instead a 'phallic' Arnold Schwarzenneger whose
'personality' you could salivate over rather than undertaking any
actual study, and Arny would deliver: "Listen to me, admire me, if you
want to pass your exam, if you want to live."
I kind of got the feeling that all my professors (and now bosses)
either implicitly or explicitly threatened their "subordinates" that way;
HIS little tantrum seemed to be a result of HER jerking that carpet
of power suddenly from under his lightweight loafers...
Post by Harry Bailey
Or maybe you'd prefer to
have been 'lectured' by a Paris Hilton clone,
Paris Hilton clone! THAT'S HOT!!!

Who says you never have any good ideas?
Post by Harry Bailey
spending the class
gossiping, as appears to have been your principal preferred activity
during your 'education', and chatting about shopping ... and fucking.
Universities as schools-of-sex ...
Man, do you hate the average person! I remember my favorite boss
saying once he just wanted to kind of re-create the experience of a
great "party school" in our department in our hiring decisions, and I
must admit he did a great job of it and we ALL had a blast and made
money too! Sorry if that bothers you so much...SCROOOOOGE!!!

---
William Ernest "Toga Fridays" Reid
kelps
2007-06-22 05:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Bailey
Post by Bill Reid
Didn't this "Lacan" fellow apply "structuralism" to psychoanalysis
in the same way that Claude Levi-Strauss did for anthropology?
Your fondness for SCARE "quotes" is intriguing, the contents therein
being smugly dismissed as some kind of deluded phantasmatic
construction. As I already said, I don't wish to enter into that ego-
maniacal abyss of which you are so eager to defend, so instead I'll
just post here a reasonable "summary" of some of Lacan's principal
ideas, their connection or relevance to an analysis of EWS to follow
sometime again ...
---------------------------------
In his discussion of the absolute division between the unconscious and
the consciousness (or between id and ego), Freud introduces the idea
of the human self, or subject, as radically split, divided between
these two realms of conscious and unconscious. On the one hand, our
usual (Western humanist) ideas of self or personhood are defined by
operations of consciousness, including rationality, free will, and
self-reflection. For Freud and for psychoanalysis in general, however,
actions, thought, belief, and the concepts of "self" are all
determined or shaped by the unconscious, and its drives and desires.
Jacques Lacan is a French psychoanalyst. He was originally trained as
a psychiatrist, and in the 1930s and 40s worked with psychotic
patients; he began in the 1950s to develop his own version of
psychoanalysis, based on the ideas articulated in structuralist
linguistics and anthropology. You might think of Lacan as Freud +
Saussure, with a dash of Levi-Strauss, and even some seasoning of
Derrida. But his main influence/precursor is Freud. Lacan reinterprets
Freud in light of structuralist and post-structuralist theories,
turning psychoanalysis from an essentially humanist philosophy or
theory into a post-structuralist one.
One of the basic premises of humanism, as you recall, is that there is
such a thing as a stable self, that has all those nice things like
free will and self-determination. Freud's notion of the unconscious
was one of the ideas that began to question, or to destabilize, that
humanist ideal of the self; he was one of the precursors of post-
structuralism in that regard. But Freud hoped that, by bringing the
contents of the unconscious into consciousness, he could minimize
repression and neurosis--he makes a famous declaration about the
relation between the unconscious and conscious, saying that "Wo Es
war, soll Ich werden": Where It was, shall I be." In other words, the
"it," or "id" (unconscious) will be replaced by the "I", by
consciousness and self-identity. Freud's goal was to strengthen the
ego, the "I" self, the conscious/rational identity, so it would be
more powerful than the unconscious.
For Lacan, this project is impossible. The ego can never take the
place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for
Lacan, the ego or "I" self is only an illusion, a product of the
unconscious itself. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the unconscious is the
ground of all being.
Where Freud is interested in investigating how the polymorphously
perverse child forms an unconscious and a superego and becomes a
civilized and productive (as well as correctly heterosexual) adult,
Lacan is interested in how the infant gets this illusion we call a
"self." His essay on the Mirror Stage describes that process, showing
how the infant forms an illusion of an ego, of a unified conscious
self identified by the word "I."
Central to the conception of the human, in Lacan, is the notion that
the unconscious, which governs all factors of human existence, is
structured like a language. He bases this on Freud's account of the
two main mechanisms of unconscious processes, condensation and
displacement. Both are essentially linguistic phenomena, where meaning
is either condensed (in metaphor) or displaced (in metonymy). Lacan
notes that Freud's dream analyses, and most of his analyses of the
unconscious symbolism used by his patients, depend on word-play--on
puns, associations, etc. that are chiefly verbal. Lacan says that the
contents of the unconscious are acutely aware of language, and
particularly of the structure of language.
And here he follows ideas laid out by Saussure, but modifies them a
bit. Where Saussure talked about the relations between signifier and
signified, which form a sign, and insisted that the structure of
language is the negative relation among signs (one sign is what it is
because it is not another sign), Lacan focuses on relations between
signifiers alone. The elements in the unconscious--wishes, desires,
images--all form signifiers (and they're usually expressed in verbal
terms), and these signifiers form a "signifying chain"--one signifier
has meaning only because it is not some other signifier. For Lacan,
there are no signifieds; there is nothing that a signifier ultimately
refers to. If there were, then the meaning of any particular signifier
would be relatively stable--there would be (in Saussure's terms) a
relation of signification between signifier and signified, and that
relation would create or guarantee some kind of meaning. Lacan says
those relations of signification don't exist (in the unconscious, at
least); rather, there are only the negative relations, relations of
value, where one signifier is what it is because it's not something
else.
Because of this lack of signifieds, Lacan says, the chain of
signifiers--x=y=z=b=q=0=%=|=s (etc.)--is constantly sliding and
shifting and circulating. There is no anchor, nothing that ultimately
gives meaning or stability to the whole system. The chain of
signifiers is constantly in play (in Derrida's sense); there's no way
to stop sliding down the chain--no way to say "oh, x means this," and
have it be definitive. Rather, one signifier only leads to another
signifier, and never to a signified. It's kind of like a dictionary--
one word only leads you to more words, but never to the things the
words supposedly represent.
Lacan says this is what the unconscious looks like--a continually
circulating chain (or multiple chains) of signifiers, with no anchor--
or, to use Derrida's terms, no center. This is Lacan's linguistic
translation of Freud's picture of the unconscious as this chaotic
realm of constantly shifting drives and desires. Freud is interested
in how to bring those chaotic drives and desires into consciousness,
so that they can have some order and sense and meaning, so they can be
understood and made manageable. Lacan, on the other hand, says that
the process of becoming an adult, a "self," is the process of trying
to fix, to stabilize, to stop the chain of signifiers so that stable
meaning--including the meaning of "I"--becomes possible. Though of
course Lacan says that this possibility is only an illusion, an image
created by a misperception of the relation between body and self.
But I'm getting too far ahead of where we're going.
the oral, the anal, and the phallic; it's the Oedipus complex and
Castration complex that end polymorphous perversity and create "adult"
beings. Lacan creates different categories to explain a similar
trajectory, from infant to "adult." He talks about 3 concepts--need,
demand, and desire--that roughly correspond to 3 phases of
development, or 3 fields in which humans develop--the Real, the
Imaginary, and the Symbolic. The Symbolic realm, which is marked by
the concept of desire (I'll explain this in more detail later) is the
equivalent of adulthood; or, more specifically for Lacan, the Symbolic
realm is the structure of language itself, which we have to enter into
in order to become speaking subjects, in order to say "I" and have "I"
designate something which appears to be stable.
Like Freud, Lacan's infant starts out as something inseparable from
its mother; there's no distinction between self and other, between
baby and mother (at least, from the baby's perspective). In fact, the
baby (for both Freud and Lacan) is a kind of blob, with no sense of
self or individuated identity, and no sense even of its body as a
coherent unified whole. This baby-blob is driven by NEED; it needs
food, it needs comfort/safety, it needs to be changed, etc. These
needs are satisfiable, and can be satisfied by an object. When the
baby needs food, it gets a breast (or a bottle); when it needs safety,
it gets hugged. The baby, in this state of NEED, doesn't recognize any
distinction between itself and the objects that meet its needs; it
doesn't recognize that an object (like a breast) is part of another
whole person (because it doesn't have any concept yet of "whole
person"). There's no distinction between it and anyone or anything
else; there are only needs and things that satisfy those needs.
This is the state of "nature," which has to be broken up in order for
culture to be formed. This is true in both Freud's psychoanalysis and
in Lacan's: the infant must separate from its mother, form a separate
identity, in order to enter into civilization. That separation entails
some kind of LOSS; when the child knows the difference between itself
and its mother, and starts to become an individuated being, it loses
that primal sense of unity (and safety/security) that it originally
had. This is the element of the tragic built into psychoanalytic
theory (whether Freudian or Lacanian): to become a civilized "adult"
always entails the profound loss of an original unity, a non-
differentiation, a merging with others (particularly the mother).
The baby who has not yet made this separation, who has only needs
which are satisfiable, and which makes no distinction between itself
and the objects that satisfy its needs, exists in the realm of the
REAL, according to Lacan. The Real is a place (a psychic place, not a
physical place) where there is this original unity. Because of that,
there is no absence or loss or lack; the Real is all fullness and
completeness, where there's no need that can't be satisfied. And
because there is no absence or loss or lack, there is no language in
the Real.
Let me back up a bit to explain that. Lacan here follows an argument
Freud made about the idea of loss. In a case study which appears in
Freud's Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud talks about his nephew,
aged about 18 months, who is playing a game with a spool tied with
yarn. The kid throws the spool away, and says "Fort," which is German
for "gone." He pulls the spool back in, and says "Da," which is German
for "here." Freud says that this game was symbolic for the kid, a way
of working out his anxiety about his mother's absence. When he threw
the spool and said "Fort," he replayed the experience of the loss of a
beloved object; when he reeled it in and said "Da," he got pleasure
from the restoration of the object.
Lacan takes this case and focuses, of course, on the aspect of
language it displays. Lacan says that the fort/da game, which Freud
said happened when his nephew was about 18 months old, is about the
child's entry into the Symbolic, or into the structure of language
itself. Lacan says that language is always about loss or absence; you
only need words when the object you want is gone. If your world was
all fullness, with no absence, then you wouldn't need language.
(Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels, has a version of this: a
culture where there is no language, and people carry all the objects
they need to refer to on their backs).
Thus in the realm of the Real, according to Lacan, there is no
language because there is no loss, no lack, no absence; there is only
complete fullness, needs and the satisfaction of needs. Hence the Real
is always beyond language, unrepresentable in language (and therefore
irretrievably lost when one enters into language).
The Real, and the phase of need, last from birth till somewhere
between 6 and 18 months, when the baby blob starts to be able to
distinguish between its body and everything else in the world. At this
point, the baby shifts from having needs to having DEMANDS. Demands
are not satisfiable with objects; a demand is always a demand for
recognition from another, for love from another. The process works
like this: the baby starts to become aware that it is separate from
the mother, and that there exist things that are not part of it; thus
the idea of "other" is created. (Note, however, that as yet the binary
opposition of "self/other" doesn't yet exist, because the baby still
doesn't have a coherent sense of "self"). That awareness of
separation, or the fact of otherness, creates an anxiety, a sense of
loss. The baby then demands a reunion, a return to that original sense
of fullness and non-separation that it had in the Real. But that is
impossible, once the baby knows (and this knowing, remember, is all
happening on an unconscious level) that the idea of an "other" exists.
The baby demands to be filled by the other, to return to the sense of
original unity; the baby wants the idea of "other" to disappear.
Demand is thus the demand for the fullness, the completeness, of the
other that will stop up the lack the baby is experiencing. But of
course this is impossible, because that lack, or absence, the sense of
"other"ness, is the condition for the baby becoming a self/subject, a
functioning cultural being.
Because the demand is for recognition from the other, it can't really
be satisfied, if only because the 6-to-18 month infant can't SAY what
it wants. The baby cries, and the mother gives it a bottle, or a
breast, or a pacifier, or something, but no object can satisfy the
demand--the demand is for a response on a different level. The baby
can't recognize the ways the mother does respond to it, and recognize
it, because it doesn't yet have a conception of itself as a thing--it
only knows that this idea of "other" exists, and that it is separate
from the "other", but it doesn't yet have an idea of what its "self"
is.
This is where Lacan's MIRROR STAGE happens. At this age--between 6 and
18 months--the baby or child hasn't yet mastered its own body; it
doesn't have control over its own movements, and it doesn't have a
sense of its body as a whole. Rather, the baby experiences its body as
fragmented, or in pieces--whatever part is within its field of vision
is there as long as the baby can see it, but gone when the baby can't
see it. It may see its own hand, but it doesn't know that that hand
belongs to it--the hand could belong to anyone, or no one. However,
the child in this stage can imagine itself as whole--because it has
seen other people, and perceived them as whole beings.
Lacan says that at some point in this period, the baby will see itself
in a mirror. It will look at its reflection, then look back at a real
person--its mother, or some other person--then look again at the
mirror image. The child moves "from insufficiency to anticipation" in
this action; the mirror, and the moving back and forth from mirror
image to other people, gives it a sense that it, too, is an integrated
being, a whole person. The child, still unable to be whole, and hence
separate from others (though it has this notion of separation), in the
mirror stage begins to anticipate being whole. It moves from a
"fragmented body" to an "orthopedic vision of its totality", to a
vision of itself as whole and integrated, which is "orthopedic"
because it serves as a crutch, a corrective instrument, an aid to help
the child achieve the status of wholeness.
What the child anticipates is a sense of self as a unified separate
whole; the child sees that it looks like what "others" look like.
Eventually, this entity the child sees in the mirror, this whole
being, will be a "self," the entity designated by the word "I." What
is really happening, however, is an identification that is a
MISRECOGNITION. The child sees an image in the mirror; it thinks, that
image is "ME". But it's NOT the child; it's only an image. But another
person (usually the mother) is there to reinforce the misrecognition.
The baby looks in the mirror, and looks back at mother, and the mother
says, "Yes, it's you!" She guarantees the "reality" of the connection
between the child and its image, and the idea of the integrated whole
body the child is seeing and identifying with.
The child takes that image in the mirror as the summation of its
entire being, its "self." This process, of misrecognizing one's self
in the image in the mirror, creates the EGO, the thing that says "I."
In Lacan's terms, this misrecognition creates the "armor" of the
subject, an illusion or misperception of wholeness, integration, and
totality that surrounds and protects the fragmented body. To Lacan,
ego, or self, or "I"dentity, is always on some level a FANTASY, an
identification with an external image, and not an internal sense of
separate whole identity.
This is why Lacan calls the phase of demand, and the mirror stage, the
realm of the IMAGINARY. The idea of a self is created through an
Imaginary identification with the image in the mirror. The realm of
the Imaginary is where the alienated relation of self to its own image
is created and maintained. The Imaginary is a realm of images, whether
conscious or unconscious. It's prelinguistic, and preoedipal, but very
much based in visual perception, or what Lacan calls specular
imaging.
The mirror image, the whole person the baby mistakes as itself, is
known in psychoanalytic terminology as an "ideal ego," a perfect whole
self who has no insufficiency. This "ideal ego" becomes internalized;
we build our sense of "self," our "I"dentity, by (mis)identifying with
this ideal ego. By doing this, according to Lacan, we imagine a self
that has no lack, no notion of absence or incompleteness. The fiction
of the stable, whole, unified self that we see in the mirror becomes a
compensation for having lost the original oneness with the mother's
body. In short, according to Lacan, we lose our unity with the
mother's body, the state of "nature," in order to enter culture, but
we protect ourselves from the knowledge of that loss by misperceiving
ourselves as not lacking anything--as being complete unto ourselves.
Lacan says that the child's self-concept (its ego or "I"dentity) will
never match up to its own being. Its IMAGO in the mirror is both
smaller and more stable than the child, and is always "other" than the
child--something outside it. The child, for the rest of its life, will
misrecognize its self as "other, as the image in the mirror that
provides an illusion of self and of mastery.
The Imaginary is the psychic place, or phase, where the child projects
its ideas of "self" onto the mirror image it sees. The mirror stage
cements a self/other dichotomy, where previously the child had known
only "other," but not "self." For Lacan, the identification of "self"
is always in terms of "other." This is not the same as a binary
opposition, where "self"= what is not "other," and "other" = what is
not "self." Rather, "self" IS "other", in Lacan's view; the idea of
the self, that inner being we designate by "I," is based on an image,
an other. The concept of self relies on one's misidentification with
this image of an other.
Lacan uses the term "other" in a number of ways, which make it even
harder to grasp. First, and perhaps the easiest, is in the sense of
self/other, where "other" is the "not-me;" but, as we have seen, the
"other" becomes "me" in the mirror stage. Lacan also uses an idea of
Other, with a capital "o", to distinguish between the concept of the
other and actual others. The image the child sees in the mirror is an
other, and it gives the child the idea of Other as a structural
possibility, one which makes possible the structural possibility of
"I" or self. In other words, the child encounters actual others--its
own image, other people--and understands the idea of "Otherness,"
things that are not itself. According to Lacan, the notion of
Otherness, encountered in the Imaginary phase (and associated with
demand), comes before the sense of "self," which is built on the idea
of Otherness.
When the child has formulated some idea of Otherness, and of a self
identified with its own "other," its own mirror image, then the child
begins to enter the Symbolic realm. The Symbolic and the Imaginary are
overlapping, unlike Freud's phases of development; there's no clear
marker or division between the two, and in some respects they always
coexist. The Symbolic order is the structure of language itself; we
have to enter it in order to become speaking subjects, and to
designate ourselves by "I." The foundation for having a self lies in
the Imaginary projection of the self onto the specular image, the
other in the mirror, and having a self is expressed in saying "I,"
which can only occur within the Symbolic, which is why the two
coexist.
The fort/da game that the nephew played, in Freud's account, is in
Lacan's view a marker of the entry into the Symbolic, because Hans is
using language to negotiate the idea of absence and the idea of
Otherness as a category or structural possibility. The spool,
according to Lacan, serves as an "objet petit a," or "objet petit
autre"--an object which is a little "other," a small-o other. In
throwing it away, the child recognizes that others can disappear; in
pulling it back, the child recognizes that others can return. Lacan
emphasizes the former, insisting that Little Hans is primarily
concerned with the idea of lack or absence of the "objet petit
autre."
The "little other" illustrates for the child the idea of lack, of
loss, of absence, showing the child that it isn't complete in and of
itself. It is also the gateway to the Symbolic order, to language,
since language itself is premised on the idea of lack or absence.
Lacan says these ideas--of other and Other, of lack and absence, of
the (mis)identification of self with o/Other--are all worked out on an
individual level, with each child, but they form the basic structures
of the Symbolic order, of language, which the child must enter in
order to become an adult member of culture. Thus the otherness acted
out in the fort/da game (as well as by the distinctions made in the
Mirror Phase between self and other, mother and child) become
categorical or structural ideas. So, in the Symbolic, there is a
structure (or structuring principle) of Otherness, and a structuring
principle of Lack.
The Other (capital O) is a structural position in the Symbolic order.
It is the place that everyone is trying to get to, to merge with, in
order to get rid of the separation between "self" and "other." It is,
in Derrida's sense, the CENTER of the system, of the Symbolic and/or
of language itself. As such, the Other is the thing to which every
element relates. But, as the center, the Other (again, not a person
but a position) can't be merged with. Nothing can be in the center
with the Other, even though everything in the system (people, e.g.)
want to be. So the position of the Other creates and sustains a never-
ending LACK, which Lacan calls DESIRE. Desire is the desire to be the
Other. By definition, desire can never be fulfilled: it's not desire
for some object (which would be need) or desire for love or another
person's recognition of oneself (which would be demand), but desire to
be the center of the system, the center of the Symbolic, the center of
language itself.
The center has a lot of names in Lacanian theory. It's the Other; it's
also called the PHALLUS. Here's where Lacan borrows again from Freud's
original Oedipus theory.
The mirror stage is pre-oedipal. The self is constructed in relation
to an other, to the idea of Other, and the self wants to merge with
the Other. As in Freud's world, the most important other in the
child's life is the mother; so the child wants to merge with its
mother. In Lacan's terms, this is the child's demand that the self/
other split be erased. The child decides that it can merge with the
mother if it becomes what the mother wants it to be--in Lacan's terms,
the child tries to fulfill the mother's desire. The mother's desire
(formed by her own entry into the Symbolic, because she is already an
adult) is to not have lack, or Lack (or to be the Other, the center,
the place where nothing is lacking). This fits with the Freudian
version of the Oedipus complex, where the child wants to merge with
its mother by having sexual intercourse with her. In Freud's model,
the idea of lack is represented by the lack of a penis. The boy who
wants to sleep with his mother wants to complete her lack by filling
her up with his penis.
In Freud's view, what breaks this oedipal desire up, for boys anyway,
is the father, who threatens castration. The father threatens to make
the boy experience lack, the absence of the penis, if he tries to use
his penis to make up for the mother's lack of a penis. In Lacan's
terms, the threat of castration is a metaphor for the whole idea of
Lack as a structural concept. For Lacan, it isn't the real father who
threatens castration. Rather, because the idea of lack, or Lack, is
essential to the concept of language, because the concept of Lack is
part of the basic structuration of language, the father becomes a
function of the linguistic structure. The Father, rather than being a
person, becomes a structuring principle of the Symbolic order.
For Lacan, Freud's angry father becomes the Name-of-the-Father, or the
Law-of-the-Father, or sometimes just the Law. Submission to the rules
of language itself--the Law of the Father--is required in order to
enter into the Symbolic order. To become a speaking subject, you have
to be subjected to, you have to obey, the laws and rules of language.
Lacan designates the idea of the structure of language, and its rules,
as specifically paternal. He calls the rules of language the Law-of-
the-Father in order to link the entry into the Symbolic, the structure
of language, to Freud's notion of the oedipus and castration
complexes.
The Law-of-the-Father, or Name-of-the-Father, is another term for the
Other, for the center of the system, the thing that governs the whole
structure--its shape and how all the elements in the system can move
and form relationships. This center is also called the PHALLUS, to
underline even more the patriarchal nature of the Symbolic order. The
Phallus, as center, limits the play of elements, and gives stability
to the whole structure. The Phallus anchors the chains of signifiers
which, in the unconscious, are just floating and unfixed, always
sliding and shifting. The Phallus stops play, so that signifiers can
have some stable meaning. It is because the Phallus is the center of
the Symbolic order, of language, that the term "I" designates the idea
of the self (and, additionally, why any other word has stable
meaning).
The Phallus is not the same as the penis. Penises belong to
individuals; the Phallus belongs to the structure of language itself.
No one has it, just like no one governs language or rules language.
Rather, the Phallus is the center. It governs the whole structure,
it's what everyone wants to be (or have), but no one can get there (no
element of the system can take the place of the center). That's what
Lacan calls DESIRE: the desire, which is never satisfied, because it
can never be satisfied, to be the center, to rule the system.
Lacan says that boys can think they have a shot at being the Phallus,
at occupying the position of center, because they have penises. Girls
have a harder time misperceiving themselves as having a shot at the
Phallus because they are (as Freud says) constituted by and as lack,
lacking a penis, and the Phallus is a place where there is no lack.
But, Lacan says, every subject in language is constituted by/as lack,
or Lack. The only reason we have language at all is because of the
loss, or lack, of the union with the maternal body. In fact, it is the
necessity to become part of "culture," to become subjects in language,
that forces that absence, loss, lack.
The distinction between the sexes is significant in Lacan's theory,
though not in the same way it is in Freud's. This is what Lacan talks
about in "The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious," on p. 741. He
has two drawings there. One is of the word "Tree" over a picture of a
tree--the basic Saussurean concept, of signifier (word) over signified
(object). Then he has another drawing, of two identical doors (the
signifieds). But over each door is a different word: one says "Ladies"
"A train arrives at a station. A little boy and a little girl, brother
and sister, are seated in a compartment face to face next to the
window through which the buildings along the station platform can be
seen passing as the train pulls to a stop. 'Look,' says the brother,
'We're at Ladies!' 'Idiot!' replies his sister, 'Can't you see we're
at Gentlemen.'"
This anecdote shows how boys and girls enter the Symbolic order, the
structure of language, differently. In Lacan's view, each child can
only see the signifier of the other gender; each child constructs its
world view, its understanding of the relation between sfr and sfd in
naming locations, as the consequence of seeing an "other." As Lacan
puts it (742), "For these children, Ladies and Gentlemen will be
henceforth two countries toward which each of their souls will strive
on divergent wings..." Each child, each sex, has a particular position
within the Symbolic order; from that position, each sex can only see
(or signify) the otherness of the other sex. You might take Lacan's
drawing of the two doors literally: these are the doors, with their
gender distinctions, through which each child must pass in order to
enter into the Symbolic realm.
So, to summarize. Lacan's theory starts with the idea of the Real;
this is the union with the mother's body, which is a state of nature,
and must be broken up in order to build culture. Once you move out of
the Real, you can never get back, but you always want to. This is the
first idea of an irretrievable loss or lack.
Next comes the Mirror stage, which constitutes the Imaginary. Here you
grasp the idea of others, and begin to understand Otherness as a
concept or a structuring principle, and thus begin to formulate a
notion of "self". This "self" (as seen in the mirror) is in fact an
other, but you misrecognize it as you, and call it "self." (Or, in non-
theory language, you look in the mirror and say "hey, that's me." But
it's not--it's just an image).
This sense of self, and its relation to others and to Other, sets you
up to take up a position in the Symbolic order, in language. Such a
position allows you to say "I", to be a speaking subject. "I" (and all
other words) have a stable meaning because they are fixed, or
anchored, by the Other/Phallus/Name-of-the-Father/Law, which is the
center of the Symbolic, the center of language.
In taking up a position in the Symbolic, you enter through a gender-
marked doorway; the position for girls is different than the position
for boys. Boys are closer to the Phallus than girls, but no one is or
has the Phallus--it's the center. Your position in the Symbolic, like
the position of all other signifying elements (signifiers) is fixed by
the Phallus; unlike the unconscious, the chains of signifiers in the
Symbolic don't circulate and slide endlessly because the Phallus
limits play.
Paradoxically--as if all this wasn't bad enough!--the Phallus and the
Real are pretty similar. Both are places where things are whole,
complete, full, unified, where there's no lack, or Lack. Both are
places that are inaccessible to the human subject-in-language. But
they are also opposite: the Real is the maternal, the ground from
which we spring, the nature we have to separate from in order to have
culture; the Phallus is the idea of the Father, the patriarchal order
of culture, the ultimate idea of culture, the position which rules
everything in the world.
Such a mish mosh of theory the Psychoanalysis school created....old
derivitive stuff too. Nothing new and no real practice.

Like Jung, Borrowed ideas from "Mind Only" School of
buddhism..........................theoretical meanderings attampt at being
like a "mind only" Buddhist school.


All been done before in far more depth and with far more direct experience,
for thousands of years.




"Yogaacaara Buddhism was first introduced into China
in the early sixth century through the effort of the
so-called Ti-lun masters(a) and She-lun masters(b),
who based their teachings on the
Da`sabhuumikasuutra-`saastra (Ti-lun) and
Mahaayaanasa.mgraha`saastra (she-lun) of Vasubandhu
and Asa^nga, respectively.(1) While these Ti-lun and
She-lun masters shared the general Yogaacaara
concern for the problem of the mind, their
understanding of the mind's nature, functions, and
role in the process of enlightenment differed
markedly from the original Indian model. In this
article we shall attempt to outline some of the main
features of the early Chinese Yogaacaara teaching of
the mind based on the works of Hui-yuan of the
Ching-ying Temple(c),(2) who had the distinction of
being the only Ti-lun master who had left behind a
wide assortment of writings,(3) which at present
constitute the single most important source for the
study of the early interpretation of Yogaacaara
thought in China.(4)

I. MIND-ONLY AS THE CENTRAL THEME OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM

Among the many ways of classifying Buddhist texts
current in his time,(5) Hui-yuan favors the twofold
division into "the canon of the `sraavakas"
(sheng-wen tsang(d) ) and "the canon of the
bodhisattvas" (p'u-sa tsang(e)), which corresponds
to the traditional division of Buddhism into the two
branches of the Hiinayaana and the Mahaayaana. Of
the many ideas peculiar to the Mahaayaana group of
scriptures, Hui-yuan mentions in particular the
tenet of mind only:

In the teaching of the Mahaayaana, it is maintained
that all dharmas are merely beings of the mind, just
as appearances in dreams. When the mind arises,
dharmas [also] arise; and when the mind is
annihilated, dharmas are [also] annihilated. Since
[the activities of] the false mind will cease with
the attainment of nirvaa.na, all dharmas, being
appearances of the mind, will [also] come to an
end.(6)

Contrasting the Hiinayaana with the Mahaayaana
conceptions of the false consciousness, Hui-yuan
points out that while the Hiinayaanists realize the
mistake of attributing self-nature to dharmas, they
cannot comprehend that all dharmas are founded on
the mind:

As depicted in Hiinayaana [texts], the grasping and
the deluded mind erroneously regards dharmas outside
the mind as possessing self-nature, and does not
perceive that [all] nameable functions are without
[self-] essence. As depicted in the teaching of the
Mahaayaana, the false consciousness deceives and
hides the true essence, and wrongly considers
dharmas arising from itself as real.(7)

His conception of Mahaayaana Buddhism being such, it
is not surprising that Hui-yuan, a self-avowed
Mahaayaanist like most Chinese Buddhists, would come
to adopt the thesis of mind-only as the core of his
ontology. Thus, we often find in his writings such
statements as "All dharmas are produced by the one
mind,

P352


just as events in dreams are created by the mind in
slumber,"(8) "There exist at first false thoughts,
which conceive of [the existence of] dharmas outside
the mind, not realizing that dharmas owe their being
to the mind,"(9) and so forth. The idea that there
exist no mind-independent entities is central to
Hui-yuan's world view. So he remarks, "No realm [of
being] originates from itself, but is formed by the
mind."(10) Again he asserts, "One perceives that the
external world arises from the mind only. That there
exists no realm outside the mind is known as 'the
nature of no-form' (wu-hsiang hsing(f))."(11)

Quotation 6, preceding, mentions that dharmas
will come to an end when the false mind ceases to
exist, and quotation 7 declares that dharmas arise
out of the false mind. Both citations give the
impression that the mind constituting the ultimate
reality in Hui-yuan's ontology is defiled in nature.
However, Hui-yuan affirms very emphatically in the
Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun i-su(g) (Commentary on the
Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun(h), henceforth abbreviated
to Commentary) that to talk of things proceeding
from false thoughts is provisional, whereas in
truth, all dharmas evolve from the
true-consciousness (chen-shih(i)):

By "all dharmas", [the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun]
refers to various dharmas [of the realm] of
samsaara. [The term "mind" in the phrase] "are
developed from the mind" refers to the
true-consciousness, As false [dharmas] do not exist
on their own but arise dependent on the true
[-mind], it is said that [dharmas] evolve from the
mind. [The term "false thoughts" in the clause] "are
produced by false thoughts" refers to the seventh
consciousness.(12) If we consider the immediate
[condition], dharmas pertaining to the samsaaric
[realm] are the products of false thoughts.(13)

In the same text, he outlines three ways of
apprehending the truth of mind-only, culminating in
the contemplation of the true-mind as the foundation
of all beings, including the false mind:

There are three kinds of contemplation:

1. The contemplation of false appearances:

It perceives that the three realms(14) are false
appearances proceeding from the mind only, just
like objects produced in dreams. Equipped with
the idea of nonexistence, [it comprehends that]
there is ultimately no dharma outside the mind.

2. The contemplation of false thoughts:

It perceives that what the false mind constructs
is without substance and comes into being
dependent on the true [mind], just as waves are
dependent on water....

3. The contemplation of the true [-mind]:

It perceives that all dharmas without exception
originate and are formed from the true [-mind],
and other than the true [-mind], there is
absolutely nothing which can give rise to false
thoughts. Since nothing [other than the
true-mind] can give rise to false thoughts, even
the false mind [to which common sense attributes
the production of false thoughts] is in truth
nonexistent.(15)

In one place, he speaks of the tathaagatagarbha, the
other name for the truemind, as the basis of our
everyday world of name and form.(16) In another

P353

instance, he refers to the tathaagatagarbha as the
"substance, " with the realms of sa.msaara and
nirvaa.na as its "functions."(17) All in all,
"mind-only" in Hui-yuan's system of thought denotes
in final analysis the ontological dependence of all
phenomenal beings whether physical or mental on the
intrinsically pure mind which every sentient being
originally possesses. This thesis, in Hui-yuan's
opinion, represents the most profound as well as the
most truthful interpretation of the nature of
reality in Buddhism.

II. THE SYSTEM OF EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESSES (1): THE
AALAYA-CONSCIOUSNESS OR THE EIGHTH CONSCIOUSNESS

In Hui-yuan's writings, the idea of mind-only is
couched in the framework of the theory of eight
consciousnesses, which testifies abundantly to the
Yogaacaara as well as the Ti-lun descent of his
teaching.(18) According to Hui-yuan, depending on
how one approaches the matter, the mind of each
sentient being can be viewed as one totality, or be
analyzed into two, three, four, and up to sixty or
even more aspects.(19) However, influenced by the
La^nkaavataara-suutra, Hui-yuan favors the scheme of
eight consciousnesses:

The idea of [the existence of] eight consciousnesses
comes from the La^naavataara-suutra. Thus, in the
sutra, [the Bodhisattva] Mahaamati addresses the
Buddha. "World-honored one! Do you establish [the
theory of] eight consciousnesses?" The Buddha says
"I establish it." (T, vol. 16, p. 496a, 11.21-22)
What we call "consciousness" is the other name for
"mental congnition" (shen-chih(j)). Examined from
[different] perspectives, the number of
consciousnesses become innumerable, but we now adopt
one interpretation, and discuss eight types [of
consciousnesses]. What are the names of these eight?
They are: (i) eye-consciousness, (ii)
ear-consciousness, (iii) nose-consciousness, (iv)
tongue-consciousness, (v) body-consciousness, (vi)
mind-consciousness, (vii) aadaana-consciousness, and
(viii) aalaya-consciousness.(20)

The nature of the eight consciousnesses can be
inferred from their names:

The first six of the eight [consciousnesses] receive
their names from the senseorgans [with which they
are associated], whereas the last two express
[different aspects of] the substance [of the mind].
The sense organs are namely eye, ear, nose, tongue,
body, and mind. When we apprehend consciousness from
these [six perspectives], we thereby come to have
[the first] six types [of consciousness]. Since the
substance [of the mind] includes [both aspects of]
the true and the false, it is further divided into
two.(21)

When the mind functions in connection with the six
organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and
mind,(22) it is known as the eye-consciousness,
ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and
mind-consciousness, respectively. In itself, the
mind includes both aspects of the true and the
false, which make up the aalaya-consciousness and
the aadana-consciousness, respectively. Thus,
altogether, we come to have a scheme of eight
consciousnesses. In this section, we shall take up
the aalaya-consciousness first.

P354

The word "aalaya," judged from its Sanskrit root
a-/li (to adhere, to cling), suggests a propensity
for attachment and so denotes something which ought
to be transformed by proper religious practices.
Such is the conception of the aalaya found in such
standard Indian Yogaacaara works as the
Yogaacaaryabhuumi-`sastra, the
Mahaayaanasa.mgraha-`saastra, and the
Tri.m`sikaavij~napti-kaarikaa, in which the
aalaya-consciousness is given as the subject of
transmigration, the origin of the realm of samsaara,
and the repository of karmic effects both pure and
impure.(23) Hui-yuan, on the other hand, due to his
Ti-lun upbringing, considers the "aalaya" as
standing for the true aspect of the mind.(24)
Speaking on the meaning of the term "aalaya,"
Hui-yuan writes in the Ta-ch'eng i chang(k)
(Essentials of the Mahaayaana, henceforth
abbreviated to Essentials):

"AAlaya", rendered literally into our language,
means "never loses." That is, it never loses [its
true nature] even when [transmigrating] in [the
realm of] samsara.(25)

This definition is followed by a long list of names
considered by Hui-yuan to be equivalent to the
"aalaya":

When rendered freely according to its significance,
[the aalaya] is known by eight different names:

1. It is known as the tsang-shih(l)
(storehouse-consciousness) , for this
consciousness is the tsang (embryo, garbha) of
the tathaagata....(26)

2. It is known as the sheng-shih(m)
(holy-conciousness), for it is the basis of the
activities of the great sages.

3. It is known as the ti-i-i shih(n) (supreme
consciousness), for it is [in nature] the most
excellent....

4. It is known as the ching-shih(o)
(pure-consciousness), also as the wu-kou shih(p)
(nondefiled consciousness), for its substance can
never be soiled....

5. It is known as the chen-shih(q)
(true-consciousness), for it is in essence devoid
of falsehood....

6. It is known as the chen-ju shih(r)
(tathataa-consciousness), as is explained in the
[Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin] lun: "Since the essence of
the mind cannot be destroyed, it is known as
chen. Since [the mind is self-sufficient and
depends on the sustenance of nothing, it is known
as ju." (T, vol. 32, p. 576a, 11. 15-16)

7. It is known as the chia-shih(s)
(home-consciousness), also as the chai-shih(t)
(residence-consciousness), for it acts as the
support of false dharmas.

8. It is known as the pen-shih(u)
(root-consciousness) , for it constitutes the
ground of the false mind.(27)

From the above inventory of synonyms of the
aalaya,(28) it is evident that in Hui-yuan yuan's
system of thought, the aalaya-consciousness denotes
the tathaagatagarbha (1), that is, the intrinsically
pure consciousness (3, 4), which may be overlaid
with defilements but can never be soiled in essence
(5). This consciousness is eternal (6), and is the
origin of both the physical and mental aspects of
the phenomenal world (7, 8). As the basis of all
religious activities, it makes possible the
attainment of the supreme enlightenment (2). Every
sentient being possesses this immaculate principle,
as Hui-yuan emphasizes in the Commentary:

With respect to deeds, the common man and the sage
are different, each [creat-

P355

ing] his own causes and [reaping] his own fruits.
With respect to [inner] principle, however, they are
the same and [are of] one flavor. This principle
does not diminish in the case of the two vehicles
[the `sraavakas and the pratyekabuddhas), nor does
it augment in the cases of the buddhas and
bodhisattvas.(29)

In his discussion of the true-consciousness
which is the aalaya, Hui-yuan follows the Ta-ch'eng
ch'i-hsin lun, and analyses it into the three
aspects of substance (t'i(v) ) , characteristics
(hsiang(w)), and function (yung(x)):(30)

Regarding the true-consciousness, it can be divided
into three aspects, that is, substance,
characteristics, and function. With respect to
"substance," the true-consciousness is known as the
tathataa, which is profound, tranquil, and equal.
Being the final reality (ju-ju(y)) which is of one
flavor, it remains self-same whether when hidden or
when manifested, whether amidst defilements or [the
state of] purity. It remains placid at all times,
and falls neither under [the category of] cause nor
under [the category of] effect. With respect to
"characteristics, " this consciousness is the
cognitive mind pertaining to [the realm of] the
tathaagatagarbha, and is constituted of
buddha-dharmas [as numerous as] the sand of the
Ganges; just as the cognitive mind pertaining to
[the realm of] worldly dharmas is constituted of
[the features of] pain and impermanence. When this
true mind is in [the state of] falsehood, its
[excellent] characteristics are obscured and [so] is
described as "defiled." When it is freed from the
bonds of defilement, it is counted as "pure." When
its pure characteristics are not yet fully
[restored], it is known as the "cause." When its
pure characteristics are perfected, it is known as
the "effect".... As for "function, " when the
true-consciousness is in a defiled state, it is
allied to false thoughts and produces [the realm of]
sa.msaara. When it is in a pure condition, it
produces [various] deeds of virtue in response to
[the vices it is trying to] eliminate. When the
deeds of virtue are not yet perfected, this mind is
known as the "cause" of expedient acts. When the
deeds of virtue come to final completion, it is
known as the "effect" of expedient acts.(31)

By the aspect "substance, " Hui-yuan means the
true-consciousness as it is in itself. As such, it
is the "final reality" which is "profound, tranquil,
and equal." Being eternal and immutable, it is above
all distinctions, and so the appellations "cause"
and "effect" are not applicable to it. By the aspect
"characteristics," Hui-yuan refers to the manifested
features of the true-consciousness when it is in
interaction with worldly dharmas. Unlike worldly
dharmas which are stamped with the marks of pain and
impermanence, the true-consciousness possesses all
the excellent attributes of the tathaagatagarbha.
When these excellent attributes are obscured by
worldly dharmas, the true-consciousness is described
as "defiled" or the "cause." When all impure
influences are removed, the true-consciousness is
described as "pure" or the "fruit." So, it comes
about that such terms as "defiled," "cause," and
"effect" can be used to represent the
true-consciousness in its relation with the mundane
world, even when it is understood that they are not
appropriate descriptions of the true-consciousness
as it is in itself. By the aspect "function,"
Hui-yuan alludes to the true-consciousness as the
ontological ground of both the realms of sa.msaara
and nirvaa.na. When the true-consciousness is allied
to false thoughts, it is the source of the
origination of mundane existences. When considered
in connection with

P356

virtuous deeds, it constitutes the "cause" as well
as the "effect" of opportune religious practices.

Besides telling us what the true-consciousness
or the aalaya is, Hui-yuan also informs us what the
true-consciousness or the aalaya is not. Hui-yuan
mentions several misconceptions of the nature and
functions of the aalaya, which he classifies into
two categories: those connected with the notion of
"being" (yu(z)), and those connected with the notion
of "nonbeing" (wu(aa)).(33) Under the first heading,
he mentions the following errors:

1. There are those who, on hearing that the
true-consciousness is the "self," identify it
with the eternal soul or aatman taught by the
non-Buddhists. To counteract this
misunderstanding, Hui-yuan declares that "the
tathaagatagarbha is neither the aatman, nor
sentient beings, nor [the force of] life, nor the
pudgala."(34)

2. There are those who, on hearing that both the
realms of sa.msaara.a and nirvaa.na originate
from the true-consciousness, think that the
true-consciousness is composed of defiled as well
as nondefiled elements. Quoting the Ta-ch'eng
ch'i-hsin lun, Hui-yuan stresses that "the
tathaatagarbha is intrinsically pure. It contains
from the beginning only pure buddha-dharmas [as
numerous as] the sand of the Ganges, and is never
soiled."(35)

3. There are those, who, on hearing that the
true-consciousness is resplendent in excellent
qualities, imagines that it is composite in
nature. Again citing the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun,
Hui-yuan reminds us that the tathataa which is
the true mind transcends all differences, even
including the difference of tran-scendence and
nontranscendence. We described the
true-consciousness as endowed with myriads of
merits in order to contrast it with the everyday
world of defilements, whereas in truth, all
excellent qualities give up their individuality
to constitute one nature in the pure mind, so
much so that no distinction can be made of them
any longer.(36)

4. There are those who, on hearing that the
tathaagatagarha is the ground of sa.msaara,
thinks that there is a particular point in time
at which the pure-consciousness begins to give
rise to the sa.msaaric realm. Furthermore, they
reason that this tendency of the
pure-consciousness to give rise to the realm of
sa.msaara does not cease with the attainment of
nirvaa.na, and when it is again in operation, the
nirvaa.na once reached will come to an end. Once
more drawing upon the Ta-ch'eng ch'i hsin lun,
Hui-yuan underlines that the tathaagatagarbha
"has neither a beginning nor an end, " and
explains: Since the tathaagatagarbha has no
beginning and is the ground of sa.msaara,
sa.msaara [also] has no beginning....Since the
tathaagatagarbha has no end and is the ground of
nirvaa.na, nirvaa.na [also] has no end.(37)

By the misconception connected with the notion of
"nonbeing," Hui-yuan refers to the thesis that the
concept "tathaagatagarbha" denotes nothing more than
the truth of the empty nature of all beings:

There are people who declare that the truth of the
empty [nature] of dharmas is the true-consciousness.
To correct this error, we assert that the
tathaagatagarbha is truly nonempty. As the
[true]-consciousness embodies buddha-dharmas [as
numerous as] the sand of the Ganges, how can it be
taken as [totally] empty? .... When the
La^nkaavataara-suutra applies [the concept of]
no-self to the tathaagatagarbha (T, vol. 16, p.
489b) . it alludes to the fact that the
tathaagatagarbha is called empty because it is
without false discriminations,


P357


[without implying that] there exist no true dharmas.
So the Vij~naptimaatrasiddhi maintains that in order
to put an end to the non-Buddhists' attachment to
[the idea of] the self and things pertaining to the
self, it is taught that matter and all kinds of
dharmas are empty, but this does not mean that the
"realm of reality" (ju-shih ching(ab) ) which
transcends common speech is empty as well.(38) The
"realm of reality" is the sphere of the buddhas and
tathaagatas, in which no consciousness other than
the storehouse-consciousness (the aalaya)
exists.(39)

Unlike the Maadhyamikas who are skeptical of
metaphysical speculation and do not acknowledge any
entity as ontologically primary, the Yogaacaarins
propound a philosophy of ideation-only, in which all
phenomenal beings are regarded as projections of the
original mind. While Hui-yuan departs from orthodox
Indian Yogaacaarism in his understanding of the
moral species and functions of this original mind,
the Yogaacaara descent of his teaching comes out
conspicuously in the above criticism of the
interpretation of the concept of
"true-consciousness" as the truth of emptiness, an
interpretation with a distinct Maadhyamika
undertone. In opposition to this non-Yogaacaara
understanding of the teaching of mind-only, Hui-yuan
upholds that "emptiness" when connoting
"nonexistence" is appropriate only in reference to
beings of the realm of sa.msaara. When applied to
the true-consciousness or the tathaagatagarbha,
"emptiness" merely alludes to the freedom from all
false discriminations of the true mind, and does not
carry any sense of denial of its existence:

Some people expound that the true-consciousness does
not denote [an actual] consciousness but only
[stands] for the principle of emptiness. [Since
emptiness] is the essence of consciousness, we call
it by the name "consciousness" by way of inference.
Such a view is the extreme of absurdity, and should
not be accepted. It is the real, cognitive mind
which is called the [true]-consciousness. How can it
be said that [the mind] is totally empty?(40)

That the tenet of the "true-consciousness" is not
merely a soteriological device or a more picturesque
way of expressing a general truth, but actually
stipulates the existence of a veritable entity, is a
point which Hui-yuan returns to again and again in
his writings. When discussing the question of
"extinction" and "nonextinction" of the true-mind,
Hui-yuan observes:

When false [dharmas] are completely annihilated, the
[activities of the] true [mind] also come to an end,
and will never arise again. So it is said that the
[true-mind] is extinct. [However], since the
substance of the true [mind] will abide forever, we
[also] say that the true [mind] is not extinct.(41)

Commenting on the remark of the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin
lun that "When we speak of cessation [of the mind,
we refer to] the cessation of its marks (hsiang(w)),
not the cessation of its substance (t'i(v)),"(42)
Hui-yuan writes in the Commentary:

By "When we speak of cessation of the mind, we refer
to the cessation of its marks," [the `Saastra]
alludes to [the cessation of] the false
consciousnesses. By "not to the cessation of its
substance, " [the Saastra] alludes to [the
non-cessation of] the true-consciousness. The fact
that the false consciousnesses can be completely
destroyed does not prevent the [true]-consciousness
from existing


P358

[eternally], Since the true-consciousness exists
eternally, sentient beings are not annihilated [with
the extinction of the false consciousnesses]. Since
the false consciousnesses will eventually be
extirpated, sentient beings [will sooner or later]
fulfill the true [end of Buddhahood].(43)

III. THE SYSTEM OF EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESS (2): THE
AADAANA-CONSCIOUSNESS OR THE SEVENTH CONSCIOUSNESS

Besides the aalaya or the eighth consciousness,
Hui-yuan also mentions the aadaana-consciousness as
a distinctive element in the picture of reality of
Mahaayaana Buddhism. Hui-yuan defines the term
"aadaana" as follows:

"AAdaana," rendered literally into our language,
means "not [yet] emancipated" (wu-chieh(ac)). That
is, it is essentially an ignorant and deluded
mind.(44)

This definition concurs with the meaning of the
Sanskrit root of aadaana: a-/daa (to take, to seize,
to draw near to oneself), and is similar to the
explanations given of the term in the
Sa.mdhinirmocan-suutra, the
Mahaayaanasa.mgraha-`saastra, and the Ch'eng
wei-shih lun(ad).(45) However, in the aforementioned
works, the aadaana is considered as the other name
for the aalaya, denoting primarily the latter's
roles as the support of the material organs and the
repository of karmic effects.(46) Since in
Hui-yuan's ontological scheme, the aalaya has been
transformed into a pure consciousness, the term
aadaana, with its derogatory sense of "to hold" and
"to grasp," is clearly no longer appropriate as its
designation. Thus, following the precedence of
Paramaartha (499-569), the founder of the She-lun
School,(47) Hui-yuan uses the term "aadaana" to
refer to the seventh consciousness. As with the
aalaya, Hui-yuan's conception of the aadaana or the
seventh consciousness can be discerned from his
exposition of its synonyms:

When rendered freely according to its significance,
[the aadaana] is known by eight different names:

1. It is known as the ignorant consciousness
(wu-ming shih(ae)), for it is in essence the
ground of the original ignorance.(48)

2. It is known as the activity-consciousness
(yeh-shih(af)), for owing to [the functioning of]
the ignorant mind, false thoughts [pertaining to
the realm of] nonenlightenment are suddenly set
in motion.

3. It is known as the evolving-consciousness
(chuan-shih(ag)), for owing to [the functioning
of] the aforementioned activity-consciousness, it
gradually assumes gross characteristics, giving
rise to external phenomena which it [in turn]
discriminates and lays hold of.

4. It is known as the reproducing-consciousness
(hsien-shih(ah)), for the false objects [the
evolving-consciousness] give rise to reproducing
[the defiled state of] the mind itself, just as a
bright mirror reproduces the appearances of object
[placed in front of it]

5. It is known as the
congnitive-consciousness(chih-shih(ai)), for it
distinguishes between the defiled and the
nondefiled, the disagreeable and the agreeable
[and so forth] among objects reproduced by the
above-mentioned "reproducing-consciousness."
"Cognition" here denotes [a kind of] dull, false
discernment, not wisdom [which is conducive to]
understanding and deliverance.

6. It is known as the continuous-consciousness
(hsiang-hsu shih(aj), for en-

P359

chained by false appearances, it complies with
the world of objects and grasps at it
incessantly. Furthermore, it can retain karmic
effects good or evil.

7. It is known as the false-consciousness
(wang-shih(ak) ) , for the six forms [of
consciousness](l-6) mentioned above are all [in
nature] untrue.

8. It is known as the clinging-consciousness
(chih-shih(al)), for it clings to [the idea of]
the self, and also clings to all false
appearances.(49)

According to the account just given, the
aadaana-consciousness, being "the ground of the
original ignorance" (1) and the cause of the
production of "false thoughts" and "false objects"
(2, 3, & 4), is the source of defilements and
nonenlightenment (7) . Its function is to
discriminate (5), and it clings to the idea of the
self and false appearances (6 & 8) . As the
repository of karmic effects good or evil (6), it
ensures the never failing operation of the law of
retribution and is the subject of
transmigration.(50)

Of the many analyses Hui-yuan makes of the
aadaana or the seventh con-sciousness, the division
into the four characteristics of "function," "self,"
"ignorance," and "principle" is among the most
illuminating. By the characteristic "function, "
Hui-yuan has in mind the aadaana as the direct cause
of the arising of the first six consciousnesses
(eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness,
nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness,
body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness) and
their corresponding sense-organs (eye, ear, nose,
tongue, body, and mind) and sense-objects (color,
sound, smell, taste, touch, and ideas):

Regarding the four [characteristics] of the
"false-[consciousness] (the aadaana), the first is
the characteristic "function," which is [connected
with] the [first] six consciousnesses. The false
mind generates the [six] sense-organs, [six]
sense-objects, and [six] consciousnesses, just like
the appearances created in dreams. In this respect,
the false-[consciousness] gives rise to the [first]
six consciousnesses, which, with the six
sense-organs arising from the same mind [as
support], apprehend the six sense-objects [likewise]
arising from this same mind, and so is described as
"function."(51)

The characteristic "self" indicates the aadaana's
erroneous tendencies to regard objects originating
from its own activities as possessing independent
essences and to draw a fast line between itself and
other sentient beings.(52) "Ignorance" intimates in
general the deluded essence of the aadaana:

The third is the characteristic "ignorance," which
refers to [the false-consciousness as] the ground of
ignorance. As the nonenlightened mind, it fails to
realize the tathataa and also can not comprehend
that [all] productions of the false mind are
illusory and nonexistent.(53)

The characteristic "principle" represents the
aadaana-consciousness as it actually is: "neither
being nor nonbeing":

As for the fourth characteristic, "principle," it
refers to [the fact that the false-consciousness,
which is endowed with] the aforementioned three
characteristics, is [in essence] "neither being nor
nonbeing." [The false-consciousness] is said to be
"neither being," for [all] false forms are without
substance. It is said to be "nor nonbeing," for it
generates all sorts of false affections. Again, it
is called "neither being, " for the [six]
sense-organs, [six] sense-objects and [six]

P360


consciousnesses originating from this [false] mind
[are ephemeral and] do not exist apart from the
mind. It is called "nor nonbeing," for this false
mind has [the six sense-organs, six sense-objects,
and six-consciousnesses] as its illusory
manifestations.(54)

The aadaana or false-consciousness can be denoted as
"nor nonbeing," for it is the origin of "false
affections" and the cause of the appearance of the
six senseorgans, six sense-objects, and the six
consciousnesses. Yet, it can also be designated as
"neither being," for like all "false forms," it
relies entirely on the ture-consciousness or the
aalaya for its existence, and the sense-organs,
sense-objects, and consciousnesses which it gives
rise to also enjoy no independent being outside the
true mind. Lest anyone on reading such passages as
quotations 49 and 51 preceding would misunderstand
that the aadaana-conscoiousness is the first reality
and can generate the entire phenomenal world on its
own, Hui-yuan is especially careful to remind us of
this "neither being" aspect of the aadaana. So he
declares that "the false self (aadaana) arises
dependent on the true self (aalaya),"(55) and that
the false-consciousness is ultimately speaking as
much a phenomenal entity as the objects it helps to
create, being itself "a transient dharma" dependent
on the true-consciousness for its being.(56)

Again, as in the case of the aalaya, as much can
be learned of the aadaana-consciousness from what
Hui-yuan says it is not, as from what he says it is.
Hui-yuan enumerates six principal misconceptions
regarding the aadaana-consciousness:(57)

1. There are those who, on hearing that there are
only the six sense-organs eye, ear, nose, and so
forth, conclude thereby that there can only be
six consciousnesses, and that there can exist no
other consciousness to which no senseorgan
corresponds. Against this view, Hui-yuan argues
that there ought to be a seventh consciousness
besides the first six consciousnesses, for if it
were not so, the `sraavakas and pratyekabuddhas
would achieve full buddhahood when they enter the
"nirvaa.na without residue," for or at the time
they reach this state, their six consciousnesses
would be completely annihilated, and there would
remain no impure element to bind them to the
domain of samsaara. As no Mahaayaanists would
ever grant the fulfillment of the supreme
enlightenment to these Hiinayaana saints, so it
should be admitted that other than the six
consciousnesses, there subsists a further impure
consciousness, that is, the aadaana, which
explains why the `sraavakas and pratyekabuddhas
remain rooted in the course of mundane
existence, even while they have already put an
end to the defilement-generating activities of
the first six consciousnesses.

2. There are those who, on hearing that there is a
seventh consciousness, conclude thereby that it
is a self-sufficient entity. Against this view,
Hui-yuan argues that this false-consciousness
represents merely the nonenlightened and
discriminating aspect of the mind, and possesses
no substance of its own. To illustrate the case,
Hui-yuan resorts to the much cited metaphor of
the rope mistaken as a snake. Just as the snake
so envisaged is constructed from the rope and is
illusory, the same is true of the aadaana, which
is constructed from the true mind and is
ephemeral like dreams.

3. There are those, who, on hearing that the
seventh consciousness is also known as the manas
(mind), identify it with the manas-indriya (mind
sense-

P361


organ),(58) which, together with the first six
consciousnesses, are known as the "seven mental
realms" in Hiinayaana Buddhism. Hui-yuan rejects
this view for the same reason he gives in (1):
that is, if what is maintained is true, the
`sraavakas and pratyekabuddhas would be able to
reach the supreme enlightenment, for it is
commonly agreed that the manas-indriya is
destroyed along with the six consciousnesses when
the "nirvana without residue" is attained.

4. There are those who think that the term "seventh
consciousness" represents only the failure of the
first six consciousnesses to perceive that all
phenomena are without self-nature, and nothing
more. Against this view, Hui-yuan argues that the
failure to comprehend the absence of self-nature
of phenomena is the more apparent sort of
ignorance allied to the first six
consciousnesses, whereas there is a more
fundamental and subtle kind of ignorance
connected with the attachment to the idea of the
self and the nonapprehension of the truth of
mind-only, which the "seventh consciousness"
stands for.

5. There are those who maintain that the seventh
consciousness is transient and subjected to
changes only when the final truth is not yet
comprehended; but it will be transformed into an
eternal and immutable entity once enlightenment
is attained. Against this view, Hui-yuan argues
that "the seventh consciousness is a false mind.
It is characterized by nothing but delusions, and
consists of nothing but discriminations."(60)
Since all delusions would vanish and all
discriminations would be forsaken on the
fulfillment of the supreme enlightenment, how can
there remain a seventh consciousness devoid of
all its essential properties? Thus, Hui-yuan
concludes that "When people say that the essence
of wisdom is immutable, what they refer to by the
immutable essence is the true mind, not the
seventh consciousness."(61)

6. There are those who, on hearing that the seventh
consciousness will eventually be destroyed,
judge that it is a total nonetity with no
specific function. Against this view, Hui-yuan
insists that it is solely due to the permeation
of the aadaana that the aalaya or the eighth
consciousness gives rise to the phenomenal
world.

IV. THE SYSTEM OF EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESSES (3): THE
FIRST SIX CONSCIOUSNESSES

If the aalaya-consciousness and the
aadaana-consciousness are concepts peculiar to
Yogaacaara Buddhism, and Hui-yuan's incorporation of
them into his ontological scheme is a clear
indication of the Yogaacaara background of his
thought, the first six consciousnesses, that is,
eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness,
nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness,
body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness, on the
other hand already appeared frequently in the early
Nikaayas as six of the eighteen dhaatus, and as such
they are concepts common to all Buddhist schools,
Hiinayaana and Mahaayaana alike. The following is
Hui-yuan's explanation of how the first six
consciousnesses get their respective names:

With respect to the first six [of the eight
consciousnesses], the [sense-organ] corresponding
with "color" is known as the "eye," and so forth,
[the sense-organ] corresponding with "dharma" is
known as the "mind." Since the mind which arises
with these [sense-organs] as the basis are capable
of discernment, it is called the eye-consciousness,
and so forth, down to the mind-consciousness.(62)

Hui-yuan often calls the first six consciousnesses
as a group the "phenomenal


P362

consciousnesses" (shih-shih(am)), in the same way as
he often designates the aadaana "the
false-consciousness'' and the aalaya "the
true-consciousness"; and has the following to say
about them in the Essentials:

What is called "phenomenal consciousnesses" [here]
are known as the "evolving consciousnesses"
(chuan-shih) in the La^nkaavataara-suutra (T, vol.
16, p. 463b, 1.1.), and the "manas [dependent]
consciousnesses" (i-shih(an)), the "discriminating
manas [-dependent] consciousnesses" (fen-pieh
i-shih(ao)), the "differentiated consciousnesses"
(li-shih(ap) ) , or the "phenomena-discriminating
consciousnesses" (fen-peih-shih-shih(aq)), in the
[Ta-ch'eng] ch'i-hsin lun. (T, vol. 32, p. 577b,
11.24-27)

They are called the "evolving consciousnesses"
because they evolve together with the six
sense-objects; unlike the false-consciousness
(aadaana), which is called "evolving consciousness"
because it produced the external world. They are
called the "manas" [-dependent] consciousnesses,"
because in the [Ta-ch'eng] ch'i-hsin lun, the eighth
true-consciousness is given the name citta, and the
seventh [false-consciousness] is given the name
manas. Since [the first six phenomenal
consciousnesses] arise with the manas [as their
immediate cause], they are [thereby] referred to as
the "manas [-dependent] consciousnesses." Since the
[manas] dependent consciousnesses discriminate the
[external] world of six sense-objects, they are also
known as the "discriminating manas [-dependent]
consciousnesses." Since they are differentiated into
six, corresponding to the [six] sense-organs and
[six] sense-objects, they are known as the
"differentiated consciousnesses." Since they
discriminate the phenomenal world of six
sense-objects, they are also known as the
"phenomena-discriminating consciousnesses."(63)

This list of synonyms of the term "phenomenal
consciousnesses" shows the following facts of the
first six consciousnesses:

1. The name "manas-dependent consciousnesses"
suggests that the first six consciousnesses are
dependent on the seventh consciousness (and so
ultimately on the eighth consciousness) for their
being. So Hui-yuan remarks a little later in the
Essentials:

The false self (seventh consciousness) arises
dependent on the true self (eighth
con-sciousness), for attachment to the self comes
into being when the true [mind] is permeated by
false [thoughts].(64) The phenomenal self (first
six consciousnesses) [in turn] arises dependent
on the false self (seventh con-sciousness) ,
resulting in a further deepening of fatuous
discrimination. It is so because the phenomenal
self regards sense-organs and sense-objects as
things with determinate nature. It is so also
because the phenomenal self wrongly attributes
[the ideas of] "self" and "properties pertaining
to the self" to skandhas originating from the
false mind (seventh consciousness).(65)

2. The name "evolving-consciousnesses" suggests that
the first six consciousnesses "evolve" only in
the presence of the six sense-objects color,
sound, smell, and so forth. From this fact, we
can further infer that the first six
consciousnesses, unlike the seventh and eight
consciousnesses, are not always in operation, for
experience shows that the six sense-objects are
seldom available all at once. The Essentials
specifies in detail the various conditions that
have to be satisfied before the first six
consciousnesses will function:

The first six phenomenal consciousnesses are
called "distinct" (pieh(ar)), while the seventh
and eighth [consciousnesses] are called "common"
(t'ung(as)). The first six [consciousnesses] are
known as "distinct," for each has its specific


P363


object, and arises one after the other. The
seventh and eighth consciousnesses are known as
"common," for they exist always.

It is asked, "Why do the first six
[consciousnesses] arise one after the other [and
do not come into being together]? " [It is
replied, ] "In the case of the first six
[consciousnesses], the mind and its object are
[conceived of as] distinct entities. Being
difficult to apprehend, we know their presence
only by the thoughts they give rise to. Since the
thoughts they give rise to are diverse, [we
conclude thereby that] the [first] six
[consciousnesses] arise separately and not all at
once.

Furthermore, the first six consciousnesses are
produced on the satisfaction of four conditions,
that is, causal condition (hetu-pratyaya) ,
consequent condition (samanantara-pratyaya) ,
cooperating condition (aalambana-pratyaya), and
efficient condition (adhipati-pratyaya) , [With
respect to the first six consciousnesses,] the six
sense-organs are the efficient condition, the six
sense-objects are the cooperating condition, the
preceding moments of thought which [by ceasing]
facilitate the emergance of the subsequent [moments
of thought] are the consequent condition, and the
homogeneous [cause] (sabhaagahetu) , associated
[cause] (samprayukta-hetu), and simultaneous [cause]
(sahabhuu-hetu) , and so forth are the causal
condition.(66) Since it is impossible that [all the
conditions for the production of the] six types [of
consciousness] are present at one time, [we know
thereby that the first six consciousnesses] are the
consequent conditions [of each other] and cannot
arise simultaneously."(67)

The first six consciousnesses are mental
functions which come into play only on the
realization of four conditions, that is, causal
condition, consequent condition, cooperating
condition, and efficient condition. For example,
the eye-consciousness only comes into being when
there exists the sense-organ "eye" as its inner
support (efficient condition) and the sense
object "color" as its outer support (cooperating
condition). Furthermore, there must also be the
presence of light to illuminate the color
sense-object (causal condition), as well as the
nonpresence of the other five consciousnesses
which would obstruct its operation (consequent
condition). Since these conditions are not always
fulfilled, the eye-consciousness, unlike the
seventh and eighth consciousnesses, does not
abide permanetly, but comes and goes as
circumstances change. And the same is true of the
ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
tongue-consciousness, and so forth.

3. The names "discriminating manas-dependent
consciousnesses, " "differentiated
consciousnesses," and "phenomena-discriminating
consciousnesses" suggest that the first six
consciousnesses are concerned with the
discernment of sense-objects and the attribution
of definite nature to them despite their
mind-dependent character. This tendency of the
first six consciousnesses to ascribe determinate
being to phenomena is dwelt on repeatedly in the
Essentials. Thus, in explaining why the first six
consciousnesses and the seventh consciousness are
likewise depicted as "false," Hui-yuan writes:

With respect to the false [aspect of the mind],
the first six [consciousnesses] are deceived by
conditioned and illusory dharmas, and wrongly
consider them [as entities] with determinate
nature. So they are described as "false." The
seventh false-consciousness wrongly considers
[dharmas] as possessing definite characteristics,
even though there [actually] exists no dharma
outside the mind. So it is [also described as]
false.(68)

The seventh consciousness is described as
"false," for it stands for the general failure of
sentient beings to realize the truth of
mind-only, which leads to the false belief in the
reality of the phenomenal. The first six consci-

P364

ousnesses are also described as "false," for
under the influence of the false belief formet by
the seventh consciousness, they seize on objects
appearing in their particular fields of
perception as entities possessing independent
being, and attribute names and get attached to
them. The result naturally is the production of
defiled karma and bondage to the realm of
samsaara. So, quoting the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin
lun, Hui-yuan imputes the four features of
"sepculating on names," "attachment," "producing
karma," and "suffering owing to bondage to karma"
to the first six consciousnesses:

As for the four aspects of the phenomenal
consciousnesses, they are as mentioned in the
[Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin] (T, vol. 33, p. 577a):

(1) The feature of attachment: This feature is
also called "the taint which is related to
attachment" in the [Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin] lun.(69)
It refers to that basic ignorance which holds on
to [everchanging phenomena as objects with]
determinate nature.

(2) The feature of speculating on names: [This
feature is connected with] the so called ten
fundamental defilements.(70) Following the
suggestion of names, [the ideas of] the self,
sentient beings, and so forth, and give rise to
various bonds. So they are said to have the
feature of speculating on names.

( 3) The feature of producing karma: Owing to its
defiled [activities], [the phenomenal
consciousnesses] produced all sorts of [evil]
karma.

(4) The feature of suffering owing to bondage to
karma: [The phenomenal consciousnesses] receive
the fruit [of suffering] according to the karma
[they create].(71)


Again, as in the case of the aalaya and aadana,
Hui-yuan tries to define his conception of the first
six consciousnesses by referring to the
misconceptions of them. Altogether, Hui-yuan lists
eight erroneous views regarding the first six
consciousnesses, which he classifies into four pairs
of thesis and antithesis.(72) We shall outline the
first three pairs which are of immediate relevance
to our present purpose:

1. There is the opinion that the first six
consciousnesses are of one essence, and there is
also the opinion that the first six
consciousnesses are of different essence. Against
the former view, Hui-yuan argues that the first
six consciousnesses can not be absolutely one,
for the sense-organs and sense-objects they are
dependent on are diverse. Against the latter
view, Hui-yuan argues that the first six
consciousnesses are not absolutely different, for
if they were so, they would not hinder the
working of each other and would coexist at all
time, which is obviously not the case in actual
life.

2. There is the opinion that since the notion of an
enduring mind is necessary to the concepts of
transmigration and retribution, the first six
consciousnesses should be considered as
permanent. There is also the opinion that since
the Buddha has taught that all mental functions
are transitory, the first six consciousnesses
should be considered as impermanent. Against the
former view, Hui-yuan argues that the first six
consciousnesses can not be definitely permanent,
for the six consciousnesses of gods, men,
animals, hungry ghosts, and beings in hell are
heterogeneous, so that a sentient moving from one
of these forms of rebirth to another could not
have their first six consciousnesses remain
unchanged. Agains the latter view, Hui-yuan
argues that the first six consciousnesses can not
be definitely impermanent, for if the mind were
annihilated from moment to moment, who is to reap
the fruit of past deeds after all?(73)

3. There is the opinion that the first six
consciousnesses are definitely existent,

P365

and there is also the opinion that the first six
consciousnesses are absolutely empty. Against the
former view, Hui-yuan argues that the first six
consciousnesses can not be definitely existent,
for it is taught in the holy texts that
consciousnesses are subject to the four signs of
birth, subsistence, decay, and destruction.
Against the latter view, Hui-yuan argues that the
first six consciousnesses can not be absolutely
empty, for if there were not the first six
consciousnesses, how come there to be the
awareness and cognition of external objects? How
come there to be the production of good and evil
karma, and the experience of pleasure and pain
thereof?

V. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TRUE AND THE FALSE: SOME
PROBLEMS OF THE MIND-ONLY TEACHING OF HUI-YUAN

In the preceding discussion, we have several times
indicated that it is Hui-yuan's belief that the
first seven consciousnesses and their objects, that
is, the entire defiled phenomenal world, owe their
being to the eighth consciousness, that is, the
intrinsically pure aalaya or the tathaagatagarbha.
That the defiled is ontologically dependent on the
pure can be inferred from the general thesis of
mind-only as outlined in section I, and it is a
truth which Hui-yuan repeatedly stresses in his
writings. So, commenting on the remark of the
Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun that "[Nonenlightened]
thoughts are not self-sufficient and do not exist
apart from the original enlightenment,"(74) Hui-yuan
observes in the Commentary:

That is to show that false dharmas do not exist on
their own, and are formed on the support of the true
[mind]. Without the true [mind], false [dharmas]
will not come into being.(75)

He further states in the Commentary that "the true
and the false are not separate from each other":

Question: The true and the false are in nature
different from each other. Why is it said that in
disciplining the false [consciousnesses], the true
[mind] is also permeated?

Answer: It is because the true and the false are not
separate from each other. Thus, when the false
[consciousnesses] are soiled, [the true mind] also
becomes soiled. When the false [consciousnesses] are
pure, [the true mind] also becomes pure....(76)

And this union of the true mind and false dharmas is
cited by Hui-yuan as exemplifying the Buddhist ideal
of nonduality:

As samsaara and nirvaa.na arise and are formed from
the true mind, "functions" (yung(g) , that is,
samsaara and nirvaa.na) do not exist apart from
"substance" (t'i(v), that is, the true mind). This
perfect harmony of "substance" and "function" is
known as [the truth of] nonduality.(77)

In this section, we shall try to see what arguments
Hui-yuan has offered to justify his idea of the
origination of the false from the true. Based on the
understanding so reached, we shall further attempt
to define what exactly the nonduality of the true
mind and false dharmas could mean in Hui-yuan's
teaching of mind-only.

P366

Thus, it may be asked how, if the
aalaya-consciousness is intrinsically pure, it could
ever come about that it would give rise to the
aadaana-consciousness, the first six
consciousnesses, and their respective objects, which
are defiled in nature. In explaining the derivation
of the impure from the pure, Hui-yuan brings in the
traditional Buddhist concept "ignorance."
"Ignorance," in Hui-yuan's own words, "is a deluded
and benighted [state of] mind. Since it is devoid of
(wu(at) the light (ming(au)) of wisdom, it is known
as ignorance (wu-ming(av) ) ."(78) This ignorance
permeates the pure mind, and brings about the
formation of defiled phenomena. So it is said:


[When the Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun writes that] "It
is solely due to false thoughts that
differentiations come about" (T, vol. 32, p. 576a,
11.9-10), what [the term] "false thoughts" refers to
is "ignorance." Due to the deluding influence of
ignorance on the tathataa (the pure mind in itself),
there comes to be [the origination of the realm of]