Historic Progresses

1994 was a turning point. The resolution that I called "Harmonic Structuralism" was made as was a reading of Jung's "Man and his Symbols" which launched spontaneously an allegorical consciousness. That consciousness first applied itself to the film "Betty Blue" I had been mesmerised by earlier that in week of April, and which then became officially my favourite film, and which eerily came to be a "blue" print for the years that followed.

Betty never existed. She represents his anima figure and his creative side. Thus the awakening of his creative side and the publishing of his book is revealed as the plot with Betty. Beautiful colours throughout and her haunting melodic motif make it a pleasure to watch. The clue is the very last line of the film which goes something like, "Tu ecrit?" asks the cat to which Zorg replies, "Non, Je pense". It is clear that Betty never lived, and her death marks the absorption of his creativity into himself; and what does he write? The film never tells us, because it can't, because he writes no less than "Betty Blue". It is that circularity which I loved in 1994: it is what I have been calling the Ouroboros recently. Odd things happen when the Ouroboros tries to bites its tail: the writing has stopped, the films narrative has stopped, the Zorg we see is no longer the result of his hand on the page, it is the "real" Zorg and Betty becomes not the character of his hand but the force of creativity which has inspired his writing and now the making of the film. She becomes an ontological entity, through her death she becomes alive always.

It was a bit shaken when it occurred to me a few months ago that this was my own plan. I met a girl who was to be my own muse, who was to inspire me inner self, but I never counted on her dying, and I still wait to begin writing altho that day is approaching very fast. I haven't undergone the right transformation, "my muse" never become incorporated into me. She was a real person, and while I doubt I loved the real person, it would be unforgivable for her to be simply the canvas upon which my own psychology was played out. That someone has died remains a cold dawn that no romance seems to shift. I would be weeping at the tomb of Jesus although I never knew Him, and would refuse to see his resurrection as it might over shadow his death. Is it right that "my muse" might live again in writing as I has always wanted? Maybe in a way she does for I have written so much, but what I write must be good for it to be in Her name, and this has not happened yet. Maybe she will become the constant measure that insists on what is Good rather than accept what is mediocre (and a lot of writing in mediocre I think).

Returning to the "Harmonic Structuralism" - no reference to Structuralism I hadn't heard of this at the time simply a method of resolving the difference between Good and Bad. Heaven and Hell cannot be mirror imagines one good and one bad, because what then is the difference between Good and Bad? Instead I adopted a system where size was important. A system of rules which maintains a large system is better than one which supports a small system. I had the Nazis as my test system. Indeed Nazi Germany was a good time for the Nazis and the Germanic peoples. There was great hope and expectation. But such an idea only makes a small world because it does not include "inferior races". Liberalism is a better idea because it provides a harmonic system for more people. So one acts to support that group which is larger - or which at least has the potential to be larger.

This year was followed up with, in 1997, with a stanza. I had felt more and more clogged up with thinking, books and what seemed and endless path of learning. Walking back from the tube in Hounslow after a visist to the library at Imperial College, I came upon this which set the stage for the next decade.

I will see Existence just as it is,
And through this I will Be,
And with books and systems all behind
I'll live a Life that's me.

I'm think I'll return to this now as it is a good place to be. Indeed things have gotten confused, and at times like that we must return to "What Is". Our thoughts are only the caring servants of Reality. It is when our thoughts gain a life of their own that we drift from Reality and things become confused. Indeed I must return to Reality for a while to check that my thoughts are still firmly saddled upon the World.

A not so successsful idea from later that year was "Irreason". This is to Reason what Irrationality is to Rationality. A name for the idea that we don't need a positive reason for doing something. Somewhere between positive justification for an action and positive restraint is the grey area of Irreason. In otherwords I can't see why it should be done, but I can't see what harm it will do. Danny Wallace recently referred to a similar experiment, saying "Yes" more often. I found tho this causes problems, and while you have a story to tell it goes no where. I realised this after saying yes to a gay guy who asked me up for coffee. He tried to kiss me and I said 'no I'm straight, I was here just for the coffee'. We had a pleasant chat, it was interesting, I said yes to a peck on the lips, but he was just getting frustrated and so I thanked him for the coffee and left. It did do harm because he was confused by my random behaviour, and for me saying yes to a gay encounter is simply not what I want. I could say yes because he wants it, but it is just going to lead to more confusion when he finds out that I'm not "into" it. The conclusion then is simple: if we are not entirely sincere then we should not act. Hesitation, deliberation, consideration are all good. If opportunities are really so short lived and fickle then "easy come, easy go". Like girls they don't seem to wait around long, you have your window of opportunity, maybe a few months and then they are off - "easy come, easy go".

Qustion then is what is not "easy come, easy go"? Well that window of opportunity should be open now... that is what I'm looking for... they call it Enlightenment sometimes.