Friday, 31 July 2020

Knowers






For, in these times, as the mender of roads worked, solitary, in the dust, not often troubling himself to reflect that dust he was and to dust he must return, being for the most part too much occupied in thinking how little he had for supper and how much more he would eat if he had it—in these times, as he raised his eyes from his lonely labour, and viewed the prospect, he would see some rough figure approaching on foot, the like of which was once a rarity in those parts, but was now a frequent presence. As it advanced, the mender of roads would discern without surprise, that it was a shaggy-haired man, of almost barbarian aspect, tall, in wooden shoes that were clumsy even to the eyes of a mender of roads, grim, rough, swart, steeped in the mud and dust of many highways, dank with the marshy moisture of many low grounds, sprinkled with the thorns and leaves and moss of many byways through woods.

Such a man came upon him, like a ghost, at noon in the July weather, as he sat on his heap of stones under a bank, taking such shelter as he could get from a shower of hail.
The man looked at him, looked at the village in the hollow, at the mill, and at the prison on the crag. When he had identified these objects in what benighted mind he had, he said, in a dialect that was just intelligible:

“How goes it, Jacques?”


Ancient Gnosticism, if you want to call it that, does not seem to have been one church. What I'm going to call Gnosticism is an intellectual movement that seems to have been around beginning in the second century certainly and becomes important through the second, third, and fourth centuries. It's not a church or an institution in the sense that we doubt that you could have walked into say the town of Antioch and looked for the Gnostic church. It seems like the people who wrote these documents and collected these materials that we find in the Nag Hammadi text in the Gospel of Thomas, they seem to have been intellectuals who were impressed with Jesus, impressed with the Jewish scripture in a lot of cases, impressed with a lot of the teachings of Christianity, but they interpreted them through the eyes of a certain popular Platonism at the time. That is, they seemed to have been influenced by different philosophical views and also just different intellectual views.


When they read the book of Genesis, for example, they would read the book of Genesis but read it as if they were reading it through the eyes of Plato's Timaeus, the great platonic dialogue in which Plato puts forth his own sort of cosmology and his own view of the gods and the world. So some of their writings sound like they were reading basically good scripture but reading it through the eyes of certain kinds of philosophy. 

What we have come to call Gnosticism in the ancient world is a range of ideas that may have been actually embodied in particular people, or it may have been that some of these intellectuals were just playing around with ideas and writing about the books and having reading clubs, where they got together every Monday night and drank some beer and talked about their Gnostic ideas.

Platonism itself might be called proto-Gnostic, that is, Gnosticism before Gnosticism. For example, in Platonism, especially of this time, you have a strong emphasis of a dualism of body and soul or body and spirit. 

In that dualism, often the body or the materiality, the fleshly existence that harder matter of things becomes less good, sometimes even probably borderline evil in some people's thoughts, and spirit or the soul or the mind is the good thing. So you have a mind/body dualism, a body and soul dualism and often there's the deprecation of the body and a deprecation of matter as morally inferior. Now why would matter be considered inferior to non-material substance? Because what happens to your body eventually? You all have gorgeous bodies now, but eventually you're going to look like me, your hair's going to fall out, your ear's are going to get too big, your nose won't stop growing, and then eventually you'll even get beyond me and you'll die, and you'll rot, and you'll disappear. The body is material and the ancient thinkers all knew that matter passes away. 

Anything that is material is going to pass away and be destroyed and be gone, but things that are not material like ideas--the great thing about an idea is that it never need die. The Spirit or the soul in platonic theory was superior to material stuff because--and it was the only thing that could live forever, be infinite.

They also sometimes you see, especially in later Platonism, the idea that not only is the body temporary, not eternal and passing away, but the body is also a prison because your spirit, they believed, wants to get out of the body. Aren't you frustrated that you can't just escape your body and go off and go someplace else for a while and zoom out of your body and go to Argentina for the weekend? Not have to pay for airfare--the idea was that the body imprisons your spirit and your soul, and this comes to be a part of Platonism at the time. What scholars will call basic Gnosticism includes some basic themes that they hold in common.

First, The World itself which is material is Evil. Salvation, therefore, from The World, must be escaped from this physical world into something else. Gross materiality is not only temporary in some texts but even bad, it's evil. Salvation, therefore, must be the knowledge of how you, that is the real you, your brain--not your brain, your mind or your soul, or your spirit, not your body, that real you is this thing in this material body but salvation will be if it can learn how to escape the body and escape materiality. Salvation will come by knowledge and that knowledge is a secret, not everybody knows it, so only a few people know it. The content of this knowledge is related to human origins and destination. 

So sometimes you get these elaborate myths developed in some of these texts. Let's say that the supreme, supreme, supreme, supreme god is in fact has no name, is not a particular thing, it's this thought, it's just thinking, it's just abstract thinking. That thinking thinks, well what does a thinking thing think? The thinking thinks thoughts. Those thoughts start becoming emanations out of the thinking, and then those emanations think and emanate, and those become lesser beings still. The different divine beings, there are lots of divine beings in the existing universe, and by thinking and being they emanate inferior forms of being after themselves. Eventually what happened is those inferior forms of being get less good and less like the most ultimate being.

One of them, according to one myth, Sophia which means wisdom, it's a female name but it also means "wisdom." Sophia decides she wants to emanate, and she supposed to do that with a male consort because by this these beings have male and female versions of themselves, she's supposed to only emanate or procreate by doing so with her male consort. She decides she wants to be like the supreme god and be able to emanate on her own, so she puts out a being on her own. In other words, she sort of gives birth without needing a man, just to be on principle. Well, of course when you do that you end up with a monster. The being that came out of Sophia ended up being a clumsy, maybe evil god, all of these are divine beings, that god decided at some point he wanted to create things and so he didn't really do it very well, so he made our earth, he made the world as we know it.
He made little human beings like you just out of dirt and clay, and that's why--we were all creation, not of the supreme God who would do nothing imperfect, but of some stumbling or evil, at least clumsy god, who made us. That explains why things go wrong. Why is it that my arthritis acts up all the time? Couldn't God have made a human body that didn't have arthritis? Well, that's because the supreme God didn't make this body, the evil clumsy god made the body. This happened--and so the world that we created, when you read in Genesis, it says God created the world, that's not the highest God, that's some clumsy god down further on the hierarchy of divine beings in the universe. That god created what we are. Now what happened was at some point, either Sophia or some other beings, they got sorry for all us claylike mud people and somehow a little spark of the divine itself either fell down, or got cut up or put in our bodies, or God placed in our bodies, or blew it into our bodies, but at least some human beings, not all human beings, in fact human beings are in different categories. There's the really low human beings like undergraduates, then there are beings who are a little bit higher like graduate students, and then you have the supreme beings, Gnostics, like professors.
The true Gnostics, it's not really like undergraduates and graduates, because some of you could be Gnostics. You would be the ones who really have a real spark in you, a spark of the divine. That spark of the divine wants to escape the mud body that it's trapped in, but you probably don't even know that you're really a spark trapped in a mud body until somebody comes along and tells you, and that's the job of the redeemer. That's what Jesus did: Jesus was a redeemer from the supreme God who comes in to find those people who have a spark of the divine in them, to blow on that spark, to get it going, and to get you to remember where you came from. You're not a mud body after all. The real you came from Godself, God's very self, the supreme God. The true message of Christianity, according to these guys, is to learn who you are, where you came from, to see if you're going to escape the body and get back to your true origin, that is, you will become one with God again. This was expressed in a poem by Theodotus, it went like this:
Who we were, 
what we have become, 
where we were, 
whither we were thrown, 
whither we are hastening, 
from what we are redeemed, 
what birth is, 
what rebirth is.
You answer the riddle, the poem riddle. "Who we were?" If you're a Gnostic who were you? Answer?
Student: Divine being.
Professor Dale Martin: Divine being, thank you. See, it's not hard. I'm not asking questions--I'm just trying--you will remember this better if you answer. What have you become? Mud, entrapped in a dead body, trapped in materiality. Where were you? Heaven, with the divine Father, with God?
Professor Dale Martin: "Whither we were thrown," where have you been thrown?
Student: Into the earth.
Professor Dale Martin: Into the earth, into the world, into materiality. Where are you hastening, where are you going in a hurry--in such a hurry?
Student: Back to the divine.
Professor Dale Martin: Back to the divine God. What are you redeemed from?
Student: [Inaudible]
Professor Dale Martin: You're redeemed from Jesus?
Student: [Inaudible]
Professor Dale Martin: The material world. You're redeemed from being embodied. "What is birth?" In this system what is birth?
Student: [Inaudible]
Professor Dale Martin: Damnation, death. When you're born, your spark is entrapped in your body, that's not a good thing. You shouldn't be celebrating your birthday for crying out loud, that's like celebrating when you were thrown in prison. "What is rebirth?"
Student: [Inaudible]
Professor Dale Martin: Death or learning your true self, learning that the true self won't die at all, so this learning is your rebirth. So the little poem is a riddle that contains these doctrines within itself. Here's a true self, the spark of life is trapped in an alien body with all its sensual passions. Sex, therefore, sensual desire, erotic desire is a bad thing; it's an evil thing because that--you're just trying to trap more sparks into more mud bodies. You're just creating more sparks trapped in mud bodies when you have sex. Evil powers exist--all the different gods that were emanated, a bunch of those are evil, and they fly around the sky in the heavens and they try to keep the true self asleep or drunk in order to keep the evil world together. In other words, they don't want you to learn and they don't want your spark to be able to fly through. But really wise guys like me, we have the secrets and I can give you words, clues, secrets that if you know those things you can use these secrets to unlock the gates that lead back to God.
This is kind of a common storyline or myth, there's the Hymn of the Pearl, that I mentioned before, which basically tells this--that a king of the east sends a royal prince, by way of the region of Mycenae, to Egypt in order to get a precious pearl, which is being guarded by a fierce dragon, it's like a videogame. The prince is poisoned, or actually drugged would be a better accurate translation, and made intoxicated by the Egyptians. But he, the prince, is awakened by a message from the king. He, the prince, takes the pearl by defeating the dragon with the name of his father and returns to the east where he puts on a robe of knowledge, gnosis, and ascends to the king's palace, entering the realm of peace and living happily forever after. It's a nice little fable about a prince who goes to a foreign land, finds the thing of value, defeats the evil purposes and goes back. So some people, therefore, have read the Gospel of Thomas as being precisely this kind of--that some of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas makes sense if you presuppose these mythological structures and ideas.
Again, some scholars would say, well you're just putting together as a modern scholar a bunch of disparate kind of text and ideas, and putting them in a system. Well, yes, that's where I disagree with some people because I want to say I believe that there's enough commonalities between enough documents that we can say that there were people who had these kinds of common ideas, and this basic structure that I've called the Gnostic structure, the Gnostic myth, certainly influenced ancient writings of some sort and there was some kinds of Christianity that were heavily influenced by this.
For example, look at--back to Thomas for our last closing minutes and let's read some of these sayings that sound puzzling to us, and if we assume this myth maybe we'll read them differently. Look at 21:
Mary said to Jesus, "What do your disciples resemble? He said, "What they resemble is children living in a plot of land that is not theirs. When the owners of the land come they will say, 'Surrender our land to us.' They, for their part stripped naked in their presence, in order to give it back to them, and they give them back their land."
It could be an allegory. Who are the owners of the land? The evil powers that rule the earth. Who are the children, who are the real disciples of Jesus? Those people who know enough to say, when the earth is demanded of you, when your body is demanded of you by these evil powers, give it up, just give it up, it's not valuable anyway. Look at 24:
His disciples said, "Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears should listen! There is a light existing within a person of light, that it enlightens the whole world. If it does not enlighten, that person is darkness."
Remember how I said some people are just dark people, they're just mud people, but some people have a light in them, and what it means to become a true Gnostic is to learn that you are one who has that light.
Look at 37:
His disciples said, "When will you be shown forth to us, and when shall we behold you?" Jesus said, "When you strip naked without being ashamed and take your garments and put them under your feet like little children and tread upon them. Then you will see the child of the living and you will not be afraid."
What's the Gnostic interpretation of that?
Student: [Inaudible]
Professor Dale Martin: Stripping the material world off yourself. When you strip your soul, your spark of the body, when you realize that it's not the real you and you come to know the real you, that's what's going to happen. Look at 56:
Jesus said, "Whoever has become acquainted with the world has found a corpse, and the world is not worthy of the one who has found the corpse."
The world is just a dead body, so several of these sayings, if you go back through the Gospel of Thomas with some of this background information I've given you of these ancient myths and ideas, some of these sayings seem to fit that myth and fit that notion.
There are other things though about what I've just told you that you don't find in the Gospel of Thomas, and those are the things emphasized by people who say the Gospel of Thomas shouldn't called Gnostic. For example, there's no mention in here of an evil god that creates the world, like you find in some of these Nag Hammadi texts. You have the Father, you have apparently the good guy, you have Jesus, but tthere's no emphasis on creation here as being a bad thing. Some people said that's one of the fundamental things about the Gnostic myths and it's not in the Gospel of Thomas, therefore the Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic. There are also simply no string of myths and evil gods' names which you often find in the texts of Nag Hammadi. Some scholars would say the Gospel of Thomas may have some things in common with Platonism of the time, maybe something in common with certain Gnostics, but that it itself is not. If you take the Gospel of Thomas as representing those ideas, then Jesus comes across--the Christology of the Gospel of Thomas becomes something different from the Christology of the other texts, or least Matthew, Mark and Luke.
As we'll see, the Gospel of John looks a lot more like this than the Synoptic Gospels did. Jesus becomes this redeemer figure, this Gnostic redeemer figure who comes into the world of materiality in order to find those who have sparks of life, to blow on their sparks of live, to transmit hidden knowledge to them, so they can get back. If you'll stay with me the rest of the semester, maybe I can give you those secrets and you can escape your mud bodies too. You have your sections this week, by tomorrow they'll be up online at the classes server, and the different instructions for the rest of the sections, and you'll need to look at that because at your section on Thursday or Friday you'll need to choose which day and which topic you'll do your paper for, so that will be online by tomorrow morning. Thank you, see you next time.

[end of transcript]

The Care Stare













Well, you young-heads missed that shit. You’re all too young. You don’t remember that. 

How old are you, young, man? You -

"Twenty-four." 

Twenty-four? You don’t know shit. You don’t know shit! You gotta Google shit that I lived through. See, this is why I lock motherfuckers’ phones up. Seriously. Because the young kids, you guys need to take a break from that – We all need to break just from that technology, just for a minute. You know, I’m from a different time, young man. A dark time to you. I’m from a time that I didn’t even used to know who was on the phone until I answered the shit. 

Like, when Tragedy used to strike.

I remember I was 12 years old, and The Teacher wheeled a television set into the classroom. You remember these days? And she turned it on to one of three channels. And she said, “Class, the space shuttle is taking off, and we’re all gonna watch it take off.” Man, that shit was going great for like, three to five minutes. That’s right. You remember. It fucking exploded! Right on television. Everybody on board, dead. Immediately presumed dead. It was so bad, the teacher looked at all the kids and was like… “You can go home.” It was a goddamn national tragedy. This was Cold War America. The Russians were laughing at us.

My point is, for a guy your age wouldn’t even know the pain, because in your generation, it’s like the space shuttle blows up every fucking day. How can you care about anything when you know every goddamn thing? I’m getting over one cop shooting, and then another one happens, and then another one happens, and another one happens. I’m crying about Paris, and then Brussels happens. I can’t keep track of all this shit. So you just give the fuck up. That’s the hallmark of your generation, and that’s fucked up, because your generation lives in the most difficult time in human history. This is the age of spin. The age where nobody knows what the fuck they’re even looking at. Did you know that Planned Parenthood was for abortions? It’s for people that don’t plan things out at all. That’s right. So, a guy your age doesn’t really know how he feels. Are you pro-choice? Are you anti-consequences? What does it all really mean? It’s easier not to care for you. But for us, we were trained to care. We were raised that way.

I used to watch a fucking cartoon when I was growing up called Care Bears. It was about a fucking group of teddy-bear people. They were like teddy bears, but they were like people, and they were all different colors, and they all fucking just walked around, caring. They cared about each other and everything else. They all had different designs on their stomachs, and the designs told you something about what they might be like inside. Very, very loving group of beings. And when shit got real bad, as nice as those teddy bears were, they didn’t get mean faces. They got determined. Hmm! And the leader would say, “Come on, guys. It’s time for the Care Bear Stare!” Remember that shit? And them little teddy bears would lock arms… and stare at the problem– and I’m not even bullshitting– actual love would shoot out of their chests… and would dispel anything that was fucked up. And when we grew up, we wanted to be like those bears. And then we got our hearts broken, because we found out that life wasn’t gonna let us do that and that it’s impossible to shoot love out of your chest.

However, I have shot love onto somebody’s chest before. I do it all the time. It’s the next best thing. You kids don’t know. Your generation is just determined to be angry, mad. Everybody’s mad. Back when we were growing up, only black people were mad. Now everybody’s just trying to get in on the act. I try to think to myself, “When did everyone get mad?” 

You Can’t Do It, Can You?







Thursday, 30 July 2020

Reclaim Your Life

Demonic Oppression ~ Fr Ripperger

This is the prayer composed by Fr. Ripperger. 
Don't forget to pray for the Priests. 
I would also suggest looking into the Auxilium Christianorum

Most Blessed Trinity, by the authority given to me by the natural law and by Thy giving these things & rights to me, I claim authority, rights and power over my N. (income, finances, possessions, etc.) and anything else that pertains to the oppression. 

By the merits of Thy Sacred Wounds, I reclaim the rights, powers and authority over anything which I may have lost or conceded to any demon and I ask Thee to remove any demon's ability to influence or affect anything in my life. 

God the Father humiliate the demons that have sought to steal Thy glory from Thee by oppressing Thy creatures. 

We beseech Thee to show Thy great glory and power over them and Thy great generosity to me, Thine unworthy creature, by answering all that I have asked of Thee. 

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit. 
Amen.

A Nation of Scofflaws

“ I think it goes way back to Robin Hood and things like that, that there was A Myth of A Person Who Breaks The Law 
when it’s a STUPID Law — 
to give The People What They Want.

Once The Government starts forbidding things, then somebody will come along and say, 

“I Got It — Step around The Corner.”

— Peter Hamill

Wednesday, 29 July 2020

No Human Involved - Nick Broomfield on 'Disposable People'


Nick Broomfield, an award winning filmmaker, talks to Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi about his work. 

He says that his current film, 
about the ‘Grim Sleeper,’ 
alleged serial killer Lonnie Franklin
is about ‘Disposable People.’ 

The Police used to use the slang term 
no human involved,’ 
or NHI, to describe 
murdered prostitutes 
or gang members. 

They wouldn’t bother ‘doing proper forensics,’ 
would lose evidence so it didn’t take up too much room, 
and generally not put too much effort into investigating it.

There was an attitude that 
as these were disposable people, 
‘it didn’t really matter.’ 

He thinks it is more to do with class than colour, 
those who have little political weight, 
people who are not regarded as ‘proper citizens.’ 

It is, however, seen particularly in black communities 
like south central, or Ferguson, for example. 

He says that he’s ‘not sure The Police has changed their attitude very much, 
I think their PR departments [but] 
I think the attitude of NHI still very much exists today.’ 

He says that people feel the police racism 
in Ferguson could have happened across the States, 
and there is an ‘intrinsic racism’ 
in both the Republican and Democrat parties.

He also made a film about the 
23 Chinese cockle pickers 
who died in Morecambe Bay
which revealed the ‘exploitation’ 
of undocumented workers by a lot of big companies, 
yet no government has been prepared to take on the issue 
of immigration. 

He says that ‘Waitrose, Sainsburys, Tesco, are very dependent on this labour force to pick their vegetables, work in slaughter houses’ – the low paid, unregulated jobs, where immigrants make a huge contribution to the standard of living in Britain.

He argues that the political system in the US is ‘designed to disenfranchise’ minority communities, pointing out that possession of crack, something predominantly in black communities, you get an automatic felony conviction that excludes you from voting for minimum 7 years, whereas the white drug of choice, cocaine, would be a misdemeanour with no felony conviction, and he argues this has been the way since ‘the end of slavery.’ 
The reason he went to America to make films was down to the reaction to his first film, Juvenile Liaison, about police in a poor community in Blackburn, dealing mainly with juveniles. It is still banned to this day, he alleges, by police ‘putting enough pressure on the BFI,’ and available only for specialised groups. 

Heard Immunity : WINO FOREVER

Amber Heard Arguing With Johnny Depp Full Audio

One must be a Fox in order to recognise traps, 
and A Lion to frighten off Wolves.



BELOVÉD :
I didn't go with other men, you know. 
I always wanted to tell you that I didn't go with other men. 
Only Ted, and only the last few months after you and me were already over. 

MY MAN :
If we were •over• while we were still together, you might've mentioned it, because it was news to me. 

BELOVÉD :
That's because you weren't •there• anymore. 
You were Gone, ALL the time. 

MY MAN :
I worked at HOME, Amy! 

BELOVÉD :
That's not what I mean. 
Even when you were with me, you were gone, up in your head. 
I don't think that I looked in your eyes and saw you looking back at me....
...I mean, •really• with me, for the last two years. 

MY MAN :
You know what, you're right. 
You're absolutely right. 
It's all my fault. 

BELOVÉD :
No. I was too chickenshit. 
Ted wanted us to tell you together. 
He kept asking, I kept putting it off. 
I'll never forget that look on your face. 

MY MAN :
I gotta go. 

BELOVÉD :
Mort, wait. Can't we just...? 

MY MAN :
No! I've gotta go. 


BELOVÉD :
Will you call me if you need me? 

MY MAN :
I •doubt• it. 


BELOVÉD :
Can I come up there? 

MY MAN :
Why on earth would you do •that•? 


BELOVÉD :
You still haven't signed the papers yet, Mort. 
I know you don't want to deal with it. Me neither. 
But everything's been negotiated. 
We don't disagree on a •thing•. 
I don't understand why you won't sign. 
Don't you want to get it over with? 

MY MAN :
Unbelievable. You were worried about me, and I believed you. 
What an idiot.

"Oppression is a very broad category, dealing primarily with things that are EXTERNAL -- 

The Donald




Donald Kaufman : 
Okay, well here's The Twist. 
We find out that, that The Killer really suffers from multiple personality disorder, right? 
See, he's actually really The Cop AND The Girl. 

All of them are him. 

Isn't that fucked up?



Charlie Kaufman
The ONLY idea MORE overused than Serial Killers is Multiple Personality. 
On top of that, you explore the notion that Cop and Criminal are really two aspects of The Same Person. 
See EVERY cop movie ever made for other •examples• of this.


Donald Kaufman : 
Mom called it "psychologically taut".


Charlie Kaufman : 
How could you have somebody held prisoner in a basement and... and working at a Police Station at the same time?

Donald Kaufman : 
[pause]  
Trick Photography.


Donald Kaufman : 
I'm putting in a chase sequence. 
So The Killer flees on horseback with The Girl, The Cop's after them on a motorcycle and it's like a battle between motors and horses, like Technology vs. Horse.

Charlie Kaufman : 
And they're still all one person, right?

The Anti-Subtle Humour of Clowning




The only halfway effective strategy I’ve come up with for exploring Kafka’s funniness in class involves suggesting to students that much of his humor is actually sort of unsubtle — or rather anti•-subtle. 







“All I need to make a comedy is a park, a policeman and a pretty girl.”

Charlie Chaplin,
My Autobiography (1964), Ch. 10



Multiple Selves and Information Systems
by Robert Anton Wilson

Between 1910 and 1939, Charlie Chaplin always played the same character in all his films — the beloved little Tramp that became world-famous. 

In 1939, Chaplin wrote, directed and starred in The Great Dictator, in which the little Tramp did not appear. Instead, Chaplin played two charac-ters — a tyrant, based on Hitler, and a Jewish tailor, one of Hitler's victims. 

Audiences all over The World (except Germany, where the authorities banned the film) complained, mournfully and angrily, that they missed The Little Tramp. 

Chaplin, however, having gotten rid of The Tramp once, never did bring that persona back. 

In later films, he played many characters (a serial killer, a kindly old vaudevillian, a deposed king), but never the Tramp. People still com-plained that they wanted to see the Tramp again, but Chaplin went on creating new characters. 

(We will leave it to Jungians to explain why Chaplin had to become two opposite characters before he could personally escape the Archetype of the Tramp...

Many actors have had equally hard battles in getting detached from, if not a specific character, a specific type. Humphrey Bogart remained stuck in villain roles, usually gangsters, for nearly a decade before he got to play his first hero.

 Cary Grant never did escape from the hero type — either the romantic hero or the comic hero; when Alfred Hitchcock persuaded him to play a murderer, in Suspicion, the studio over-ruled both of them and tacked on a sur-prise ending in which the Grant character did not commit the murder, after all. Etc.

Back in "the real world," if a member of a family changes suddenly, the whole family suddenly appears agitated and disturbed. 

Family counselors have learned to expect this, even when the change consists of something everybody considers desirable — e.g., an alcoholic who suddenly stops drinking can "destabilize" the family to the extent that another member becomes clinically depressed, or develops psychosomatic symptoms, or even starts drink-ing heavily (as if the family "needed" an alcoholic). 

It seems that we not only speak and think in sentences like "John is an old grouch" but become disoriented and frightened if John suddenly starts acting friendly and generous. 



(Audiences rejected the previously "lovable" Chaplin most vehement-ly when he played the multiple wife-killer in Monsieur Verdoux. Probably, audiences would not have felt upset if the role had gone to the actor who originally wrote it for himself and sold it to Chaplin when the Hollywood moguls blacklisted him — Orson Welles.

If Dickens’ Scrooge had changed, in actuality, as he changed in the book, several people in his social field would have suddenly developed bizarre behaviors they had never shown before... 

Chaplin, amusingly, once made a comedy about the chaos created by a man who conspicuously does not exhibit the "isness" or "essence" our subject-predicate language programs us to expect, City Lights


In this film, The Little Tramp encounters a millionaire with two entirely different personalities: a generous and compassionate drunk, and a greedy, somewhat paranoid sober man. 

The Tramp and all the other characters soon exhibit behaviors that would look like clinical insanity to the audience, if we did not know the secret none of the characters guess: namely that each "personality" in the rich man appears when brain chemistry changes. 

The Russian mystic Gurdjieff claimed that we all contain multiple personalities. Many researchers in psychology and neuroscience now share that startling view. As Gurdjieff indicated, the "I" who toils at a job does not seem the same "I" who makes love with joy and passion, and the third "I" who occasionally gets angry for no evident reason seems a third personality, etc. There does not appear anything metaphysical about this; it even appears, measurably, on electroencephalograms. 

Dr. Frank Putnam of the National Institute of Health found that extreme cases of multiple personality — the only ones that ortho-dox psychiatry recognizes — show quite distinct brain waves for each "personality" almost as if the researchers had taken the electrodes off of one subject and attached them to another. (O'Regan. op. cit.) Dr. Rossi defines these separate personalities as "state specific information systems." 

Not only do we show different personalities when drunk and when sober, like Chaplin's emblematic millionaire, but we have different information banks ("memories") in these states. 

Thus, most people have noted that something that happened to them while drunk appears totally forgotten, until they get intoxicated again, and then the memory "miraculously" re-appears. 

This observation of state-specific information occurs even more frequently with LSD; nobody really remembers the richness of an LSD voyage until they take another dose. Emotional states seem part of a circular-causal loop with brain chemistry — it seems impossible, for science in 1990, to say that one part of the circle "causes" the other parts. 

Thus, we can now understand a phenomenon mentioned earlier, namely that we tend to remember happy experiences when happy and sad experiences when sad. The separate "personalities" or information systems within a typical human seem to fall into four main groups, with four additional groups appearing only in minorities who have engaged in one form or another of neurological self-research (metaprogramming).








“ The Gospel of Thomas is not in our canon for several reasons.

The Gospel of Thomas has become very famous, though, in the last part of the twentieth century because it was rediscovered and published and created something of a sensation.

According to the tradition, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus had a Twin Brother and his name was Didymus Judas Thomas. 

Now, Didymus is simply the Greek word for "Twin," it's also used as the Greek word for "testicles" for obvious reasons; there are usually two of them. 

Didymus is the Greek word for "Twin" and Thomas is from a Semitic word, either Hebrew or Aramaic, or Syriac, which are all three similar languages, "Thomas" would look like in "Twin" in those. 

The guy's name is Judas, the Hebrew version would be Judah, the Greek word would be Judas, and the English version is Jude, so you sometimes see it in English translations Didymus Jude Thomas but it's the same word, Judah or Judas. 

His real name is Judah or Judas and Didymus, and Thomas are his nicknames, one Greek and one Semitic or Aramaic. 

He was The Twin Brother of Jesus, according to early Christian tradition, now just one strand of early Christian tradition that is Thomasine Christianity, the forms of Christianity, popular especially in Syria and the east which traced their existence back to the Apostle Thomas. 

There really was an Apostle Thomas among the 12 of Jesus' disciples and having the nickname "Twin." 

Traditional orthodox Christians don't believe he was •Jesus'• Twin Brother, they just believe that he had the •nickname• “Twin” because he was Somebody Else's Twin Brother. 

But in Thomasine Christianity he was connected to Jesus himself as Jesus' Twin.

According to some forms of eastern Christianity therefore, especially the early forms in Syria, Mesopotamia, and India--and yes there was very, very early forms of Christianity in the west coast of India. 

And if you meet an Indian person who's from that part of India and who considers themselves Christian, and they've been Christian for generations they will tell you, “Yes, Thomas was the apostle who brought The Gospel to India the first time.”

There are ancient traditions about this and modern Indian Christians still trace their church back to the Apostle Thomas.

There are all kinds of Thomas literature from the ancient world. It's not all alike, it doesn't all represent one kind of Christianity or one church, or even one region. 

Besides the Gospel of Thomas we know of The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, this is a wonderful documentary if you took my historical Jesus class you get to read the fragments of The Infancy Gospel of Thomas that we still have. 

It shows Jesus--everybody wonders, well what was Jesus like as a kid? 

What games did he play? 
Did he play cops and robbers? 
Did he play with dolls? 

What did Jesus do as a kid? 

Well Thomas tells you, it tells you for example, that he made a bunch of clay pigeons, and when this Jew--it's kind of anti-Jewish document, this Jew comes up and says, “You’re not supposed to be doing that on the Sabbath”, so Jesus claps his hands and the pigeons all fly off, the clay pigeons fly off. 

Or when one of his buddies get--when he gets mad at one of his buddies so he strikes the kid dead and then has to raise the kid up again. 

When one of his teachers criticizes him, he says, ‘What do you know you bimbo?’ and strikes the teacher dumb and blind or something. 

Jesus as a Little Kid in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, is kind of a little rat but that's the way people imagined him as a child.”




“ My point is not that his wit is too subtle for US students. In fact, the only halfway effective strategy I’ve come up with for exploring Kafka’s funniness in class involves suggesting to students that much of his humor is actually sort of unsubtle — or rather •anti•-subtle. 

The claim is that Kafka’s funniness depends on some kind of radical literalization of Truths we tend to treat as metaphorical. I opine to them that some of our most profound collective intuitions seem to be expressible only as figures of speech, that that’s why we call these figures of speech expressions

With respect to “The Metamorphosis,” then, I might invite students to consider what is really being expressed when we refer to someone as ‘creepy’ or ‘gross’ or say that he is forced to ‘take shit’ as part of his job. 

Or to reread “In the Penal Colony” in light of expressions like ‘tongue-lashing’ or ‘tore him a new asshole’ or the gnomic “By middle age, everyone gets the face they deserve.” 

Or to approach “A Hunger Artist” in terms of tropes like ‘starved for attention’ or ‘love-starved’ or the double entendre in the term ‘self-denial’, or even as innocent a factoid as that the etymological root of ‘anorexia’ happens to be the Greek word for ‘longing’.”


SOME REMARKS ON KAFKA’S FUNNINESS FROM WHICH PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH HAS BEEN REMOVED,
by David Foster Wallace

Monday, 27 July 2020

Black Fragility


“We Identify as The Oppressed.” — Weaponised Victimhood

“ Today, we give everybody the Identity they NEED. We even teach it in the schools — it's called ‘Multiculturalism’. 

Everybody gets An Identity based on WHO raped WHOM : 

The Latin Americans understand that the most important thing is to get back at the Spanish colonialists

The Native Americans understand that the most important thing is to get back at The Whites — 

Everyone separated from Everyone Else. 

Fear? 

Hatred? 

Revenge? 

Sure! We give them •that•..! 

But we ALSO give them An •IDENTITY•....
.....and They. Are. Happy....."

" The Leaders at Esalen organised an Encounter Group [Struggle Session] for "White" and "Black Radicals" — 
Both groups would be encouraged to express their Inner Racist Feelings, which had been instilled in them by Society. 

By doing this, they would TRANSCEND those feelings, 
and encounter each other as Individuals.

"I started a series of Encounters entitled 'Racial Confrontation as Transcendental Experience' — 
We thought that we wanted to get that kind of Black-White Confrontation going, so you could REALLY get down to see what was between the two races, NOT by backing off and trying to be polite, but by going RIGHT into The Belly of The Beast of This Beast of Racial Prejudice." 

— George Leonard, 
Esalen Institute Encounter Group Leader, 
1960s.

The Black-White Encounter Sessions were a DISASTER — 

The Black Radicals saw it as an insidious attempt to 
Destroy Their POWER.

By trying to turn them into Liberated Individuals, Essalen was removing 
THE ONE THING that gave them Power and Confidence in their struggle against Racism — 

Their COLLECTIVE Identity as "Blacks"
 [ — The Victims of Racism, and The Oppressed/Socially Inferior Class under Systemic White Supremacy in America. ]". "





hhh

Sunday, 26 July 2020

Hitler Bathed Four Times a Day

Why Hitler Bathed Even More Than You Think - Prof. Jordan Peterson


Wall Street Journal
May 12, 2019 12:04 pm ET
OPINION | LETTERS
The Legacy of Eugenics Still
Echoes in America

Rather than a “renunciation” of eugenics in the 1930s, forced-sterilisation laws persisted for 40 more years at some of the best medical institutions.

Stephen Budiansky’s review of Daniel Okrent’s “The Guarded Gate” (Books, May 4) about eugenics in America fails to mention the pervasive forced-sterilization laws which persisted in the U.S. into the 1970s in places like North Carolina. Eugenics in America is important because the best medical journals and medical minds endorsed it. Rather than a “renunciation” of eugenics in the 1930s, forced-sterilization laws persisted for 40 more years at some of the best medical institutions.

And it was used as “evidence” for not just forced sterilization, but also euthanasia programs in Germany. Dr. Peter Breggin has documented that German psychiatrists practiced euthanasia both before and after the Third Reich.

Patience is The Reward paid due to he would  learn the skill to endure The Quiet.

The importance of eugenics for today’s health policy is important but ignored by both the medical community and mainstream media. The best medical journals advocate managed care to protect scarce resources and make America globally competitive. Harsh rationing of medical care to the poor, people of colour and the very sick elderly are a reality of modern managed care. 

The mainstream media and academic medicine do nothing.

We are on the verge of another “evidenced based” purge of “undesirables” in America. A reading of Stanley Milgram’s classic work, “Obedience to Authority,” shows how scientific authority can cause ordinary people to commit murderous acts against innocents. Mr. Budiansky should have taken notice and warned readers that the legacy of eugenics is at work in America today.
Brant S. Mittler, M.D., J.D.


The Engineers' Plot



Alas,” said The Mouse, 
The World is growing smaller every day. 
At the beginning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept running and running, and I was glad when at last I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have narrowed so quickly that I am in the last chamber already, and there in the corner stands the trap that I must run into.” 

You only need to change your direction,” 
said The Cat, and ate it up. “

For me, a signal frustration in trying to read Kafka with college students is that it is next to impossible to get them to see that Kafka is funny

Nor to appreciate the way funniness is bound up with the power of his stories. Because, of course, great short stories and great jokes have a lot in common. Both depend on what communications theorists sometimes call exformation, which is a certain quantity of vital information removed from but evoked by a communication in such a way as to cause a kind of explosion of associative connections within the recipient. 

This is probably why the effect of both short stories and jokes often feels sudden and percussive, like the venting of a long-stuck valve. It’s not for nothing that Kafka spoke of literature as “a hatchet with which we chop at the frozen seas inside us.” Nor is it an accident that the technical achievement of great short stories is often called compression—for both the pressure and the release are already inside the reader. What Kafka seems able to do better than just about anyone else is to orchestrate the pressure’s increase in such a way that it becomes intolerable at the precise instant it is released. 

The psychology of jokes helps account for part of the problem in teaching Kafka. We all know that there is no quicker way to empty a joke of its peculiar magic than to try to explain it—to point out, for example, that Lou Costello is mistaking the proper name Who for the interrogative pronoun who, and so on. And we all know the weird antipathy such explanations arouse in us, a feeling of not so much boredom as offense, as if something has been blasphemed. 

This is a lot like the teacher’s feelings at running a Kafka story through the gears of your standard undergrad critical analysis—plot to chart, symbols to decode, themes to exfoliate, etc. Kafka, of course, would be in a unique position to appreciate the irony of submitting his short stories to this kind of high-efficiency critical machine, the literary equivalent of tearing the petals off and grinding them up and running the goo through a spectrometer to explain why a rose smells so pretty. Franz Kafka, after all, is the story writer whose “Poseidon” imagines a sea god so overwhelmed with administrative paperwork that he never gets to sail or swim, and whose “In the Penal Colony” conceives description as punishment and torture as edification and the ultimate critic as a needled harrow whose coup de grâce is a spike through the forehead.

Another handicap, even for gifted students, is that—unlike, say, those of Joyce or Pound—the exformative associations that Kafka’s work creates are not intertextual or even historical. Kafka’s evocations are, rather, unconscious and almost sort of sub-archetypal, the primordial little-kid stuff from which myths derive; this is why we tend to call even his weirdest stories ‘nightmarish’ rather than ‘surreal’. The exformative associations in Kafka are also both simple and extremely rich, often just about impossible to be discursive about: imagine, for instance, asking a student to unpack and organize the various signification networks behind mouse, world, running, walls, narrowed, chamber, trap, cat, and cat eats mouse.












“Those That Ran The Soviet Union believed that they could plan, and manage 
A New Kind of Socialist Society.

They had discovered that it was impossible to control and predict everything — 
and The Plan had run out of control.

But rather than reveal that reveal this, The Technocrats decided to pretend that everything was still going according to The Plan.

And what emerged instead was 
Fake Version of The Society.

The Soviet Union became a Society where EVERYONE knew what their leaders said was   
Not-Real, because everyone could see with their own eyes that The Economy was falling apart —

But Everybody Had to Play Along, 
and pretend that it was Real — Because No-One Could Imagine an Alternative.

One Soviet writer called it HYPERNORMALISATION —You were so much a part of The System that it became impossible to see beyond it :

The Fakeness was HyperNormal


The Engineers' Plot

This episode details how the Bolshevik revolutionaries who came into power in 1917 attempted to industrialize and control the Soviet Union with rational scientific methods. 

The Bolsheviks wanted to turn the Soviet people into scientific beings.

Aleksei Gastev used Social Engineering, including a 
Social Engineering Machine, to make people more rational. 

Gastev founded the Central Institute of Labour (TsIT), Soviet think tank dedicated to the improvement of industrial efficiency.

But Bolshevik politicians and bourgeois engineers came into conflict. Lenin said: 
"The Communists are not directing anything, they are being directed." 

Stalin arrested 2000 engineers in 1930, eight of whom were convicted in the Industrial Party show trial. 
Engineering schools gave those loyal to the party only limited training in engineering, to minimize their potential political influence. 
Industrialized America was used as a template to develop the Soviet Union. 
Magnitogorsk was built to closely replicate the steel mill city Gary, Indiana. A former worker describes how they went so far as to create metal trees since trees could not grow on the steppe.

By the late 1930s, Stalin faithful engineers like Leonid Brezhnev, Alexei Kosygin and Nikita Khrushchev grew in influence, due to Stalin eliminating many earlier Bolshevik engineers. They aimed to use engineering in line with Stalin's policies to plan the entire country. At Gosplan, the head institution of central planning, engineers predicted future rational needs. 

Vitalii Semyonovich Lelchuk, from the USSR Academy of Sciences, describes the level of detail as absurd: 
"Even the KGB was told the quota of arrests to be made and the prisons to be used. The demand for coffins, novels and movies was all planned." 

The seemingly rational benchmarks began to have unexpected results. When the plan measured tonnes carried per kilometers, trains went long distances just to meet the quota. Sofas and chandeliers increased in size to meet measurements of material usage.

When Nikita Khrushchev took over after Stalin he tried to make improvements, including considering prices in the plan. 
The Head of the USSR State Committee for Organization and Methodology of Price Creation is shown with a tall stack of price logbooks declaring that 
"This shows quite clearly that The System is Rational." 

Academician Victor Glushkov proposed the use of cybernetics to control people as a remedy for the problems of planning. 

In the 60s computers began being used to process economic data. Consumer demand was calculated by computers from data gathered by surveys. But the time delay in the system meant that items were no longer in demand by the time they had been produced.

When Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin took over in the mid 60s, the economy of the Soviet Union was stagnating. By 1978 the country was in full economic crisis. Production had devolved to "pointless, elaborate ritual" and endeavours to improve the plan had been abandoned. 

"What had begun as a grand moral attempt to build a Rational Society ended by creating a bizarre, bewildering existence for millions of Soviet people".