tapitsbo » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:48 pm wrote:Is it being prevented from becoming embodied (sounds like a repression theory)
or is its embodiment getting redirected?
tapitsbo » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:48 pm wrote:Also is RI analogous to the Kubrickon?
tapitsbo » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:36 pm wrote:Jeff Wells might have not been so much evoker/summoner as summoned. Drawn with lures/bait into a vortex that he had the cajones to arrange a representation of, just so. Thereby kickstarting a strange attractor/hypersigil to feed a nebulous darkness with the libidinous attention of eyes unable to unsee or to look away.
tapitsbo » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:09 pm wrote:You see a police force, I see someone with intense convictions and and an identity that requires extensive maintenance work
The actual police force here, Wombat, is a "fan of the universe" and seems to be taking a judiciously permaculture approach to weeding this organic accumulator...
guruilla » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:19 pm wrote: I would suggest that, as ever, this centers around an ideological problem. To me, the endless sifting through Kubrick-artifice for meaningful clues indicates a form of ideological enslavement to Kubrick and the work. AOC argues that writing about Kubraphilia is no less obsessive, libido-squandering or (I presume) ideological than writing about Kubrick-trivia. But there is at least one key difference: in the former case, there is the exploration of human behavior; in the latter, what is being engaged with is the dead matter of popular culture (and with apparently very little focus on the psyche of the investigator). There’s even an objection to the term obsessive, when to disallow obsession as a designator for this style of behavior would effectively mean invalidating the very word “obsessive” ~ presumably as politically incorrect.
guruilla » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:19 pm wrote:From my own perspective, one might just as well argue that there’s no difference between writing endless homages to Leonard Cohen’s music, and analyzing it for proof of the depth of his wisdom and genius as an artist, and the sort of explorations that I or Ann Diamond have done. But surely there is the world of a difference, if the one serves to perpetuate the spell of culture, the other to break it?
guruilla » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:19 pm wrote: the meanings which those questers so fervently believe in.
guruilla » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:19 pm wrote:On the other hand, as with Strieber, I am validating that Kubrick’s work is of profound interest, even or especially for those who are turned off by it. Oh, for just one ally who can see that Kubrick made some pretty poor (and, in at least one case, REALLY BAD) movies, and still want to explore this mystery with me!
guruilla » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:19 pm wrote:Can you move from this 666 business to either present compelling evidence that Kubrick, or someone, deliberately engineered it that way, or to show why and how they might have, without going off into highly subjective interpretations of symbolism and occult arcana? And if not, can you explain how this is helpful to you? As I said to AOC, where does it end and what’s the actual goal?
guruilla wrote:Can you explain to me how exactly it blows the whistle on anything? Were elite sex rings scrambling to cover their tracks after the release of EWS, desperately shredding evidence and burying bodies? This to me is the sort of claim that Kubraphiles make that only points to their emperor’s nakedness by their own imitation of it.
Guruilla wrote: This is a critical area to get into, but for now I will just say that my own thesis is very different, and that the sort of consciousness which Kubrick films are designed to bring about is not what you call “AI thinking”; on the contrary, it is a highly charged and particularly “human” sort of thinking (the obsessive sort). Not in order to engender it in the species, but in order to harvest it.
guruilla wrote:Is this true though? A Clockwork Orange was a big hit, apparently with violent thugs as well as gentile academics. 2001 was a big hit with LSD-dropping hippies. I don’t know this Joe 6 pack guy you talk about, but I do know quite a few really intelligent guys who seem to have been fooled by Kubrick. Including the idea that someone who worked in close collusion with the military-industrial-entertainment complex was really anti-military. It might be good to cross-reference this thread with the prescriptive programming one, which suggests how seemingly “conscientious” content can be useful to strengthen a weaponized meme. A Clockwork Orange is a very obvious, to me, example, of a film that promotes a certain form of behavior while pretending to denounce it.
Guruilla wrote:I did a series at the blog of 100 posts, "What is Embodiment?", starting here.
guruilla wrote:Oh yeah. For the record, the ones I dislike are 2001, Clockwork Orange, FMJ, and, most especially, EWS. Besides FMJ (which I think I only saw twice, once recently), I’d say I have seen these films an average of maybe six times. I used to like 2001 & Orange. I used to dislike The Shining but more recently I liked it. Who knows what may still change?
Onward and Upward with the Arts June 14, 1999 Issue
A Kubrick Odyssey
By Frederic Raphael
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/ ... ck-odyssey
Elliott Jonestown wrote:By the way, you don't strike me as one who is a hard materialist. Meaning, you seem open to ideas that non-physical realities exist, can be sought after, and could possibly bleed through into our current one. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just that your position seems to underestimate the power of symbol and the subjective as valuable in reaching conclusions.
Elliott Jonestown wrote: The film isn't fantasy. It's realism. And historical "fact" has proven Kubrick correct. Since the release of the film, scandals like Jimmy Saville and Jeffrey Epstein, etc. have emerged. Plus there's those Rothschild party pics from the 70s that show a party much like the one depicted in the film. The internet in the mid to late aughts has caused this information to be disseminated much more widely than the 1999s media climate would allow.
Elliott Jonestown wrote:Let's get into it. Specifically who or what is doing the harvesting in your model? My thesis is not about Kubrick per se, but more about narrative as a propaganda technique.
Elliott Jonestown wrote:What's the difference in your model between watching a film multiple times to uncover it's meaning and artful opacity, and the so called obsessive, human thinking that is being harvested? It seems like every serious film student out there would be a victim in your model as these students watch and rewatch films of all kinds by many directors.
Elvis wrote:If anyone hasn't already read it, here's a somewhat revealing peek at Kubrick and some of his process, by his EWS co-writer Frederic Raphael...
“Directors are a cannibal breed. Their nature is to seek out those whose destruction will give them the greatest charge (and the squarest meal).”
Elvis wrote:If anyone hasn't already read it, here's a somewhat revealing peek at Kubrick and some of his process, by his EWS co-writer Frederic Raphael...Onward and Upward with the Arts June 14, 1999 Issue
A Kubrick Odyssey
By Frederic Raphael
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/ ... ck-odyssey
(may or not be a way around the paywall, I can probably get it if needed)
guruilla wrote: The term doesn't carry especially negative connotations to me, & I use it because it seems accurate. We could talk about the pros & cons of obsession, but that would be a separate & more general discussion. In some ways, perhaps the Kubrickon is very much about this already, only using a very particular and fantastic example. In the end, however, I consider all obsessions to be dead-ends. Yet immersion is an open road, and what appears to others to be obsession can really be a means to immersion.
guruilla wrote:This is interesting, because part of the Kubrickon thesis is that when individuals, wittingly or not, join an audience cult (in this case Kubrick's), they do become an amorphous, generalized group, and this is very much how the operation works (and how culture and ideology takes over organisms and prevents embodiment/individuation). So I am not sure of a way around this, as shawnfella's work is only, or at least primarily, of interest to me as an example of this phenomenon, a fact which I made clear to AOC at the start. Otherwise, this thread would be no different from a Kubrick audience cult and/or synchro-mystical discussion.
guruilla wrote: You are citing consensus now as proof of ontological reality. "History decides." This is directly at odds with the premise AOC cited of history being a fiction narrated by gatekeepers. If Kubrick was one of those gatekeepers, a leading culture-maker, then he himself (with a little help from his friends) created the narrative of him being a great and influential film artist. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy-narrative, since people are greatly influenced by those the culture puts forward as greatly influential. Your premise presupposes that culture itself is a kind of byproduct of a planetary meritocracy, with no underlying deception or injustice driving it. Is that so?
Since I do not see the inherent value in many of Kubrick's films (or in culture at large), value which I have been told is there, I feel fairly secure in referring to it as a spell that's been cast ~ especially as I have been under similar spells, and only come out of them through a massively painful process of self-examination and confrontation.
Culture is a cult.
guruilla wrote: Sure. I don't see much point in or need for people to defend SM at this thread, it's just another practice that can be helpful and can also be indulgent and obsessive. I do yoga twice a week, but it's not the basis for an ideology; its mostly so I can stay flexible and have at least some of my time dedicated to placing attention on and in the body. I see existential detective work as using but very different from SM. I imagine Jung did too. Observing syncs can be a tool, but it should not become a methodology or a practice, IMO, much less a lifestyle. Also, the syncs that really need our attention (i,e., that offer meaningful clues) come to us; we don't have to go looking for them, and to do so undermines the whole process, IMO, because looking for these sorts of things is a way also to bring them into form and focus.
guruilla wrote: If you mean the work is to uncover what sort of social engineering agendas were behind Kubrick and the creation of his oeuvre, then that's part of the work (with Kubrickon), but certainly not the whole of it. The larger portion I keep referring to, relates to ideological contamination (ideation contagion was a phrase I heard one of the Collins brothers use recently), audience cults, group think, and what happens to libido and awareness (the psyche) when it is prevented from becoming embodied: how it can be redirected, siphoned and harnessed.
guruilla wrote: If real crimes are being trivialized (and even turning them into mass entertainment is a form of trivialization), reduced to bad acting, implausible dialogue, and clunky storylines (i.e., EWS), couldn’t it also be argued that this undermines the work of sincere researchers by tainting the subject matter in people’s minds? Or would you consider The X-Files whistleblowing too?
(Not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious.)
guruilla wrote:Again, a spectrum. Like I said, culture is a cult. Movie-watching is a hypnotic chamber in which we are, or at least can be, implanted with unconscious ideology.
Elliott Jonestown wrote:I'd be interested in seeing this article in full, and yes, there was a paywall I couldn't get around.
From: The New Yorker - June 14 1999
Title: A KUBRICK ODYSSEY - The director's last screenwriter recounts his lahyrinthine adventure on "Eyes Wide Shut." by FREDERIC RAPHAEL
Elliott Jonestown wrote:So does membership in an audience cult trigger by simply viewing a work more than once, or taking in a work with a more focused eye? Again, your lines seem drawn roughly and are thereby confusing. There are surely many counter-examples of individuals choosing to study a film, or novel, or area of history, etc. whereby those individuals are not made amorphous and generalized. Instead, when a person has a thesis that is worked out through research, thought, and writing this can often produce unique and individualized additions to a body of literature.
Elliott Jonestown wrote:That people focus on his films doesn't alone support your Kubrickon theory. There needs to be more evidence drawn from other parapolitical research. I've been trying to get the discussion off "because they watch his films several times it's a master plan to harvest the viewer," to another reason why that might be true, or might not be true.
Elliott Jonestown wrote:If your theory is about a "Culture con," then maybe renaming it would bring greater understanding. Consider being explicit out of the gate that it's about culture at large, and not specifically about Kubrick.
Elliott Jonestown wrote:. I've just finished reading PKD's The Man in the High Castle, and he's got a long write up about how a novel can be revolutionary, how it can be used to push back against oppressive governmental regimes. So if a work of art can be at its best a religious experience for the audience, and can provide humans with release from suffering or point them toward self-actualization, etc., these artworks would naturally engender a cult following for very understandable reasons. This spectrum would on the one had have sinister connotations (cult a-la Jonestown) and on the other connotations of devotion toward objects deserving devotion (like a cult film, a film people are devoted to because brings joy, understanding, knowledge, etc.).
Elliott Jonestown wrote:For example, my policy on books is if I get two or three references in a short time from random sources, I figure something/someone is trying to send me a message. But I still have to procure the book and take the action of reading it. Jung devoted much of his life to studying symbols and writing about them, both very synchromystic practices.
Maybe it's my personal experience with EWS. When I first saw it in 1999, I wasn't yet aware of the sex crime underbelly of the world. I was 18.
Elliott Jonestown wrote:Giving how ubiquitous movies, TV, videos, etc. are in our culture, the defense against hidden ideology being planted is film literacy, with practices like traditional film criticism, SM practices, and really anything that allows a viewer to take in a movie with the head that things might not all be what they seem. Since being involved in the SM scene, I can say I'm much more equipped to watch films consciously and deliberately. This is even after studying film in the American university system. My experience has been the SM techniques add to, not take away, one's defense against the unconscious transfer of messages.
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests