The Kubrickon

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby divideandconquer » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:38 pm

guruilla » Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:32 pm wrote:He thought my comment about Jung & Kubrick's shared birthday being meaningful was snarky & superior.

This is the reason we have the green = sarcasm method at RI (which I only just twigged to). It's hard to tell.


Ahh...thanks. Didn't know about the green = sarcasm method at RI...good to know.
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:07 pm

Alex Cox on Kubrick, Everybody knew Eyes Wide Shut was crap. :partydance:

http://auticulture.com/liminalist-42/ (last ten minutes)
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:38 pm

Nice choice of episode number to feature a well-known film director, heh.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:48 pm

No choice involved: you know how it goes.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:05 pm

Yes, yes I do. I had a feeling it just sort of happened that way, but didn't want to assume. I look forward to listening to this (even though I love Eyes Wide Shut)!
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:36 am

Block quotes are hard, because a lot of it is diagrams and animations. But here's a juicy screencap.

Image
source
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:44 pm

So what's juicier about this: the apparent correspondences found, or the quality of obsessive attention that would seek and find these apparent correspondences?

Question for anyone, being central to the Kubrickon thesis.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:39 am

guruilla » Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:44 am wrote:So what's juicier about this: the apparent correspondences found, or the quality of obsessive attention that would seek and find these apparent correspondences?


The former for me, quite easily, but first let me say this.

It's kind of a loaded question, one which hinges around this word obsessive. I get the strong sense of being 'Othered' (a word I don't generally like to use) when you automatically invoke obsession when referring to Kubrick researchers—not a good way to invite a discussion. I'm sure you aren't intending to have that effect; the feeling probably stems from my awareness of your ardent, vocal dislike for Kubrick's films... ie, I know you think most of SK's films are terrible & empty (especially EWS, ha), & so—it would seem—you regard anyone who spends a fair amount of time thinking about them or analyzing them to be chasing phantoms, to be obsessed, instead of simply interested or curious.

But when I compare the above screen-grab to, for instance, the timeline of Leonard Cohen facts you recently compiled, I see little to no difference—considerable time & effort spent collecting & presenting facts about a person suggestive of their being more than what they seem—yet I don't feel that you are obsessed with Leonard Cohen. But when someone does the same for Kubrick, for you they are obsessed. Actually, the work required to collect suspicious biographical facts on LC is a far more complex operation than what went into that screen-cap & so took more time, effort, & attention. Yet one is the product of 'research' and the other of 'obsession.' It's a double standard that stems from what seems to me to be a fairly solipsistic mindset (all due respect). You feel that SK's films suck & that anyone who feels differently is operating under a delusion, when really what they are operating under is just a viewpoint that differs from your own.

So, back to your question, yes, the correspondences are what interest me: specifically the overwhelming glut of precisely-aligned temporal relationships related to Kubrick, Hollywood-at-large, & beyond that defy mere synchronicity. I don't consider this to be a product of obsessive attention, so I don't feel the need to psychoanalyze myself about why I feel the way I do (or why the site's author shawnfella does what he does). It interests me because it's there, & it doesn't go away when you stop looking at it. I want to look at & be moved by the thing itself, not look at myself looking. I'm a very self-conscious person in general, so I know where that way of thinking leads. To quote the Admiral, "it's a trap!"

Here's another screengrab, just for funsies:
Image
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:08 pm

Actually the obsession I was referring to was that of the person who compiled these "correspondences," not the person who took the time to read them and do a screen shot. I see your point about Cohen, but fail to see the actual correlation between arranging facts in a person's life that strongly (to me) suggest hidden affiliations and covert actions (which is known as parapolitical research), and making frankly arbitrary (if fun) correlations between dates, running times, movie posters, etc (which is synchro-mysticism). Not a value judgment there either, just to point out that they are entirely different pursuits.

This has nothing to do with the quality of Kubrick's films, except insofar as the lack of it (IMO) adds extra mystery to the obsession that surrounds them (and imbues them, since SK was himself obsessive, but apparently not about artistic quality, per se).

There is a stigma around that word obsessive but I don't want to have to pussyfoot around it. Some people view obsessiveness as a positive trait. And yes, one's man's obsession is another man's dedication and rigor. It's nothing to me what someone wants to devote their attention to, until the time comes to have a conversation about it.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:43 pm

Well, I'm not saying they are the exact same pursuit, only that the quality of dedication & effort required in both pursuits is similar enough, if not exactly the same, to qualify as "obsession." One is more parapolitical, & one is more synchromystic, but both require a level of attention that the vast majority of people would look at & respond with, "you're obsessed!" Conspiracy theorists have heard that line since the 60s.

As an aside, I don't like that word—synchromystic—used in this context, because there isn't actually anything inherently 'mystical' about what shawnfella has done, unlike what a self-described synchromystic like Jake Kotze, whose work ultimately comes down to a hazy & unfulfilling "it's all connected, brah!" attitude that does nothing to advance any kind of understanding whatsoever: hence the mystifying aspect of it. Shawnfella's work is concerned with synchronicity, yes, but takes a scientific approach to explicating it. That's why he has "the 'science' behind coincidence" as a subtitle on his frontpage.

It seems our disagreement lies in your use of the word "arbitrary," because I don't see anything arbitrary about those correlations. It's a little like what brekin's saying in the LC thread: nothing to see here, folks! just a lot of arbitrary connections. There is nothing arbitrary about the number 237, because Kubrick obviously highlighted that number with a big fat magick marker in his work. You might say that Kubrick was highlighting it arbitrarily, but then you go & find (not make—a subtle but meaningful difference) that exactly 237 weeks after The Shining came out, the sequel to 2001 was released (which was directed by Peter Hyams, who happens to share the same birthday as Kubrick & Jung), & that exactly 237 weeks after that comes Batman, a movie in which Jack Nicholson (who was born on 4/22/37—42 / 237) plays another grinning, murderous character named Jack who gets knocked off a set of stairs by a BAT... well, that has to mean something, IMO. The odds of all of that happening randomly are incalculable. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you about this is because—believe it or not—your Kubrickon theory (as far as I have heard you explain it) has many striking parallels to Crypto-Kubrology. You both argue that Kubrick was not concerned with making films in the traditional artistic sense, that he was building something for the purposes of social engineering, where the surface-level narratives are only the tip of a massive iceberg of subliminal architecture. Your comment on the Gillespie podcast about SK's films feeling to you like "machines" resonated heavily with me. You're exactly right. Another way of putting it is that they have an overtly Archonic quality; this is central to the Crypto-K analysis. I thought you might find it interesting how your own theory lines up quite well with that of the most overtly obsessive Kubrick researcher.

guruilla » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:08 am wrote:Actually the obsession I was referring to was that of the person who compiled these "correspondences," not the person who took the time to read them and do a screen shot. I see your point about Cohen, but fail to see the actual correlation between arranging facts in a person's life that strongly (to me) suggest hidden affiliations and covert actions (which is known as parapolitical research), and making frankly arbitrary (if fun) correlations between dates, running times, movie posters, etc (which is synchro-mysticism). Not a value judgment there either, just to point out that they are entirely different pursuits.

This has nothing to do with the quality of Kubrick's films, except insofar as the lack of it (IMO) adds extra mystery to the obsession that surrounds them (and imbues them, since SK was himself obsessive, but apparently not about artistic quality, per se).

There is a stigma around that word obsessive but I don't want to have to pussyfoot around it. Some people view obsessiveness as a positive trait. And yes, one's man's obsession is another man's dedication and rigor. It's nothing to me what someone wants to devote their attention to, until the time comes to have a conversation about it.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:44 pm

Yes that is interesting, and yes, there's a danger in getting sidetracked by that word "arbitrary."

The correlation with brekin on LC is a good one, since brekin made the claim that he could analyze Neil Diamond's life and come up with as many suggestive correspondences as I had on LC. I considered asking him to show me, but decided not to bother. I really don't think he could (unless ND is an operative), whereas at first glace (granting that I haven't given the website and the larger work being done enough attention to say with any certainty), the correspondences in the screen shots and those you've mentioned above, seem to me like the sort of correspondences that are going to show up eventually anywhere, simply by looking hard enough. I would want to know how many places this person looked for 237, and in how many different places, and what was the ratio of failure to success, and so on; because logically, if you try enough different variations (between movies, release dates, and number combos), you will eventually find what you are looking for, right? This isn't the same with sifting through history to try and determine actual covert operations (tho of course we can fool ourselves, so I admit it's a slippery spectrum). Nor is (the notion of) historical fact to be confused with quantum reality phenomena just yet (unless you are Miles Mathis & ready to jump that shark).

So where this relates to Kubrickon, and how I think I diverge from those sifting through his work for these sorts of correspondences, has to do with whether or not the sifter believes that these correspondences were consciously orchestrated, or placed there, by Kubrick or by any human agency other than that of their own hyper-focused attention. If they do believe that, then it will be hard for them to agree about my Kubrickon hypothesis, and equally hard for me to have a conversation with them about what they are doing, because chances are they will think I am disparaging it, and chances are they will be right. I do feel my inner eye rolling when I see these sorts of wild reaching after correspondences. On the other hand, I'm not a card-carrying rationalist, and the Jung/Kubrick correspondence appealed to me because a) it is clear and large enough to signify something without requiring a leap of imagination that only the True Believer would be able to take; and b) it is not likely to ever be interpreted as happening by human design.

To make clear why this difference is more than just a question of my own personal tolerance threshold for "woo," here's something from the novel I mentioned to Gillespie, the one that Russian-dolls Kubrickon (congrats on teasing it out of me, I guess RI gets to be the place):

The goal of AI can be seen as the highest goal of all—the creation of intelligence itself is a way for humans to elevate themselves to the level of gods. But creation can’t come out of nothing, ex nihilo nihil fit, and all that. While the machine might be a matrix for intelligence to be born through, that still leaves the question of how to seed the technological womb.

The answer, I believe—or at least the answer Kubrick came up with and was attempting via his movies from 2001 on—was to seed it with human consciousness itself.

Simply put, there is a preoccupation which bleeds through all of Kubrick’s movies, from A Clockwork Orange to Eyes Wide Shut, with how human consciousness can be reduced to a series of mechanisms or pre-programmed behaviors. I believe Kubrick used this subject like a scrying mirror in which he hoped to divine how a machine could be made conscious.

This is the problem Stanley Kubrick devoted his life to solving.

It may be that, once this mechanism has been activated, it can become automatic. If Kubrick places enough meaningful anomalies in his films, the brain becomes alert to them and starts finding them where they aren’t—or at least finding anomalies that Kubrick didn’t have to consciously place there. The real world is full of such anomalies and a movie set is also part of the real-world. There’s a function of the brain that not only seeks to identify anomalous elements, but also creates meaning and context for them even when it can’t find them. This function is known as pareidolia,
a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records when played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek words para (παρά, “beside, alongside, instead”) in this context meaning something faulty, wrong, instead of; and the noun eidōlon (εἴδωλον “image, form, shape”) the diminutive of eidos. Pareidolia is a type of apophenia, seeing patterns in random data. . . . Combined with Apophenia (identifying meaningful patterns in meaningless randomness) and hierophany (a manifestation of the sacred), pareidolia may have helped early societies organize chaos and make the world intelligible. (Wikipedia)

That's only the first piece of the puzzle but I think it's fairly easy to extrapolate the rest from there.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:35 pm

guruilla » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:44 pm wrote:The correlation with brekin on LC is a good one, since brekin made the claim that he could analyze Neil Diamond's life and come up with as many suggestive correspondences as I had on LC. I considered asking him to show me, but decided not to bother. I really don't think he could (unless ND is an operative), whereas at first glace (granting that I haven't given the website and the larger work being done enough attention to say with any certainty), the correspondences in the screen shots and those you've mentioned above, seem to me like the sort of correspondences that are going to show up eventually anywhere, simply by looking hard enough.


Having read the whole thing, & spent some time in the trenches of number & correspondence myself, I just have to disagree. It's not a matter of 'looking hard enough,' implying that the connections are loose or weren't there to begin with. It's simply a matter of looking, full stop. The correlations really just jump out at you. There are four primary numbers shawnfella looks at: 42, 153, 237, & 666. Save for 237, these numbers come straight from the Bible, so it's not as if they were plucked randomly from the air. They had already been seeded into the aether, so to speak, in the founding document of Western civilization no less. A control experiment along the lines of the Neil Diamond suggestion would be for someone to take four completely random numbers (one two-digit & three three-digit) & try to do the same type of analysis done by shawnfella with anywhere close to the same amount of success. Like you w/r/t Diamond, I don't believe it could be done.

I'll give you an example that struck me as particularly uncanny. A while back on your forum you posted a link to a declassified document (this one) that mentions Kubrick as a promising possible hire for some vague project. Obviously, thoughts of the Apollo hoax come to mind. I happened to notice that the document is dated June 4, 1965. Since this document, with a little context, implies a literal connection between Kubrick & the Apollo program, I figured that, if shawnfella's theory were to hold, there would very likely be some significant numerical-temporal relationship. So I decided to look up the length of time between the date on that document & the launch-date of Apollo 11 on July 16, 1969. I chose Apollo 11's launch because, not only was it the launch day of the first (allegedly) successful moon-landing (directed by Kubrick, also allegedly), it also has special significance for Kubrick's overt career, being the day that he specified for the release of Eyes Wide Shut, thirty years later. It's also the same day on which the first Atomic Bomb test was successfully carried out in 1945, so it's a particularly loaded day from a ritualist/occult theater perspective.

Anyway, it turns out the interval from June 4, 1965 to July 16, 1969 works out to exactly 1503 days. 153. What are the odds on that? The point is that I wasn't looking particularly hard... I didn't try ten different dates before I found one that fit, & I didn't have to make it fit. I found it on my first try, because I just 'had a feeling,' & that feeling bore out quite spectacularly, IMO. And it continues to do so.

So where this relates to Kubrickon, and how I think I diverge from those sifting through his work for these sorts of correspondences, has to do with whether or not the sifter believes that these correspondences were consciously orchestrated, or placed there, by Kubrick or by any human agency other than that of their own hyper-focused attention. If they do believe that, then it will be hard for them to agree about my Kubrickon hypothesis, and equally hard for me to have a conversation with them about what they are doing, because chances are they will think I am disparaging it, and chances are they will be right. I do feel my inner eye rolling when I see these sorts of wild reaching after correspondences. On the other hand, I'm not a card-carrying rationalist, and the Jung/Kubrick correspondence appealed to me because a) it is clear and large enough to signify something without requiring a leap of imagination that only the True Believer would be able to take; and b) it is not likely to ever be interpreted as happening by human design.


The thing about agency is the $125,000 question, & opens up a whole can of worms that's probably left to discuss for another day (I gotta go to work real soon). It certainly is difficult to accept that these precise temporal-numeric correspondences could be orchestrated by any kind of conscious human agency, as to do so would require essentially God-like abilities, namely the ability to control & manipulate time itself. That is hard to accept, but to me it's even more difficult to accept that such precise correspondences are just a product of hyper-focused attention. It's not just pareidolia. It seems (to me) to indicate an underlying architecture to History itself (whether that History has been projected by consciousness or not) that we have yet to understand.

I have to go, but thank you for sharing that excerpt from your novel. As someone who has long fantasized about writing a novel about all of this weirdness myself, it's inspiring, & I'm excited by the prospect of reading the rest.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:57 pm

Agent Orange Cooper » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:35 pm wrote:I'll give you an example that struck me as particularly uncanny. . . . I found it on my first try, because I just 'had a feeling,' & that feeling bore out quite spectacularly, IMO. And it continues to do so.

Can you explain what this discovery confirmed for you, besides that there is a mathematical order to the Universe?

Also, can you say more about why you think this is especially so around Kubrick's films, I mean, why you believe that, if you do (what evidence), and why you think it might be true (what reason)?

Since I already consider an implicate order to existence as a given, I am unsure what's to be gained by mapping that order, save for amusement or confirmation (neither of which I need to go looking for since it constantly comes looking for me). I don't mean to focus on my own skepticism but it's only fair to express how I feel about these pursuits (not that you don't already know). To clarify, do you consider the correspondences or "syncs" you found as evidence that Kubrick faked the Moon landing, or only evidence of this mysterious nonhuman element of control? If the former, how exactly is it evidence; if the latter, then what's the next step?

Using Cohen again as a counter example, what I look for is evidence he was involved in and part of a cultural engineering program, not only, or even primarily, to expose Cohen as that, but to deepen the picture of that program and better identify the ways in which it has shaped and influenced my own development, or lack of it. For me it ends (at least for a while) when I've amassed enough evidence to persuade myself and others that, yeah, Cohen is def. not what we thought he was; perhaps more importantly, when I've recognized the influences on my own psyche and thereby (somewhat) expunged them. (I am no longer a Cohen fan, and better understand the perniciousness, or falseness, of his brand of mystic sex/woman-worship, for example).

It's not just pareidolia. It seems (to me) to indicate an underlying architecture to History itself (whether that History has been projected by consciousness or not) that we have yet to understand.

Well there's a world of meaning in that one word "just." I didn't say it was just pareidola, any more than I ever said that Strieber's abduction experiences were "just" dissociative phantasy. It's about an intersection between the two.

One last point: if consciousness is infinite and eternal, then isn't even the mathematical perfection of the Universe, or the "underlying architecture to History itself," kind of an arbitrary interpretation system, meaningful only because it works, like language? Maths may be a higher language than ordinary language but it's still arbitrary when every number becomes zero within the context of infinity.

Lastly, did you understand how a combination of human pareidola, the underlying architecture of existence, and intricately designed machine-movies that generate obsession in a certain subset of viewers could be a way to seed AI?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:08 am

PS: Any thoughts on the OY-ewtree thread at Kubrickon forum?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:41 pm

The yew thread on your forum certainly appears to be an instance of a cultural engineering attempt, not that I don't appreciate it.

Guruilla, is something of what you're making the case for here the idea that Kubrick's cinematic altar-building is a device for inducing dissociative equivocation, for exiling inductees into a labyrinth like the one in the Shining? Sort of how the symbolic regalia of something like Freemasonry might be operating more often than not?

And that the "obsessives" trying to get a nugget of revelation from Kubrick's cosmos wrongly interpret him as a sort of whistleblower where the reigning mysteries are concerned? But are inevitably misled since, you claim, his purpose from the outset is to muddle, instead?

I think that the synchro-intuitive level of understanding is a necessary part of life but withers when left to its own devices, flourishing on the other hand when it's balanced out by detective work that maps the deep order of things more deductively
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to High Weirdness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests