From: "Edward Moore" <monsieurtexteem-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Maeg ic be me selfum...
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:10:34 PDT


I, Edward Moore, wrote:
>
>> ...even if the synecdochic fragment -- the essential fragment of the 
"I" 
>> -- which is relied upon in the quest for poetic immortality on the 
>> _material plane_, even if it should be destroyed, by an act of 
history, 
>> historical indifference, revulsion and expulsion, book-burning, etc., 
>> what is to prevent it from either "returning as another,"  or of 
casting 
>> a spell, like Joseph Curwen in H. P. Lovecraft's _The Case of Charles 
>> Dexter Ward_ , and being resurrected by the "Magickal Arts" of some 
>> dedicated loner in the future...? some loner who seeks out the 
>> forgotten, the esoteric, works in desk drawers...

And Luke Pellen responded:

>I am a H.P.Lovecraft fan incidently - but such a scenareo sounds within 
the
>realms of possibility to me, I have no problem with such "fantasies"...

But to me it is not a fantasy: long forgotten works by long forgotten 
people are discovered every day.  Even anonymous works are synecdochic 
fragments of the consciousness of an individual who "once existed."  
Once "dead matter," but upon discovery, given a new electric energy.  An 
energy of transmission...

I am a bit surprised, though, at one little thing.  I gave you quite a 
bit of refutative ammunition by invoking Lovecraft -- a materialist and 
an atheist (I am one but not the other), who undoubtedly would have 
found my theories exceedingly arguable.  Lovecraft was an artist who did 
not believe in his fantasies.  You missed that.

>> -- Metaphor is not linguistic.  "One cannot rightly speak" of 
metaphor 
>> in/as language.  Metaphor belongs solely to the realm of Thought.
>
>So metaphor can exist without the aid of any cognitive symbolic system?
>[i.e. language] - I'd like to see that!

Language is not a "symbolic system," but rather a network of 
differential signifiers.  That is the NATURE of language -- as something 
external to thought.  Thought delves into language, like when Derrida 
speaks of ciphers that can only be read and understood by two people (in 
_Signature Event Context_); the cipher is still language because it is 
tied together by a structural logic that will make it _readable_ -- to 
_understand_ the cipher, however, would be to inject it with metaphor: 
the product of thought.

   .........
> 
>> It is not possible to displace our frame of reference: The Material 
>> World.  But we should not, because of that, believe that the material 
>> world is all there is, or posit it as an origin.
>
>Remember the matter/energy dichotomy? - The universe we live in IS a
>material universe; things have mass, weight, gravity, charge etc. The 
point
>is there doesn't NEED to be any exotic "non-material" universe - the
>universe we know and love is quite complex enough as is, and has 
incredible
>properties which we are still yet to fathom.

It is all a matter of where we turn our eyes, our gaze.  Even if we seek 
to "fathom" (that is the key word for you, isn't it?) certain 
"incredible properties," something in us will always strain "heavenward" 
(pardon the religous term) or rather "skyward" -- toward the sun.  
Georges Bataille calls it the "pineal eye," and recognizes an inherent 
"Icarian" reflex or movement in those of us who attempt, like myself, to 
forget that we have our "feet in the mud."  I prefer not to fathom, but 
rather to ascend.  If that means leaving behind material fact, logic, 
etc., and becoming a "fool" (I appreciate that term), then so be it.
> 
>> One need not be religious to believe in a _fall_. --
>
>You rely completely on faith for your assumptions - is this not 
"religious"?

Perhaps.  It could also be called "monomaniacal."  In any sort of 
investigation, be it artistic or scientific, we can only rely upon 
rational knowledge and intuition.  Rational knowledge always has an edge 
over intuition, for it is able to test itself in known fact (see 
Filorama, _A History of Gnosticism_ , p. 42).  "Faith" is the only 
passage open for intuition.  I think you'll agree that all facts, all 
knowledge, began their life in the realm of intuition.  You said 
yourself, I believe, that science is like a religion.
 
>> When artists begin to speak of carbon atoms and computer science, it 
is 
>> evident that they have lost touch with the magical waters of the deep 
>> well of fantasy -- the purple, gold, and green landscape of childhood 
-- 
>> eternal childhood that believes in gods and monsters and spirits... 
and 
>> creates its own religion...
>
>Put simply, this is an erroneous and somewhat insulting statement. Can 
you
>not the see the dialectic that drives us? Rather than science, I could 
just
>as easily discuss with you the joys of complete and unrestrained 
fantasy -
>of being plagued by uncontrolable hypnogogic images of alien worlds,
>spaceships, creatures... of embracing the rising sun... of the flood of
>endorphins as I listen to Tchaikovsky... of trances... of passionate
>madness...

The "joys of unrestrained fantasy" are not meant to be discussed;  they 
are meant to give rise to an artistic impulse or drive that will extend 
well beyond the logical, material world.  When we attempt to discuss 
them they fall flat...

>Is ignorance your primary criteria for an artist? Why can I not say 
that
>you, my friend, have lost touch with the magical waters of science?

Because in order for me to have lost touch with _those_ waters, I would 
have had to have been _in touch_ with them at some point...

>the phenomenal elegance of fractal mathematics and recursion, things 
which
>must be understood to be believed - things which, when examined 
closely,
>are truely MAGICAL! Things, like quantum mechanics or relativity which 
are
>completely counter-intuitive, yet undoubtably true. Science develops, 
yes,
>some theories fall by the wayside and some live on, it is the way of
>science, so yes, always take science with a pinch of salt - but do not 
deny
>that scientists are driven by almost exactly the same desire as 
artists...
>I feel fortunate in that, to some degree at least, I am both; I am a 
firm
>advocate of science AND art.

Very well, Luke.  You make a good point.  Perhaps my revulsion to 
science is due in part to the great effort it requires to understand it.  
I have always preferred the convulsive reactions I have to art and 
literature and music, and the way I can instantly capture them in my own 
works without any deep analysis.  My study of certain philosophies and 
religions, however, required me to proceed a little differently, i.e. 
with deep analysis.  The difference there was a sense of (interpretive) 
freedom.  I don't get that from science.  You have led me, though, to 
ask the question, Am I a victim of a self-imposed lacuna?  I guess I'm 
not a monomaniac after all.

BTW, my endorphins are set dancing more by Sibelius than Tchaikovsky.

>> There seems to be a strange, prevalent fear of the possibility of 
being 
>> interpreted...
>
>The fear is not of interpretation, but of misinterpretation...

All interpretation is misinterpretation.  Some "misreadings" or 
"misprisions" are "stronger" than others, though (see Harold Bloom, 
_Poetry, Revisionism, and Repression_: Yale 1976, to name just one of 
his works that deal with that concept).
 
>> By reducing the fantasies by which we create a sense of freedom for 
>> ourselves, by reducing them to "material" explanations, we remove 
from 
>> our field of vision that which we have come to view as _haze_ or 
>> _clouds_ (blocking our quest for some sort of truth) -- this _haze_ 
is 
>> really the glow accompanying the AS YET INCOMPLETE presence of 
something 
>> greater...
>
>I hope you are not espousing ignorance again...
>By reducing something to a material explanation [i.e. life] we are 
simply
>saying  "life can be DESCRIBED in such and such a way..." - we are NOT
>saying "life is NOTHING MORE than carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen 
etc"
>
>But upon sad reflection, you may be right: the world may be a happier 
more
>creative place if it were populated by ignorant fools... I shall simply 
sit
>tight and hope otherwise.
>
I have the impression, from reading these last few paragraphs, that your 
overriding intention was to disagree with me at every possible turn.  
Your penultimate paragraph, on a closer reading, revealed as much.  I 
never denied that life can be described "in such and such a way."  And I 
always said there is more than carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.

Thanks for the discussion.  Sincerely, it was very helpful, despite the 
slight acidity of this last posting.  I am still open for further 
discussion, however, and always will be, time permitting.


Edward Moore
<monsieurtexteEM-AT-hotmail.com>




---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------