Who asks these questions anyway ? And who’d fucking answer them ?!

David LynchMeditation, Creativity, Peace; Documentary of a 16-Country Tour [OFFICIAL], David Lynch Foundation, 2012

***

8:21

You’re using the hook metaphor. Do ideas, once they’re hooked, become proprietary ? And is writing them down the hook ?

***

Sometimes, an idea crosses your mind, giving you an epiphany, true or false. But, whether because you’re too tired or your thoughts are too volatile or multidirectional, you let it float again, like you would pollen landing on your clothes on a Spring day. Maybe it’ll come back, maybe it won’t. Was that idea destined for you ? Is it destined for someone within a small group of people with whom you unwittingly share a certain idiosyncrasy ? For anyone ?

***

Can a hooked idea be satisfied with its status ? Is it bound to die out ?

***

How do you explain that once popular ideas – movies, songs – have successfully passed the test of time, while others have rapidly faded out ?

10:58

What do you think dreams were like before the great technological leap ?

***

What are your thoughts on (mass) manufacturing dreams, as a promise of the near future ?

11:17

If military and geopolitical aspects are to be disregarded in this “invincibility”, why would or should a practice resting on the universality of mankind and the possibility of enlightenment of every human being keep taking the concept of nation-State into account ?

13:13

Is it future or is it past ? Are you inferring Yoda was or will be inspired by The Maharishi ?

13:44

Are those what Dougie is drawing on his casefiles ?

14:04

Are you referring to “the theory of everything”, which, to my knowledge is much more recent, and is just that for now, namely a theory, gravity remaining the troublemaker ?

***

What would you tell any Buddhist who’d argue something cannot come out of nothing ? Could you elaborate on the notion of no-thingness, as opposed to nothingness ?

***

Is the realm of the infinitely small here and now necessarily symmetric to the realm of the gigantic as it was and will appear ? And is it fair to say that seeking unity (understood as essentiality) in the former implies digging, hence dividing, ever further ?

15:05

Is speculation knowledge ? Is intuition (always) truth ? Is meditation thought ?

***

So, mind is not matter ?

15:29

This specific ?

Do we really need a guru for that ?

16:44

I say : mushrooms ! Just not the kind displayed in episode 8, which are transcendental too, only in a bad way… Mine are true bliss. With moderation, of course, for as another proselytic visionary might have said in a different set of circumstances : once tuned in, we wouldn’t want to drop out entirely, would we ? Why in Totality’s name won’t you bow to the Divine Mushroom ? Are there rules you need to publicly follow to keep your DWP award ? Do psychedelics happen to be a Higher-Degree monopoly ? And why would you associate Jerry Horne’s spliff with sadness and disorientation ?

***

Looking carefully at the following painting while sober, then casually while mildly stoned, what can you tell me ? Let’s do the test…

Umberto Boccioni, Materia (1912)

***

Do you have any common grounds with Aldous Huxley ?

18:12

Yet there’s so little light in the universe it might be considered as the absence of darkness, might it not ?

***

Why is it that, so far, the road to Twin Peaks is ever darker, instead of brighter ? Is your doppelganger to blame for that ? If so, what is your relation to him deep down ? Is he what you need to expurgate in order to feel “pure consciousness” or is he, on the contrary, an unmissable part of it ?

***

These days, film recordings are digital, which renders the very word ‘film’ inaccurate. Yet, we’re still talking about a medium for a screened fiction. And a screened fiction is supposed to remain a negative. Does “the other world” [23:15] affect the actual one in a transcendental way ? And, if any, what is the respective impact on reality, both common and individual (the actors’, the director’s), of a negative negative and a positive negative in today’s society ?

20:09

The long scene of a guy sweeping the floor at the end of episode 7 of course carries a symbolic value directly related to the script : he’s cleaning up his boss’s mess. But perhaps it also reveals a more profound symbolism : method and organization are central to every occupation. And the least one could say is that the sweeper is methodical. Furthermore, what he’s doing is bringing scattered pieces, albeit pieces of dirt, together to form a whole. Would I be going too far if I said the apparent incongruity of this scene in terms of time – any other director would have cut it after two seconds – is actually a token of respect. And, if so, is it respect for the man or for the job ?

***

Don’t you think a lot of jobs are utterly worthless to the people who exert them, in that the mechanical repetitiveness of the tasks they’re required to perform doesn’t allow any room for mind expansion, let alone creativity : they’re mind numbing. Aren’t you speaking from a highly privileged position ?

***

In his 1867 Reasoned Proposal to the Central Committee of the League for Peace and Freedom, precisely fifty years before the Redvolution, Russian Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin said : “we are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice; and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” Among your foundation’s wealthy trustees, we find UBS Private Wealth Management managing director Mark Axelowitz. Roman emperor Vespasian is said to have claimed “money has no smell”. You mention the toilet cleaner’s boss. Anarchy not your thing ?

***

A few years ago, one of my high-school history teachers vigorously opposed the construction of a Belgian Maharishi center in his town : http://www.sauveznil.be/docs/argumentaire/argumentaire.html.

The move coincided with your 16-Country Tour.

One of the reasons he put forward was this quote (hereafter translated back into English from a French translation) he had found in a Maharishi International University publication : “there is no place for the weak, and there can be none. The strong must lead and if the weak don’t follow, there can be no place for them. […] The ignorant must let the elite of the wise enlighten them. In nature itself, the weak disappear. The non-existence of the weak is a law of nature.

As a high-ranking Maharishi scholar, how would you define “weak” in this context ?

***

Another of his complaints pertained to the very (very !) lucrative side of Maharishi’s business. This grievance was echoed by award-winning British journalist David Jones in a 2008 article he wrote about The Beatles’ relation to the Maharishi : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-512747/Lennon-right-The-Giggling-Guru-shameless-old-fraud.html.

For argument’s sake, let’s say Larry Jacoby’s radio-broadcasted rant in episode 5 was positive-minded. Isn’t the fact almost every spiritual, philosophical or political message has become a mere vector for goods to sell (which is to say the act of selling takes precedence over the message and is in fact the actual message) the mud humanity needs (regular) “shit-digging shovels” to dig itself out of ? What happened to the ‘Guru Devs’ of the world ?…

***

Let’s go back a couple of questions : can anarchy fit in a creative process involving dozens if not hundreds of collaborators ? Is the artist God in his “other worlds” ? How flexible can your vision be ?

***

Did hierarchy, ABC’s for instance, ever (seek to) limit your creativity ? To what extent were young film directors without (financial) connections able to safeguard their artistic integrity when you started in the business ? Has the Internet as a means of self-distribution actually levelled the playing field ?

24:05

Can those qualities be detached from the environment in which individuals evolve ? For instance, can one get rid of stress in a business environment in which it has become the supreme management mode ? Can a dasein be harmonious if the mitsein is structured to be antagonistic and hollow ? If said qualities form a new language, what is an Untouchable to do if he finds no other speakers ? And are they a path to genuineness or to objective interest fulfillment ?

25:20

This reminds me of David Cronenberg’s “eXistenZ”. Our hardware exists, of course, but that, like all other animals, we perceive through our sensitivity. When we speak of consciousness, we refer to our dasein. But isn’t it possible our software is merely a projection onto us ?

28:19

Are you a possessive man, Mr. Lynch ?

32:49

Would you say Dougie, at this stage, is contemplative ? How would you define the state he’s in ? In how far does it differ from Carl’s when he’s sitting on a bench watching trees in episode 6 ? They both seem to be able to relate to younger minds, but they do so in different ways, don’t they ? What’s the difference ?

33:43

Would you agree that, due to the way they are conceived, none of the forms of society humans have experimented with until now, with the exception of a few interludes here and there maybe, could have tolerated for that ability to be extended beyond a restricted circle of happy few ? And if it were, are you saying A Brave New World would actually be viable ?

36:22

Isn’t that a very reactionary thing to say ? All of them, while advocating totality, sowed the seeds of totalitarianism; some still do. How can you reconcile your idea of enlightenment with the very obscurantism the Enlightenment rose to crush ? And when implemented in the City, when does the quest for totality start to flirt with despotism ?

38:26

A sheer matter of perception, perhaps ?

39:19

Yet, not every consequence for an individual is a result of an action by that individual : was the horrifying fate of the little boy ran over by Richard Horne’s truck a manifestation of karma ? Conversely, when one looks at how easily the 2008 banksters got away with nearly lighting the fuse of a new world war – worse yet, how they got promoted and their bonuses skyrocketed –, can’t this hope for cosmic retribution act as a deterrent for those who might otherwise join an offensive struggle for secular justice ? What is sometimes referred to as magical thinking is not necessarily systematically irrational : unless it’s pure fantasy, it may rely on processes scientists are simply unable to grasp at a given time, yet no less real. But what is more fundamental to you : karma law or human justice ?

53:55

What room would there be for individual dissent (a.k.a. creativity) as to the evidently very narrow newspeak framework, some elements of the technique, or the morality of the method, not to mention the (democratic) sustainability of the assigned objective itself ? Is TM a technique, as you repeatedly said, or more of a discipline ? Can the mind of an individual be enlightened by anything else than its own critical thinking ? And can critical thinking occur within a hive ?

54:55

Two things come to mind here : Gramsci’s cultural revolution (subversion through entryism) on the one hand, etymological fascism (> Italian ‘fascio’, meaning ‘beam’) on the other hand. To the legions of young nazi soldiers subjugated by Hitler’s inflamed speeches, did the latter contain anything but positivity and hope, the hope to transcend the humiliation imposed by the Treaty of Versailles ? What about the free will of the recipients of positive energy ?

***

If, as I posited earlier in our conversation, film remains a negative, so in some ways does the mind, doesn’t it ? Supposing this grand scheme is motivated by good intentions, isn’t the road to hell paved with them ?

***

Statements like “everybody knows that” don’t come close to scientific evidence. And while I perfectly understand the primacy of intuition as a powerful, legitimate and necessary structuring force from an artistic standpoint, I worry about expanding that idea and its implications to the political environment. Could it be science (which is to say facts that can be demonstrated and are undisputed for a period of time) is (again) a political hindrance ? Should we hold a Twitter contest about it ? Is it present or is it past ?

56:40

But it is, isn’t it ? At least insofar as it religat, as it binds [people] together.

1:00:07

What you’re describing here as the epilogue of evolution (“It gets to the point where […]”) also happens to be Rousseau’s state-of-nature prologue. Do you feel the irony ?

1:05:10

As such, this sentence is a little scary, considering how various new technologies were used by “the old way of thinking” (starting with electroshock so-called therapy). Did you mean ‘the techniques’ ? Is « what happens » necessarily the same from one individual to another ? Should they, if possible, be applied synchronously to everyone ? Would that appease people ? And, once again : never do you mention inequality as the major cause for war… Could it be one man’s bottom of the well is another man’s surface ?

Spasiba very much for your candid answers, Mr. Lynch. I’m a big admirer of yours. Which one of you, though, I don’t quite know…

Publicités
Catégories : Eclairage cinématographique, Expérimentations diverses non catégorisées, Philo de comptoir, Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , , | Poster un commentaire

Navigation des articles

Laisser un commentaire

Choisissez une méthode de connexion pour poster votre commentaire:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

Créez un site Web ou un blog gratuitement sur WordPress.com.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :