WORK IN PROGRESS

[shrimperdude]

"Work for it, baby!"
Another Time Publishing - 2011
SOME COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN
Brian McVeigh(on SEP 27) ...very interesting commentary.
Abe Vanluik(on SEP 29) ...the way you wrote it was almost like a dream, it kept morphing into something else. From physics it morphed into metaphysics/philosophy, then religion, then subtly back to physics except it didn't look like physics anymore.
Rebekah Levy(on OCT 7) It's actually very interesting, even if it's not on purpose, to be so inconsistent with time...it's more like someone who hasn't yet fully developed the abstract "I", the Jaynesian consciousness, so to speak.




PREFACE
You are about to enter the secret world that first of all is a place, but should not be confused with a geographical location. It is not a virtual space either, for in it you will find real persons who have entered it with their bodies intact, and can leave if they so desire. Many of the persons you might meet in this world 'work in the biz(business)' and most of them are acutely conscious of being in that world; it is their reticence to speak openly about certain aspects of their experience while in it that makes it a secret one.
You will be required(if you read Chapter One) to familiarize yourself with a piece of lighting equipment no longer in use. The argot that lamp operators use would not make much sense to you without this advance preparation. While you would definitely find all this technical information useful, if you happened to be in possession of one of these now antiquated instruments, that is not the reason I chose this method to assist me in the expression of ideas about human consciousness.
Writers are frequently counseled to write about what they know. This writer knows spotlights better than anything else he was exposed to while in his secret world. What I know about them, if taken alone, would provide the content for an exhaustive technical manual. If we begin to consider how I learned what I know, a process then becomes the subject of the manual. Describing that process is most naturally facilitated by making constant reference to actual experiences that I had while learning to operate this specific piece of equipment.
On an entirely different level, keeping exclusively to the learning which was facilitated for me by the actions I physically performed every time I ran that old light, exemplifies perfectly for my readers the power in the teaching technique that transformed me. Self-development techniques that do not require this 'real world' grounding in physical processes which produce value for others(like TM, for instance), not only work poorly, but the results achieved(if any) can be dangerous.
There is some ‘name-dropping,’ which generally is understood to be the author’s pathetic attempt to associate himself with someone everybody knows. Robert Pirsig’s name may not be known to many of you, but you may have heard of his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance(ZAMM), a wildly popular book published in 1974. Mostly, I intended for my readers to be inspired to undertake some research; find out more about him and his work. I think this book is comparable to Pirsig’s ZAMM in several ways; most important are these two:1)His relates real experiences, and 2)He argues for the importance of useful work, as it affects the learning process; perhaps implying it was a necessary component for him.
Gurdjieff’s name is a recurring one that could take some persons a lifetime to even begin to understand, but some research would at least help the person who has never heard the name to garner a more well-rounded concept of spiritual teachers. I believe the first time anything written by him appeared in the United States was when his Meetings with Remarkable Men was released in 1959. His method of teaching required strenuous physical participation and is commonly referred to as The Work. Gurdjieff felt strongly that developing a higher consciousness was the only hope our species has if it will avoid eventual extinction.
If you enjoy the research as much as you do the reading, you will find that there is a lot of scientific research going on at the ‘frontier’ of our understanding of consciousness, memory, the learning process itself and many other related aspects of cognition. These intrepid explorers come from many disciplines, but their work seems to be converging. There is one particular theory that seems to be useful in a number of these disciplines which is generally known as the Global Workspace; a place where the mind throws a spotlight on specific perceptions and/or conceptions; a place being compared to the stage in a theater, or Theater of the Mind.
When I was working my way through college, I took a basic Drama course(signing up because for me it would be a crip-course) for which I received some credits for having attended certain shows. We were allowed wide latitude when choosing what to go see. For me, this represented a ticket-buying experience that was quite novel; I could walk into any performance at any theater at any time, but buying a ticket and taking a seat in the house(like anyone else) was new to me. By the time I had earned all the extra credit available, I had learned a new behavior. Even for a show business insider, these nights in the theater are very rewarding experiences. I hope all the things I have said here will enhance your next theater experience and encourage you to have more of them. See you in the theater!


SPOT-OP
I was taught how to operate a followspot while I was still an apprentice. I trained on a trouper made by Strong; that's the equipment they had at the Auditorium and what you'd most likely see with travelling attractions at that time. This device combined three separate systems and I had to learn all about all three before I would be given an opportunity to run one of them during a show.
The first is the most basic, and it is the mechanical system that allows for the 'follow' function incorporated into its common name. It is a precision headgear, much like the 'head' camera operators affix to the top of their tri-pod(or camera dolly), and allows for the smooth movement, the panning and tilting, and also incorporates mechanisms useful in locking off or retarding that movement. This mechanism is inserted into the heavy rolling base in such a way that you can adjust the height also. The base is heavy because the heaviest elements of another system were placed there to lower the center of gravity, to make the platform more stable and to make the moving elements lighter.
The second system the apprentice must become well-acquainted with is the optical system which corresponds to the 'spot' function referred to in the rest of the common name. Many refer to this piece of equipment as a projector when they don't recognize that it is a spotlight. That's actually an intuitive mistake, because the optics located in the front part of the barrel-shaped piece that sits atop the base when assembled, are nearly identical in form and function to the optics in projectors and cameras or telescopes. A more detailed explanation of this system makes more sense if we discuss the lamp first.
The lamp is the function of the third system, is probably the most esoteric(because there is no mention of it in that common name:FOLLOWSPOT) and complex of the three, and by far the most important one for the apprentice to truly master(because during a performance is no time to be figuring out what has gone wrong with it or to attempt even the most minor adjustments to it). Strong's trouper has a carbon arc lamp that produces an illumination that can be viewed by the operator only with adequate eye protection.
At the very heart of the lamp's efficient design is its parabolic reflector(technically an optical element). You may have encountered the peculiar shape that is a parabola in your second year of algebra when you were introduced to quadratic equations. If so, then you will remember that there is one point(and ONLY one point) that has the 'magical' relationship to all the other points represented in your graph of those equations; if not, then by making reference to the common flashlight, which I'm sure each of you has some familiarity with, I can demonstrate to your complete understanding the importance of finding that point.
The lamp in a flashlight is a tiny glass bulb that when lit will throw its illuminating radiation in every direction out and away from its hot, glowing filament. The flashlight is useful because it concentrates and focuses that radiation into a beam that can be directed at whatever position in your surroundings where you desire more light. It is the tiny parabolic reflector in the flashlight that performs the magic, and the lights designer has placed the socket for the tiny bulb just so; so that the filament, when lit, is always at that all-important focal point.
Complicating matters considerably for the operator of a trouper is the fact that the arc inside the very hot and very bright lamphouse is consuming the carbon rods in the process. One of the rods is held in a clamp that sits behind the reflector at the back of the spotlight. The reflector is a round, curved glass mirror with a hole in the center that lets the rod extend through it to the front side of the parabolic mirror. Another rod is then clamped into position forward of the first rod, and when both clamps are then electrified with a powerful direct current you may touch momentarily the tips of the rod by means of the 'striker' mechanism. When the tips separate, they draw an arc that's as bright as lightning; that arc is extremely hot and the carbon begins immediately to burn away while its copper jacket slowly melts away.
The two clamps are riding along a worm gear that is turned slowly by a small motor all the way at the back; they are held in place by spring clamps that engage the grooves cut deeply into the worm so that it looks like two screws turned in the opposite direction. One groove pulls the rear carbon constantly forward through the reflector while the grooves cut in the opposite direction at the other end of the worm push the front-most carbon rod back towards the other rod, thereby maintaining the correct gap to maintain the arc that has been struck. Some minor adjustment to the motor speed may be required to maintain the optimum gap(distance between the rod-tips) for cooler operation and to allow the light to get to the surface of the reflector.
When you first clamp those carbons in place(before you switch on the current) is the time to make sure the gap is in the proper place with relation to the position of the reflector. If the arc is not exactly at the focal point of that reflector, the light projected out the front by the optical system will be dim and off-color. There is a mechanism(the knurl knob) that allows for some minor adjustment, forward or back, during lamp operation but you will need all that capability to maintain a bright white light for the length of time you will be busy at the other end of the spotlight during Act I of your show! There are also some minor adjustments that can be made to better align the reflector with the optics up front, but you won't be able to make those adjustments during a performance either.
All that direct current(DC) is coming to the lamp from a large(and heavy) rectifier that is in the base, so there is an electrical connection which must be made when you assemble the spotlight. You also require a reliable connection to the house's power supply. These arc lights draw a substantial current; you will not likely want to share that power circuit with another spotlight. The last thing you need to complicate things for you is for a breaker to blow during the show! If you can turn the lamp on when you have got it set up, its best to let it run awhile to test the breaker(all lamps at once if possible). This is the best time to make all the adjustments that will improve the quality of your light, for sometimes, depending on what is going on in the theater, it may not be possible(or not appropriate) to open your light on the stage to see what it looks like. Most adjustments will remain the same from show to show(unless the equipment has been moved - hence the name trouper); well- trained operators are reluctant to make adjustments to the lamp they are assigned, since it is assumed it was properly adjusted the last time it was used.
Now, with the lamp shining brightly, the apprentice can finally take the optical controls in hand and begin practicing the art of putting the light that spills from the front exactly where(and ONLY where) it is desired. The first control your hand needs to accustom itself to operating(and FINDING; it's highly advisable to keep ones eyes on the 'target area' where the light is likely to appear) is the knob(a lever actually) that 'blacks' it out. "When in doubt - BLACKOUT!" But from a design standpoint, it is the lenses that we need to understand. As you know, from your experience with your own flashlight, the further away you get from anything the bigger the light-pool that the beam throws will be. The bigger pool is also dimmer, and flashlights don't have lenses. Spotlights are necessarily some distance from the stage(or target area); usually the rear of an auditorium or the furthest reaches of a coliseum. The distance from the stage to the spotlight is the 'throw,' and a large convex lens located at the front end of the 'spot' is necessary to keep the light-beam the reflector is throwing from being scattered all over the place(It's this 'scattering' that makes the light dimmer of course.); the appropriate lens to compensate for the required throw. The longer the focal length of that front lens, the smaller the light pool will be, and a quality optical lens goes a long ways toward preserving the brightness at such distances(200 to 400 feet are common throws with followspots).
That front-most lens has been fitted with a comfortable handle, and with that control the large lens can be zoomed in and out making a dramatic change in the size of the circle of light you observe from your position as the operator(that light pool does not look like a circle from anywhere else in the theater). That feature is why you rarely would have to change out the large lens for one with a different focal length when it is 'trouped' into another theater where the throw is different. Generally, that zoom adjustment does not change during the performance(on an ice show the lens is moved constantly as the skaters move up and down a long arena); the comfortable handle is the one the operator is using to pan and tilt his instrument while following the action or movement, or swinging to another position while 'blacked out.'
When you adjust the boom(sometimes boomerang), a much smaller convex lens to the rear is simultaneously adjusted in the opposite direction; a steel band that is attached to the large front lens, runs first over a pulley(reversing the action) and then to an attachment at the rear that moves the smaller lens. These multiple optical elements(much like the front and rear lenses in a spyglass) work together to keep the beam projected on the stage in a sharp focus; next to the boom handle is a small knob that allows for a fine tuning of that focus by making a slight adjustment to the rear lens.

FIGURE 1 here

Now, if you've grasped the overall shape of this contraption, either from my description or from having seen one/them at an attraction you may have attended, you should be visualizing a round base(about two feet wide at the bottom where your feet will soon be located) about chest-high or -tall, with a long(six to eight feet) cannon or tube-thing balanced on top with its business-end pointed down towards the stage. As the operator, you would 'address' your trouper from its right side(always facing the stage - and opposite the 'safe' side when mounting a horse), standing close to it with your body facing the light and your head turned right, facing the stage and in the direction your spot will throw its light. Your left hand is above the 'cannon' and resting on the blackout knob. Your right hand has taken a firm grip on the lens 'boom' handle described earlier, that juts from the side of the very front end of the 'cannon's' barrel.
The lamp is still off. Your left hand holds the knob end of a lever that can be moved away from your body(to blackout) or toward you to slowly open the mechanism(to fade in). The lever should move smoothly, but with just enough resistance to let it stay put when you remove your hand. This lever opens and closes an iris(much like in the eye) that enlarges or constricts the circular opening that the lightbeam can pass through on its way to the lenses. This blackout knob is the frontmost of three levers your left hand will grope for(usually in the dark), while you observe the effect that control is having on your lightpool down on the stage. The next knob(moving further back) is your stripper(sometimes chopper), which will make two ‘cuts,’ turning the circular pool into a more rectangular one by moving blade-like plates into the lightbeam from the top and bottom. When the stripper knob is pushed away it is fully open(the opposite of the B.O. knob); when pulled over towards you it can also blackout the lamp, but using the stripper makes it wink out like when you blink your eye(instead of fading out). The last one, farthest to the rear of your spotlight, is another iris mechanism; this is your primary control determining the working size of your circular lightpool. Its location(further to the rear) is closer to the focal point of the reflector allowing a sharp edge as you open and close the iris. This mechanism, when closed all the way down, would also blackout the lamp but the delicate curved metal plates that close down the circle should never be used that way because they cannot withstand the high heat at the focal point of the beam. The B.O. iris, located only about eight inches farther forward, where the beam is not so sharply focused, is not subjected to the same extremes of heat.
Now that you have the feel of the controls, let’s trim the lamp so we can strike the arc. Step to your left(towards the rear of the spotlight) and open the large door(almost your whole side of the lamphouse) by pulling it toward you and swinging it up out of the way on its hinge. There may be some carbons laying in the drip pan(they seem to work better when kept warm); there may be a box of them slid underneath the base(another way to keep them warm). Usually you will have to remove the old carbons, now shorter as they have been burned away during use(sometimes these ‘stubs’ are kept right there in the ‘pan’ for use in an emergency; most apprentices will get any practice they are lucky enough to get, while burning only these throwaways). After removal, the jaws(where the new carbons will be clamped in place) are returned to their starting position by cranking(there’s actually a crank-handle on the back end of a trouper) the worm gear with your left hand until they are as far apart as they will go. The left carbon is fitted through the rear of the reflector and clamped into place(not too tightly, as the heating of the clamp during operation makes the clamp get even tighter). Its tip is laying in a v-shaped steel rest now, that sticks up in front of the mirror and keeps the tip centered. Hanging on the rest, just below the rod tip, is a removable(for emptying) drip cup that should catch all the molten copper that drops from the arc. Clamp the other rod into position and it should align itself well with the rearmost rod. Now close that door!
Now flip the power switch into the on position. That energizes the jaws, and the carbons now clamped into them. To touch them now would be a mistake; hence the door shuts before you switch the thing on! Now a small motor has begun to turn the worm gear; the carbon tips are slowly advancing towards one another. There is a dial on the back of the spotlight that will adjust the motor speed. Crank the gear now to bring the tips together, then quickly back apart striking the arc. You can observe this operation through a small window in the center of the door; it has a dark green glass to protect your eyes(like in a welder’s mask). Your ‘dowser(blackout lever)’ should be in the OUT position(away); open it now and your light will open up on the stage, or you may want to move it onto a nearby vertical surface while you make the many adjustments that are better made while observing the effect they have on the quality of your light. You should wait a minute or two while your carbons ‘burn in’ properly (quit sputtering) before you adjust for your brightest light. There is a lot of smoke during burn in and a bit at all times during normal operation. These noxious fumes are escaping at the top of the lamphouse and should be properly ventilated for safety.
While looking at your projected beam, with your left hand you adjust the knurl knob('knurl' because it is on the same shaft as the worm gear; just under the crank) to move the arc into the reflector’s sweet spot. If it was rotated all the way out when you trimmed up, you should have rotated it back in at that time. Once you’ve used up all the adjustment, your light will begin losing brightness or develop a dark spot in it, and there’s nothing else you can do until you go out to re-trim. You may need to slide the boom back slightly at this time to adjust for the distance to the target. Then, with the iris in somewhat, so you can see the edge(cut) it makes on your beam, you make the fine adjustment to the rear lens to sharpen that edge. You may also need to fine-tune your reflector to get the light smooth all the way across your widest spot. During all this you have been watching your rod tips to see that the motor speed is not closing the gap that you set at strike-up or letting the carbons burn the gap wider(too wide and you lose your arc). Sometimes it is better to change the voltage coming to the lamp to compensate, rather than change the motor speed. If less voltage will mitigate the problem, then you can run a little longer before you have to re-trim.
At the front end is a color boom that holds six frames for colored ‘gels.’ You slide the one you want to use up in front of the spotlight where a magnet holds it up there. While you are checking your new trim, you might need to run through these colors to see if they are in good condition, are in the right order or check to see that yours match what the other spots have. This contraption is an accessory, and sometimes you will see various items dangling from the rear end of the light that have been tied on there to counterbalance the additional weight.
Another ‘accessory’ you probably should check at this point is your headset; the communications with the stage manager and with the other spots can be very important. Good luck. The show’s about to begin!

Experience Teaches
When I came along(I turned sixteen in 1966), I was on the cusp of a whole series of technological improvements and other changes that would literally herald a new age. The 'journeymen' who taught me the trade were 'old school,' and that's putting it mildly. As you have seen, there was quite a bit to learn about the trouper before I could ever be expected to run a light on a show, so there were countless occasions when I would be in the booth with this guy or that, picking up what I could about it, absorbing what I was able from what one of them might show me and if there was time, demonstrating what I already knew.
Right after my teacher shut down his light(perhaps after Act I), he might tell me to re-trim his light while he takes a break. If there was to be a 20-minute intermission, he'd normally allow his spot to cool down awhile before changing to new carbons. Of course, in my case, it was important to go through the process while everything is still hot, hot, hot! My dad, also an excellent spotlight operator, sort of hung back during my apprenticeship, knowing that there was a lot more going on than just me getting the skill I still lacked. The relationships I developed with so many of these old-timers would have more to do with my getting the opportunity to work a light on some shows, than what skills I had already mastered on those old lamps.
Following a performer around with what amounts to a big flashlight sounds easy, and probably looks easy too, if you watch while it's being done. Well, it ain't; and your lack of ability is most immediately apparent to the other operators who can make those first outings tough on you if they wish. That's when those relationships first begin to pay back dividends. The lighting director will be less aware of your foibles because the angle from which he is observing is a bad one; the audience even less able to see anything of what is going on. Your buddies can cover for your short-comings, and try to talk you through the rough spots. You'd better be able to take a ration of good-natured ribbing about it too!
Watching an experienced operator while the show is going on is one of the best ways to get a heads-up on many of the subtleties that can take years to acquire. If you show the proper respect to his situation, you can ask questions and get helpful answers during the show. This exchange is doubly instructive because you observe the mysterious operations while in direct correspondence to actions occurring on the stage. Sometimes the cuing is coming through a biscuit(a small portable speaker) and you see that much more clearly how his responses co-ordinate with what is taking place. The respect part is something that you must learn about too, in order to understand; when to ask your questions so that they are not bothersome, distracting or downright disastrous; being aware that the presence of the headset sometimes means others are hearing everything or aware of your presence in the booth. Few apprentice operators ever spend that much time doing this; many experienced operators are glad they don't!
A fact of life:Most trained operators are disinclined to train any more of them. So if you can allow yourself to befriend one whose dominant personality trait is laziness, he might let you run the light while he is taking it easy. This is not only a better way to learn how(with a competent operator standing-by), but darn nearly the ONLY way it can be learned. And when you have made it through a show in this manner, it is doubly beneficial to come around and do it again, as it is much easier to work on your newly-acquired skills while running a show you've already seen. Most of the trainees that I worked with over the years could not seem to understand this. Most young men will cop an attitude because the old-timer is getting paid while they are doing all the work. This is just a bad attitude for an apprentice to adopt.
The very first show that I ran was a car show; how difficult could it be to hit something as large as a car with such a big flashlight? Our lights were on platforms built from scaffolding two sections tall; four of these surrounding an arena-style area where the brand new cars were driven around in full view of all the manufacturer's dealers in the Southeast Region. We were warned when the next car would be coming, and then given a specific cue when all four of us were to open up on it. The spotlight was in a wide flood and also clear, so there was no dark color to make the light any harder to see(follow). The first time I opened up my dowser, my light was relatively close to where the car was; but not close enough for any of the light to be hitting the car; and the car was moving! Of course, every pick-up I made, after that first laughable attempt, was a little bit better than the last; a little bit smoother and delivered with a little more confidence. But when the last car drove out of the exhibit hall and I dowsed out on my very last cue, I was greatly relieved that the torture had finally ended.
My great advantage was to have observed closely so many old-school operators. While hitting that car grows easier with experience, there are techniques those guys were using that make an even greater difference. Your dowser, and how you open and close it… well, that’s what separates the men from the boys, so to speak. And here is where your visual acuity makes itself apparent as a separator. On the “Go” cue, your light should immediately appear exactly where it is required(and in the proper size & color). A ‘smooth operator’ opens his dowser just a crack at first(called ‘ghosting’), moving the spot to its perfect centering while too dim for anyone else to be aware of the movement. This ‘secret’ technique actually looks better than if the spot just bangs on like you could do if the target is still exactly where it was when you last blacked out. Almost all the young operators today attach a scope to the side of their lamp(I guess that might work, if you could see the target in the dark!); mores the pity.
Now when the ‘actor’ begins to move about, you should make it impossible for him to walk out of your light(of course on your second run-through, you know where he is going and what he will do). It takes just a few minutes to realize that the bigger that spot is, the easier the ‘following’ task will be. But alas, the reason a followspot is being employed is so there will not be too much light spilling onto everything(everybody) else; you may have noticed that the other spots are all smaller than yours, or the ‘cue-caller’ may have pointed out to you(where all the others could hear) that it should be made smaller… and like NOW!
Sometimes, when I try illustrating my next point to an inexperienced operator, I’ll liken it to a bug crawling quickly across a table-top, over which you have placed a clear drinking glass. If I say don’t let that bug run into the glass, could you do it? Of course, you probably could; but how do you do it? You are able to move the glass by watching it; if you are watching the bug, he will beat you every time. Translating this to the spotlight situation will require that the focus at the edge of your light be as sharp as possible(those fine adjustments to the rear lens from the previous chapter), and the brighter your light is in relationship to all the other lights there, then the easier it is to see it as well. You thought you were going to be enjoying the show. NOT! Your ability to follow well depends entirely on your ability to concentrate on the sharp edge of your lightpool, sometimes with an intensity that precludes watching what the performer is doing. On an ice show, where your skating pair may be performing an adagio while sliding down the ice, there are usually ten spotlights down there on the ice. If you start watching the skaters, what inevitably happens is your light starts slowly drifting away from the tight grouping. This really looks bad, and kind of silly too; but worse yet, the wet-behind-the-ears operator will all too easily begin to wonder who that is whose light is wandering off like that; not realizing for the longest time, that because it is perfectly round, that it must be his light. From personal experience, I can assure you that that moment of realization exerts a shock to your entire being like no other I can readily suggest.
Not too long after my car-show experience, when I had convinced enough people(and some of the right people) that I could indeed run a followspot, I found myself assigned to run a light on our(Atlanta, GA) annual summer stock:six musical comedies in six weeks with some real national stars in the leading roles. Two things saved my bacon on this unforgettable occasion; one was that we had a rehearsal scheduled; the other was Jim, the stage manager. During the rehearsal, I made plenty of mistakes, and that, after all, is what a rehearsal is for(at least partly). I had somehow become proficient at manufacturing excuses that made most of my mistakes seem to be the result of others’ shortcomings. On this, my ‘first rodeo,’ Jim took the time required, halted the rehearsal, and while the entire company waited, and while the entire crew, both backstage and in the front of house, listened, told me something I badly needed to hear. Jim pointed out that, while there were plenty of problems with the lighting coming from the two front-lights, that I had yet to make any mistakes. He said that was unfortunate because, if I had made a few mistakes, as might be expected, then having been made aware of them, a smart guy like me would certainly not make the same mistake again, and while I might make a few new ones, at least the lighting I was providing would steadily improve with every performance. This said, the rehearsal resumed and not another word was said about it. And the magic proved all-powerful; I got really good at this once I saw there was room for improvement.

The Split-Mind Learns Quickest
There came along with the many other technological improvements(and their attendant complexities), improvements to the communications systems we spotlight operators depended on for the light cues. ClearCom offered significant improvement to the quality of the signal we were listening to, made several channels available at each listening station which provided privacy and reduced confusion and, when combined with a better fitting headphone which dampened ambient noise, changed the way we plied(and learned) our trade.
In the 'olden days,' the headset you would be given was the exact same equipment in use by telephone operators at a PBX switchboard(complete with the clunky phone plug). Due to mishandling and improper storage, they frequently refused to stay on your head, without some additional mishandling(bending wire frames, etc.), and had only one ear-piece, which could be worn left or right simply by swiveling the mic the other way. These things were very uncomfortable to wear for any length of time, and if you got one that was still in good condition you were tempted to hide it somewhere for your exclusive use.
Most operators wore the speaker on the left, leaving the good ear, that points toward the stage, to best hear the 'program.' Others did just the opposite, in an attempt to block out some of the distracting noise coming from the crowd. If it was uncomfortable enough, even the best operator would alternate ears in order to mitigate the pain during 2, 3, sometimes 4 hours of operation. But under normal conditions, your attention was split:cues and other information coming always on the left side while your right side is bombarded with sometimes acoustically poor renditions of the onstage dialogue(requiring unusually focused concentration to understand), sometimes loud and annoying(never for me) rock & roll, sometimes crowd noises(sometimes you are right in the middle of the audience), or if you are in a projection booth, sometimes there are other production-related conversations going on(projection or camera technicians for instance), and sometimes when the portals are glassed-in, you are either straining to hear anything not completely muffled by the panes or you are struggling with an inadequate 'program' being piped in that can't quite compete with the noise from blowers that are removing the noxious fumes from the enclosed space.
In Tales of Power(Carlos Casteneda), the apprentice, with Don Genaro whispering instructions in one ear, while Don Juan whispered different commands into the other, was able to 'leap' from the precipice to a spot below them where he and Don Juan had spent some time together the previous day. Don Genaro was calling on young Carlos to feel deeply the bodily sensation produced by his presence in the now on the cliff's very edge. Don Juan was commanding that he recall all the peculiar sensation that was embedded firmly in his memory from his experience in the valley below only hours before. Carlos was easily able to take the mental leap from one location to the other; the sorcery here was that when he did it, his mind produced all the authentic sensations that would be produced had he actually jumped. On what basis, could Carlos then conclude that he had not really jumped into the valley below?
At first, the headset(representing all those vital cues that I must hear and then execute if I'm to continue getting spot work) competing with the concert(music having perhaps the strongest power to engage the conscious attention) for equal processing time in my already agitated brain was disorienting, to put it mildly. In addition to the aural cues splitting my brain in half, my eyes and my entire body are engaged in the execution of the last cue I was given. Add to all this some current domestic concerns(your spouse's spending habits?), maybe a couple of beers you drank at lunch, and now you have an apprentice standing beside you asking why your headphones are only covering one ear.
The first time I had to climb up a ladder to hang a lighting instrument, I gotta admit that I was completely uncomfortable being up high, much less up there with a heavy leko in one hand and the other employed with my crescent wrench(I must have been holding on 'with my tail,' as the guys frequently put it). Only going up high again, and again, and again could wear down that queasy vertigo I felt the first time until it was no longer noticeable. Keeping at it until I had completely retrained myself in every aspect of my watching, my listening, my remembering and my using and moving my hands without watching them, was the only thing that would make the difference between a qualified spotlight operator and a useless wannabe.
It's what came next that I truly hope to examine here, and the reason I began writing about the spotlight to begin with. With all that stuff going on, there was still a highly functional part of me(of my mind?) that was looking for something interesting to engage itself with. I believe that was the real me; the one who needs no mask to hide behind; the one who can only be happy and go about the business of developing itself fully while the other personality is fully engaged elsewhere and ceases its active opposition to any developmental fulfillment.


"Where did that come from?"
The Oxford English Dictionary is a wonderful resource. Because words undergo a change in their meaning over time, the OED will list quotations that show how the word you are seeking to define were used in new ways by writers whose usage has redefined the accepted usage of the word in question. The following quotation uses the word abstract in a way that I found pertinent to the present argument. In 1690, J. Norris, in his Beatitudes wrote:
The more abstract therefore we are from the body ...the more fit we shall be both to behold, and to endure the Rays of the Divine Light.
My higher faculties seemed content to examine the more abstract aspects of what we were doing in the theater that day, while my conscious attention was fully engaged in producing the desired lighting effects required of me. I suppose that any work, being diligently performed by any workman, would normally result in similar improvements in that workman's understanding of the more abstract aspects of the materials he uses, the process he is applying and the product achieved. But in addition to the peculiar splitting of the mind I have been alluding to, there are unique aspects of theater itself that have also affected the level and the quality of that conscious state I am attempting to describe.
While Norris's quotation points precisely to both the conscious state and what can happen when in it, I feel that a more mundane definition for abstract, when used as an adjective should be explored. If you have studied mathematics, and perhaps excelled in it, you will have no trouble in apprehending the abstract nature of numbers, and appreciate the greater abstract-ness of... say, trigonometry. My father learned, in artillery school, how to apply the abstract trigonometric principles so that the howitzers they were aiming would consistently hit their targets. This method proved too time consuming when his unit arrived in Western Europe, so he was made forward observer, and thereafter employed a less-abstract method that involved watching where the shells burst, and then zeroing in on the target by trial-and-error, or by estimating how much to adjust the elevation and charge to achieve a better result.
Abstract notions are symbols, like numbers, letters and even words, because they have no direct correspondence to any real objects found in our environment. To follow my argument here in its entirety, you must realize that the self you normally think you are is abstract because it is only a symbol for the real you; that is, your idea of yourself poorly corresponds to any real aspects of your personality. The real you becomes more active while the lower functions of your brain are fully occupied 'elsewhere.'
Back in the theater, we have 5000 individuals, most of whom have equally inadequate self- concepts, but who have temporarily suspended their disbelief for just long enough for the producer to transport a substantial portion of their attentions(as a cohesive group mind you) to a distant time and place, where a strange occurrence, in a Parisian opera house during the 19th century, captivated the imaginations of everyone then living in 'The City of Light.'
In the opening scene(this is what 5000 people are now seeing and hearing and have agreed to believe, if just for awhile, is real), there is a silent auction in progress, and at the end of this short opening scene, they are just about to auction off the very chandelier, which has been completely restored and wired for 'the new electric light,' that figured in that fatal disaster when it crashed to the stage during a performance; this, then, the peculiar occurrence that had captured the imaginations of all Parisians when the accidental fatality took place in full view of the audience. Or had it really been an accident?
The Phantom of the Opera tells the 'real' story surrounding the 'strange occurrence' by dramatizing all the events that led up to the fatal tragedy on a well-lighted stage. If some person seated amongst the audience were to look up, he would see the real chandelier that will actually crash onto the stage at the end of the performance. But his acutely focused attention and a substantial portion of his mind are now on that stage with the performers; his consciousness has been altered; he no longer sustains his awareness of the full orchestra playing away right in front of him. Inevitably, a few(very few) patrons will have that imaginary construction that has captivated his body interrupted by the pressure in his bladder that demands his attention, thereby altering his conscious state to one where he can now weigh the urgency of his physical need against a desire to maintain the other state of consciousness he was enjoying just before the interruption. The ones who lose the argument(two selves demanding preference), will then get up and go pee, ignoring the obvious annoyance he has become for the others who are consciously trying to maintain a similar state.
Now we return to the spotlight operator(that's me), who is currently ensconced on a narrow parapet with his lamp, high along the right side of the auditorium(stage left), where he struggles to maintain his own (much higher)state of consciousness. He notices the guy who was seated below him to his left, and who has nearly started a riot among the patrons he was required to disturb, when he got up and made his way over to the aisle during a particularly captivating rendition of The Music of the Night. What the operator has witnessed is quickly made into a memory file and sent to storage for later retrieval; the very stuff that becomes the meat of conversations he will have with the other guys who saw it too; perhaps they are talking about it on their headsets even now.
Perhaps he too, has been annoyed by the disturbance as well, if he has chosen to be captivated by the scene playing out before him, while letting the other functions his body is enacting take place 'on auto,' if you will. I saw that particular scene performed, by the original cast member whose presence in Atlanta set an all-time record for Box Office dollars at the Fox that year, no fewer than 51 times! But there was one other time(there were 52 performances in all), when my ability to observe in great detail what that performance had been, right up until the night that, to the great disappointment of the holders of all those high-priced tickets, the role of the Phantom was sung by the understudy, gave me the unique perspective that made that time most memorable, and most enjoyable.
A camera with low-light capability had been hung on the balcony rail, right beside an aircraft landing-light that’s high intensity beam had been dampened by a dark red color filter. This allows the low frequency infra-red light to illuminate the entire stage during certain scene shifts that occur during a blackout while the curtain remains open. Because some really large units are being moved on, or offstage or turned about by means of motors, cables and winches(scenic automation) during complete blackouts, there are safety concerns that are served by video monitors, located in a great number of locations around the backstage areas, and even in control rooms below stage level and out in the dressing rooms as well. Not only can you observe the scene changes, just as if they were occurring in the light of day, but you can see(and hear as well) just what the audience is seeing and hearing throughout the entire performance from any of the monitor locations.
This great star-of-the-stage, on this particular tour, had developed a romantic entanglement with one of the chorus girls(who danced several parts in the show) who had a viciously jealous temperament, and watched religiously from the wings each night, while he played the central love-scene with Christine. But on that one momentous occasion, when the understudy sang the part instead, I was able to see it performed as originally intended. He continuously, while doing a fine job of singing The Music of the Night, made love to Christine with his hands, as she responded to the grisly Phantom's touch in a convincingly enthusiastic manner, as suited the hypnotic power he exerted over his ingénue. Now that was worth waiting for!
At the end of the Atlanta run, the Phantom’s official concessionaire offered a substantial discount, to cast and crew members, on the souvenirs they sold at a large portable stand set up in the lobby. Having heard the haunting opera played and sung over fifty times, you would not think I’d be anxious to purchase the CD, so that I could hear it again; but that was exactly what I bought with my hard-earned money. Playing this CD over and over again(and even other versions with different orchestras and singers) allowed a deep psychic penetration of this thing, that was Webber’s creation; a masterpiece, far surpassing anything else produced in modern times, that I came to understand as his, patiently thought out in its creation, answer to the critics who had so viciously blasted his Jesus Christ, Superstar(another masterpiece I have seen performed many, many times).
My conclusion, based on the careful examination of all the abstract concepts, the minutiae of theatrical presentation, combined and composed masterfully by the genius that is Weber, welled up, if you will, into my conscious mind, only after countless hours of deep contemplation of the subtle(sub-lingual) cognitive patterns, that are the play-within-a-play that was Webber’s play-about-a-play; contemplation that could only take place while in the altered state achieved while all lower conscious activity was engaged in peripheral aspects of performing/producing the play.
Also, having trained my mind in just that way, and so thoroughly over time, I can quickly achieve a similar contemplative state of consciousness, simply listening to one of these audio recordings. The Phantom is forever there, within my mind! Where the critics are concerned, I feel confident that Webber enjoyed the last laugh(and I have enjoyed it right along with him).
So there is an experience, whereby certain knowledge can descend, into our waking consciousness, from somewhere higher in the apparatus that is our brain. Freud’s use of the word subconscious to describe an elsewhere in the topography of the human mind, seems at the least to be disrespectful and condescending, and at best quite counter-intuitive and even deceptive. The pathologies being manifested(described as an abnormal psychology) in one’s behavior always result from the repression of the ‘whole self’ by the ‘mask’ or the inadequately developed ego(always concerning itself with the manufactured self-image and/or its preservation and defense). All true understanding must come from this higher center, and it seems that ‘normality’ consists in being successful in disregarding this source(denying completely its very existence) while serving others who have access to their own centers, but would deny you access to your own, preferring that you rely instead on them as your source.

In The Now
During a show one night, probably one where the cues have already worn a deep, comfortable groove in your operator machinery, while your forebrain is examining some abstract fragment of your Platonic ideal performance, you might catch the briefest glimpse of yourself running that light 'on auto.' It's not quite an out-of-body experience, where you would see your body from another vantage point, but you will get an amplified sensation of all that your body is feeling, your lamp moving along as normal as ever, but realizing suddenly and surely that all its parts are responding to commands coming from some source that is not the 'current' observer. The wonder of that experience delivers a shock to your entire being; you are instantly reintegrated and the lamp's movement becomes much more tentative, like there is now interference in the command signal. You realize that you are incapable of sustaining the previous conscious state while 'remembering yourself.' But there may be a way; a skill that could be developed with the proper instruction; adequate circumstances within which you could practice the method oft enough.
There can be some confusion as to what exactly one means by ‘in the now.’ The experience I’m describing here is a valid one(because I once had it) that should guide our thinking on a clear understanding of it. Gurdjieff’s great concern was that Western culture had frozen further evolution of consciousness, and that as a result of this stagnation, our very existence was threatened; that technologies would develop that might destroy the species(or even the planet). This line of thought developed prior to World War I, and his struggle to establish new possibilities for further development in Western minds was still ongoing when thermonuclear devices were unleashed on the civilian populations of two Japanese cities. The Fourth Way system that was The Work being developed in Gurdjieff’s school(prior to his 1924 automobile accident) involved, at the entry level, two separate practices that he called remembering oneself and observing oneself. My description clearly has both elements; remembering as I consciously felt the sensations that were my hands on that lamp; observing as I realized that it was not ‘I’ directing the hands to move the lamp.
Robert Pirsig describes his indefinable Quality as available to our human experience only when one both embraces and applies it as best fits the requirements of the situation. He was ‘talking’ motorcycles; I’m ‘talking’ followspots. For Pirsig, it’s not just involving one’s conscious attention elsewhere, but seizing and applying the solution that arises, where that focal point yet lingers.
Robert Pirsig's development of his Metaphysics Of Quality, stemming from his own personal enlightenment (which may have required his own quick stay in an insane asylum), which itself stemmed from his intense concentration on his old motorcycle's maintenance requirements, seems to hinge on the need for one's conscious attention to be intensely focused on rational or abstract aspects of one's perceived reality, while accessing helpful data arising from sources subliminal to one's perception.
Gurdjieff’s method, if described using neurological parameters, probably involves the conscious cultivation of beta activity as a ‘safe’ way to access and apply the data made available when delta activity can be simultaneously cultivated. Hugh Ford describes Jane Heap as Margaret Anderson’s ‘prolocutor, producing the pungent phrase when needed, articulating what Margaret could not describe.’ Heap says that ‘things become known to [her].’
While writing, your beta-consciousness begins to block alpha-associated sensation; this begins to allow the constant search for the right words to access data associated with delta-consciousness. Rudolf Steiner adopted Goethe’s view on thought; positing the human brain as an ‘organ’ of perception sensitive to ideas. Viewing the mind as ‘perceptor,’ like eyes or ears, while providing new insight into epistemological considerations, does not help address the questions about the source from which ideas spring.
In the theater, one may be especially susceptible to receiving psychic impressions from others, or from the mass psyche that is the congregation of many agreeing to share the same experience. Socratic method seems to imply that these incoming ideas are remembered. Let’s examine first some more experiential data before we attempt sorting this out. When the ‘I,’ whose body and sensory apparatus are fully engaged in running a show, begins ranging afar, I’m frequently thinking about something related to the light I’m playing with; sometimes it is light itself that I enter into a deep contemplation about, or some aspect of it like color.
Newton explored color with his ‘rational’ mind, and discovered or developed the mathematical framework we are still using(for the most part) today. Understanding the concepts revealed to him by his experiments with prisms, while running your spot surely involves being abstract from your body. But in my case, I would have acquired significant data from many sources(one of which was the knowledge being passed to the next generation of stagehands by all those old-timers that I spent some time with), providing groundwork, something with which to work, to combine with my unique experience in new or more comprehensive ways. Still, when the epiphany occurs, when the pieces come together, when you learn something, the process is one that is not taught to our children in our public schools. I don’t have to see a picture of a rainbow to know the blue band is at the bottom(on the shorter side of the curve) and the red band at the top; I know it will always be so; I know this because I have reached a deep understanding of what is occurring when light is refracted. And because I learned it while running my trouper, I’m one step closer to understanding why and how that could have occurred.
In our normal waking existence, we separate ourselves from any real access to a full experience of the moment we are living(NOT in the now); we are either thinking about something in the PAST, memories of which we have dredged up and are examining, or we are running imaginary sequences through our head, imagining a FUTURE where we will somehow know how to act because we have had these rehearsals. We frequently refuse to interrupt these futile activities even when others are talking to us, making us unable to listen properly and getting next to nothing from the exchange. We get so caught up in purely mental exercises, that we ignore virtually all the sensory data that is streaming in. If the ability to be so absolutely withdrawn from reality has some survival value for the species, for instance making it easier to get pregnant, then we should extoll its efficacy and devise better ways to teach these skills to our children.
Adults, who are not too caught up in the aforementioned mental futilities to notice there are children around, frequently get fascinated by what they are ‘expected’ to call childish behavior; and just as frequently the curious or mysterious way in which they act involves their active engagement of something in their environment we have carefully trained ourselves to ignore completely. Worse yet, we might intervene, admonishing the child for not being more attentive to ‘what’s really going on.’ It would be better for all concerned if we could spend all our time in the company of these unspoiled intelligences; better still if we allowed them(and only them) to admonish us when we are being inattentive to what is REALLY going on.
Even if we became adept at sustaining ourselves in the fleeting PRESENT, there would still exist an even higher state of consciousness, as in the experience I had on only one occasion, and which lasted only for a fraction of a second, which should be explored by a few who have the personality types and temperaments to excel at the training they would receive from other seasoned explorers before them.

[shrimperdude]

New Perceptions
Act II is fixing to begin, and you have finished re-trimming and struck the arc(which is now sputtering and giving off a profusion of evil-smelling smoke). You can see that your gap is correctly set, through the tiny window in the door, but cannot determine, just by looking at it, whether the arc is in the sweet spot. The audience is now re-seated, and the theater is fading to the darkness which is broken only by some dim side-lighting and slits illuminating the stairs. You cannot open your douser to see about it, but you would sure like to open up with a smooth and bright light when your first cue is called.
Strong(the manufacturer of your spotlight) has been made aware of this common problem, and 'engineered' a satisfactory solution. A metal card-holder has been affixed to the top of the lamp; the paper card in it can be changed for a new one when desired. Through a tiny hole drilled through the side of the lamp house, a thin beam of light shines onto the card. There on the card, is displayed an image of the two rod tips; that hole is acting much like a pinhole camera. When you adjust the position of your arc(with your neural knob), the image moves a little on the card. Because you made some tiny marks on this card after you had checked the lamp out thoroughly before the show, you can align the carbons exactly as they were before. Theater magic!
You have been fascinated by this, ever since some operator showed you how it works; sometimes you just stare at the image in wonder. You have spent some of your high-consciousness time(while running your spotlight) pondering the miracles only light can perform, and have developed an intimate understanding of the optics involved in all manner of images like this one. But what you may spend an entire lifetime not realizing, not seeing, is a very ordinary occurrence of this in nature; something you see all the time. Perhaps you did the same thing I do when I see the cleverly situated image of my arc; you stared at this phenomena in wonder(sometimes literally for hours at a time) whenever you 'saw' it; perhaps intuitively realizing there was indeed something to be understood about what you see; something ethereal just beyond your grasp.
This occurs when you are out-of-doors on a sunny day; when you have found a comfortable seat somewhere in the shade. There is nothing on your mind to distract you from what is the beauty of this day, and the wonder of your leisure. There is a gentle breeze stirring, and you are in your comfort zone temperature-wise; perhaps have even commented on the extreme perfection of the moment. The leaves overhead are in motion, but gently; on the ground there are delightful patterns of light and shadow moving about. Is it the randomness of this motion that fascinates; that draws the eyes? That endless variety, like when you measure the intervals as waves roll in with inexhaustible energy; or listen to the creativity in the never repetitious sound of a waterfall; the restless, unceasing light activity in a closely observed campfire; all these things can delight and mesmerize; all have the ability to impose a calmative effect on one's emotional state.
Upon closer examination, I believe you will find that there really is a qualitative difference between those observations of random aural and visual phenomena, and the effect on your consciousness when you make those observations of the subtly changing patterns of light and shade. Your mind(at least some part of it) is actively perceiving something quite different from the random motion of the shadows being cast onto the ground as the breeze filters through the leaves overhead. What is uniquely fascinating to your mind as you make your careful observations, are the myriads of circular lightpools that are winking on and off, but appear(when they do) exactly in the same position they were in when they winked out; not random that; not random at all!
The rays of glorious sunshine, as they make their way through the obstructions to eventually strike the ground, sometimes will pass through passageways determined by the angle of the sun, that are so constricted by the solid objects which are absorbing or reflecting them, that it's just as if they have passed through a pinhole. That particular alignment will of course make an image of the sun that is then projected onto the ground. These images are not as bright as the directly lit patches of sunlight on the ground, they are not all the same size(determined by the distance from the image to the pinhole), but they are all as round as the sun! Part of the fascination that is mesmerizing you, is the inability to categorize the observed phenomena, but you are perceiving it.
It was on a day in Atlanta(a day when I thankfully was not inside a dark theater), when there was to be a partial eclipse of the sun, that I was first able to categorize these phenomena. A lot of people were outside, observing the eclipse while it was nearing its peak. Some were even making their observations with pinhole cameras they had devised from various materials. I was seated in a lawn chair; there were no trees around, but there was one small bush there nearby, casting its meager shadow on the walkway beside where I sat. When I finally noticed it; I mean took a good look at it; well,... I could hardly believe my eyes. There on the ground, scattered about in the shadow of that bush, were many tiny crescents; images of the sun overhead that was only partially occluded by our moon.
Now we go back to the OED for J. Harris's 1704(his Lex. Techn. I) quotation to help us better define what is perception:
Perception is the clear and distinct apprehension of any
object offered to us, without forming any judgment
concerning them.
Or Kames ideas expressed in 1762(his Elem. Crit. III):
External things and their attributes are objects of perception;
relations among things are objects of conception.
And finally, to Miss Cobbe in 1855(her Intuit. Mor.):
Every perception necessitates this double element of
sensation and intuition, ~the objective and subjective
factor in combination.

You probably know that an incredible amount of ink has been spilled here, in the West, over just this need to define terms:MIND; CONSCIOUSNESS; IDEAS; PERCEPTIONS. I don't feel, however, that one must be in the bag with all these tiresome scholars in order to intuit(if you will) that there are subtle differences involved; that, and that between us(reader/author), we need only share a common understanding of what precisely the experience(carefully described here) is that I am referring to. Able to come to the conclusion that many(most) can perceive the optical phenomena without any prior knowledge of the optics involved; and further, without any conscious idea of what exactly is titillating that far corner of one's mind, urging additional time spent making these subliminal observations.
The 'teaching' here that has value, is that when I formed the concept, of images observable on the ground, that concept began immediately to facilitate the clear seeing of the phenomena, and doing that, without diminishing the wonder that was already present, in fact enhancing that same sensation and making it more available. It was these strange or foreign concepts that Gurdjieff felt compelled to make available to Western minds(without which we are endangering our entire species' chance of survival); that Pirsig intimated in his ZAMM, and floundered hopelessly while trying to clarify them by formulating his MOQ. Both of the gentlemen I've mentioned here believed that it was through one's most intimate and serious or concentrated involvement with arduous and physical tasks, tasks that already produce output with real(or accepted) value, that a facility could be manifested whereby significant development of the SOUL; SELF; CONSCIOUSNESS becomes possible; even probable.



The Group Dynamic
While I was engaged in writing this followspot material, I was showing it around to see if it was having the desired effect. One of the guys who was reading along very early in the process was a member at the Church I attend, and was 'in-the-biz,' if you will; Tom, like me, was an old-timer and had worked for many years in broadcast TV as a camera operator(among many other technical positions). Tom's work in the studio, on one of those clunky old cameras was very similar in many obvious ways to my work in the theater, running a spotlight, including the wearing of a headset while 'On The Air.' Yep; in the old days, all television broadcasts were produced LIVE; no second chances!
The 'doing-it-live' aspect of our work in the entertainment business, just begins to touch on the group dynamic that I will attempt to describe in revealing detail. First, it goes to the 'agitation' already present in my mind(Tom's too!), when I began to experience the 'split-mind' that resulted from wearing a headset. We both had to learn to deal with an elevated anxiety level in a way that kept it from having an adverse effect on our work. But where does the anxiety originate? It is not just that our performance can affect our earnings; there's a bit more going on here.
Performers can experience 'stage fright;' in some cases debilitating in the extreme. This phenomenon is so commonly understood that the phrase has found more general applications in our language. We also share some common understanding of the phrase 'butterflies-in-the-stomach;' a phrase which describes the 'more physical' aspect of the same phenomenon. If you are standing center stage, with 5000 people all looking at you, with prejudicial expectations that can sharpen the physical sensations, you instantly develop an awareness of this dynamic. If the stage is well-lit, you can't really see any expectant faces beyond the first few rows where the reflected light is strong enough to let your constricted pupils form images on your retina; but you 'sense' the others out there in the darkness; I'd bet that even blindfolded, your senses could easily discriminate between the anxiety originating from those many engaged minds(receptor/receivers) and the pronounced lack of it when the theater is empty.
Now Tom's audience is separated geographically from the studio where he works, and the audience, for the most part, are separated from each other(geographically) as well; yet Tom has been 'physically' affected by the audience's participation in this LIVE event. And bear in mind that Tom is not 'on camera,' but behind it. In the old days, Tom's audience was miniscule(in numbers) compared to what can occur when CNN broadcasts a live feed to multiple millions of real-time listeners, but probably was easily capable of exceeding the 5000 people present at a sold-out performance at my theater. Yet, the intensity of my experience(also not the focal point of the audience's attention, as I am behind all of them running my spot) exceeds by far any that can be felt in a TV studio.
There are a number of aspects in play here that we must examine to explain why this intensity level differs so dramatically. Let's start in Tom's studio; see what differences, as well as similarities exist. Tom's two-shot ends when an engineer switches the live feed to another camera(there are probably four of them); maybe to a camera situated right beside Tom's, that has been holding a wider shot of the set where the interview is taking place. While Tom is off the air, the audience sees the guest(the real reason that viewers have tuned in) taking a seat adjacent to the MC's desk; the wide shot holds the entire desk and the chair next to it; we'll also see the MC appear in the frame as he takes a seat; we'll see him tuck his sport coat's tail under his bottom as he gets himself situated in his chair(that eliminates the unattractive hump in the shoulders of his jacket). The chair is exactly on a mark on the floor; the camera is also on a pre-determined floor-mark(the distance determining the sharp focus in the shot). The floor manager has directed Tom to establish a close-up on the MC(the classic talking head); Tom has rotated the carriage with the three standard lenses mounted on it, so that the longer lens(probably 50mm) gives him the narrower one-shot requested; once the MC has quit wiggling around, Tom repositions the camera a bit(centering the subject) and is now ready to go back on the air. The third camera has similarly established an intimate close-up on the guest and is also standing by; the engineer, located in the sound-proof control room(or booth) with the Producer/Director may now switch back and forth between the two close-ups, careful always to make visual sense of the dialogue(sound portion being broadcast in tandem with the video portion). All the cameras signals have been electronically synchronized so the picture won't roll when the point-of-view is changed. If there were only one camera, and Tom had gone from his two-shot, where the shorter lens(probably 35mm) was at the bottom of the triangle made from the three lenses mounted on the rotating carriage, where it is aligned with a flat white screen on which the light reflected off the 'talent' forms a clear(in focus) image of the MC and his guest(the image is upside down inside the camera, where the photon tube converts the image into the video signal, which the engineer electronically rotates 180 degrees before broadcasting it), to the close-up, his camera would have been temporarily 'blinded' while he rotated to the new lens. If this rotation is accomplished quickly, and if the other camera had not been covering for Tom while he made the change, then you would see a sort of fade-to-black(the screen goes dark because no light is hitting the white screen inside the camera during this operation), and then the close-up 'fades' in(a special blessing related to tube-type electronics that does not exist with today's video technology) while Tom is repositioning it on the MC's new mark at his seat(there could also be a camera move to a new floor-mark taking place simultaneously; the image going from a soft focus to a crystal-clear image once both Tom and the MC are on their marks. I feel certain that an old-school professional, like Tom, could make this transition look great; he'd better; we're LIVE!
Okay, so somewhere within the broadcast area, where the signal has adequate strength, there is a home viewer, who has carefully repositioned his antenna apparatus to optimize the signal his frequency-tuned receiver is processing, perhaps intervened in that processing by re-adjusting some of the several knobs that were built into his now antiquated set, and has now positioned himself at a comfortable viewing distance, and is concentrating most of his attention on the action 'taking place inside that little box.' All around the area, there are perhaps thousands of other 'audience members' doing exactly the same thing. What they have seen is the introduction of today's guest to the viewers at home, by the MC(a local guy they all 'know') who probably shook the man's hand while Tom's camera captured the moment(in his two-shot); in addition to the words delivered in the familiar 'announcer's voice' when the introduction is made, they probably heard the audience in the studio 'going wild' when the guest first walked out. Perhaps a 'canned' audience reaction was mixed into the sound portion of the broadcast signal by an audio engineer to re-enforce the viewer's perception(there's that word again) that he is part of a large group of people 'present' for the interview.
We know there is a strong attraction for the viewer to participate in this 'psychic transportation;' that energy or force will be examined later on. While being a participant in this group activity, the viewer's level of consciousness is subtly changed; that change is a measurable one; results in a variation in several different frequencies of brain wave activity from 'normal' levels of activity. Because the sensory apparatus used to monitor and measure changes in this activity do not require that they be inserted directly into the brain, you may rest assured that the brain is 'broadcasting' a subtle electro-magnetic signal, and that during this intense group activity, that signal quality indeed changes. Not only the quality, but because the response to the images on the TV is corresponding to what is being seen, and to what is being said, in effect combining your signal with others(eerily similar in content) being produced simultaneously all over the broadcast area, that (now receivable)signal is changed quantitatively as well; amplified, if you will, and broadcast back to the studio(where Tom is picking some of it up). There was a spike in the 'esoteric' signal when the emotional response to the guest's first appearance 'on the tube' and the sound of an enthusiastic audience was heard in all those homes where viewers are 'tuned in' that was registered in the psyches of the MC, the guest du jour and the technicians directly involved in the production; they felt it; perhaps rejoiced in it.
When the talking head appears for the home audience(Here I'm talking about Tom's close-up of the MC), if he is 'looking into the camera' the viewer’s manifest an emotional response roughly equivalent to the one they would 'emote' if present in the room, where that response is a complex reaction to his words, tone of voice, facial expressions, body language and colored by their feelings about the persona he projects to his fans that all feel as if they know him. The MC receives the signal at the same time as the others in the studio, but the response he will have to the reception of his image will differ qualitatively and quantitatively from the response manifested by the guest(and again, by the production crew). Tom's response is unique, as he is actively involved(physically and intellectually) in the physical production of this man's image. For instance, if Tom were to pan the camera slightly, say to include some prop on the desk that the MC is interacting with(Johnny Carson reaches for a pencil), the audience response is synchronous with his bodily movement of the camera; Tom feels the response intensely because of the unique coincidence of the various stimuli. When the feed switches to the camera focused on the guest(Tom can relax for just a bit), he will feel an enhanced synchronicity with the audience's response to his image, while the MC feels a minute energy drain(allowing him also a relaxing respite, however momentarily). If the other camera were to make one of those minute changes in position while Tom is still on stand-by, Tom might not even notice(he might be looking at his monitor, in which case he certainly would experience zero synchronicity with the audience response).
Working in a theater is not always about seeing a play or hearing a concert; a wide variety of attractions will be viewed from(the front) your spot position. Once I saw a particularly enlightening 'performance' given by a virtually unknown fellow who was raking in the bucks on the lecture circuit. This fellow(the name escapes me) was a U.S. Government bureaucrat/scientist whose expertise was in the procedures involved when administering polygraph tests and protocols for interpreting the resulting tracings. He had recently featured prominently in Peter Thompkins' recently published The Secret Lives of Plants; a book that created quite a sensation and paved the way for wide support from the book-buying public for Thompkins' subsequent offerings.
This man stood behind a podium at stage right with his reading glasses on(BORING!!), and calmly related his story. On a whim, one day in his Washington, D.C. office space, which had been decorated with a live rubber plant growing in an expensive decorative container, he hooked his gadget up to that darned plant. The audience gasps! A normal group dynamic-type response; even though they all knew in advance about the 'shocking' revelations he was fixing to make; most had read Thompkins' book even though it was a fairly new release(not yet available in paperback). The house was far from packed, but the numbers impressed me, considering the logistical difficulties encountered when promoting such an event. The night's entertainment had obviously been advertised through unusual channels, and successfully reached its 'special' audience in such a way that encouraged them to purchase(well in advance) tickets that had been priced well above what the average ticket-buying public would pay for a concert or show.
He plodded on, droning a bit(I thought), explaining his surprised reaction to the fact that this plant elicited responses from his machine that were virtually indistinguishable from the kinds of responses recorded when attached to a person being interviewed(now I'm listening!). He described, in exquisite detail, the 'scientific' experiments he designed to determine the nature of the plant's ability to respond in a way that his machine could detect(one experiment involved the killing of live brine shrimp by dumping them into boiling water, in another room where the plant could not watch; the deaths of those tiny shrimps always elicited an exaggerated(in amplitude) response from his strangely 'psychic' plant).
Then he showed the audience a picture of his plant, sitting back home in his office, attached by a number of electrodes to his polygraph machine. Another co-ordinated gasping sound(just as the color slide was projected onto a rather large screen hanging center stage); cooing almost! He goes on to say how at some point in his investigation of this plant's responses to various stimuli, he began to leave the machine running all the time; he was hoping to discover other events that were eliciting responses so that he could investigate them as well. It turns out that one of the first recorded responses that he was able to correlate to specific events was the exaggerated response that was always recorded at the exact instant that he displayed this very color slide while out lecturing to colleagues in both the scientific community and the law enforcement community; no matter whether in another part of the building where his office was located, across town at any of the various LE agencies he was often called away to when fulfilling his teaching responsibilities or clear across the country on the West Coast doing similar presentations before diverse groups.(Instantly! I heard that!)
Over time, critics appearing from the woodwork, established some very provocative arguments which posited flaws in his experiment's design that may have introduced his own(the scientist's) emotional/electro-magnetic responses into the equation; in other words, his plant is still too dumb to 'know' anything, but somehow the polygraph registered his responses. Fine! This sort of explaining away the plant's actual role in producing the tracings he meticulously recorded, does absolutely nothing in the way of explaining away the scientific evidence that these responses had indeed been elicited at great distances, and the response time, or lapse of time before the response was recorded, was negligible regardless of the distance involved. Gee! Working in the theater sure can be fun!
Now, in the TV broadcasting analogy I've been using, the home viewer has been 'trained' to invoke normal emotional responses to actions, mostly just hinted at by the distorted(you look fatter on TV) and very flat image that 'resides in' that box on the credenza, both heard and seen that evoke them. In live theater, if we(my colleagues) have lit things up adequately, you will not be looking at something flat; there's upstage and down(by the 'foots;' lights at the very front of the stage shining up which mitigate the distinct shadow below nose and chin from all that powerful overhead lighting); stage left(where Snagglepuss was wont to exit) & stage right(which is on your left and can be quite confusing to a young followspot operator); there's fat & emaciatingly thin; shabby & chic; and there's no switching to a close-up here; you'll always be taking in the entire scene. But it is all sitting in a 'box!'
An Italian innovation(that we probably owe some credit for to Descartes) called the proscenium very clearly defines the space. All the scenic elements have been designed with this very huge determining factor always in mind; the audience must always be looking into the scene through that proscenium. Theater-in-the-Round for instance completely destroys this powerful illusion-generating effect that has been invoked in the theater; magical illusions with the power to physically transport you anywhere the scenic art, optical effects, the sounds, voices and music have determined that you need to be going off to. These visual effects are often what determine where in the house the best seats are located; not always all the way down front(especially if you are liable to let the presence of an orchestra playing away draw your attention out of the box and destroy the carefully created illusion); loge seating has always connoted to me superior value, whereas box seating implies privacy which is a forced separation from the crowd that can also drain significant power from the imaginary process that should be/needs to be going on.
That's only part of what sets my experience apart from the one Tom has been having in the studio, but I must admit that after a lifetime of 'training' most of us have very little difficulty allowing our heads to 'climb into' that box. At the Omni Coliseum on one occasion, a venue where although not an In-the-Round presentation exactly, but certainly lacking any proscenium-like separation(there were even people sitting behind the stage on this occasion), I was sent to run my light on a Gaither Family concert. I'm sure that I'd heard the name often enough, but was not familiar with the music or its style, had never seen any of them and had no expectations for this night of music either one way or the other. But I was surrounded by in excess of 17,000 people who surely had; and not one ticket to that show had been sold or promoted via the usual channels; all had been distributed through the auspices of various denominational churches across the Southeast region.
From where my spot was located that night, those singers and musicians appeared to be no taller than about 2 inches, and if I swung my lamp any farther than 9 inches, either to the left or my right, the light would go right off the stage into the audience. My point being here, that my viewing experience would compare well with watching someone else's TV, while it is tuned to a program you have virtually no interest in. But on that night, and bear in mind that I worked in there frequently when there were similar-sized crowds hyped up on getting to see some Rock-n-Roll superstar, there was something in the air. A palpable energy was invigorating me and building an expectation for this performance from nothing as it were. And then, the performers 'took the stage,' and although this crowd was a lot less vocal then the raucous kids I was most accustomed to, there was an immediate outpouring of Holy Spirit-energy in that place that even the most hardened professionals that were on the headset with me felt compelled to say something about the phenomenon. Their music, while not something I would probably buy, was thoroughly enjoyed by me and the other crew members, felt and responded to in such an undeniable degree that several of the crew members were acting as if they had embarrassed themselves. The rest of us were just 'getting into it.'
Now, when I say Holy Spirit-energy, I do not mean that something came into the Omni that night that didn't have a ticket. What I am pointing to here is a lot of prior training that had gone into their clear understanding of what their responses were expected to be; preparation that agreed almost perfectly with the training received by others, in other towns, in other churches or denominations and in varying age groups and for both genders. Training that I lacked; expectations I didn't have(may not have even wanted); and yet I was infected with a powerful participatory urge that was not my own. I don't think this can happen at home, but I may just be watching the wrong station.
When I was still working at the Flamingo(a Hilton Hotel in Las Vegas, NV), Gary Plantiff, who was Head Carpenter in their cabaret venue(right in the middle of a huge Strip casino), had me down there to learn the spot cues so I could fill-in when needed. The show they had in there had very little in the way of cues; just a few things about the performance and how they had been handling things that I could learn about just by sitting in the booth with him and watching a show. I even got paid! From a marketing standpoint, this little nothing of a show was a big money-maker; each show was video-taped and 'duped' copies made available before the audience could exit the small room. Gary had been acting as if he'd eaten a canary, and I thought there must be some of that famous Vegas nudity in store for my viewing pleasure. I'd guessed wrong; this guy was a HYPNOTIST!
He would ask for about 20 volunteers to come up onto the stage, and there were almost that many chairs in a neat semi-circle at the back of the tiny stage(lit of course for the camera). He introduced each volunteer to the audience; asked a number of seemingly innocuous questions; proceeded to ask some also unassuming questions of the group(still standing), on the basis of which he might eliminate one or two until there were enough chairs to sit them down. Now there were things he asked them to do, as a group; nothing suggestive or even silly-looking; observing how they 'worked,' he would eliminate a few more of the less-suggestive types and their chairs were removed. Then he proceeded to hypnotize them; no special talismans(like a swaying pocket watch) or creepy voice modulations; the room was not darkened and they were onstage in front of a lot of people they did not know; he simply mouthed a few 'formulas;' the kinds of things most anyone would expect to hear from a hypnotist; then when they were all under(he may have eliminated one or two more), it was on with the show!
The length of the show was determined by how long it took the wait-staff to serve the two-drink minimum. The trance-state subjects are doing all manner of cute and clever party tricks; nothing R-rated that they wouldn't want their mother-in-law to see on that tape they would all buy later; just stuff they would definitely not been doing if not completely under the control of a hypnotist. Gary is watching my reaction to all this; I thought he was watching to see if I might end up hypnotized. We talked a little(nobody could hear us in the booth); the usual comedic commentator banter that spot-op's excel at; but I began to realize that I had disappointed Gary in some way(but never asked what had been his 'expectation').
It was only after I began writing this stuff about my experiences in the theater that I was finally able to make some sense of Gary's disappointment that night. You see, Gary must have had one of those I-can't-believe-I'm-seeing-what I'm-seeing moments when he first saw the hypnotist work the crowd. He didn't get that from me, and because he did not, for him it called into question a whole lot of assumptions about identity; who I was; who he was. My reaction to the hypnotist's act was certainly a bland one, but to be expected after having spent the greater part of my lifetime watching much larger groups being hypnotized to much greater effect. They just hadn't been acting unacceptably! Well Gary was a carpenter, after all!


Hearing Voices
A while back, when I was writing in a completely different genre, I wrote about acoustic properties of human speech; some good stuff I've decided to include here, not just because it relates to my experiences in the theater, but I believe it illustrates that far beyond what training I received in Speech and Linguistics courses I took in college, that I have been allowed to penetrate the subject in my own unique way because of the hours of high-consciousness contemplation of the matter I logged while running my spotlight. At the end here, there is a little bit about memory making that I will have to touch upon in greater detail in another separate chapter.
When we speak aloud, where does the sound; all those modulated vibrations we have encoded with meaning; where actually do they go? Having worked in theaters all over the United States, I can attest to the fact that you cannot sometimes force the full range of those sounds produced to travel to all the locations about the auditorium where you may have seated some of the patrons. These are generally referred to by the bona fide experts as acoustic problems. Sound engineers owe their very existence to these problems; but few understand them and even fewer of them have a statistically high rate of overcoming them either effectively or consistently. That’s why we call them ‘pukes.’
However, our capability for speech has been 'designed' in a much more holistic way then contemporary designers use or are even capable of using/understanding, and because of that we should first look at the nature of the system that was ‘built in,’ before attempting to fix what is wrong or deficient in it. The human voice, while certainly miraculous, it is not beyond our ability to analyze, and better utilize. Modern pukes seldom seem to have any use for an oscilloscope, but if we look at human speech using such a device, we can quickly learn something about it that may affect our thinking about the power of speaking out loud. As we watch the visual representation of the speech we are hearing, of course it is moving around and changing shape because the sound is constantly changing in pitch and volume. But a close examination of the waves being depicted for us on the scope reveals that there are two independent wave forms, both changing and moving around, and with no discernable correspondence between the two. Curious now?
We produce the sound with our vocal chords, and because we can adjust the tension on those ‘strings,’ we see the waveform moving around. The force we apply to the escaping air that vibrates the strings can also be modulated, and this also makes the waveform move around. This part basically corresponds to the speaker diaphragm and the amplifier; parts the experts actually understand. In fact, their design goes another step:you always find a cone has been attached to the diaphragm to amplify the vibrations, and to help direct them. You also see that the sound generator is then placed in a cabinet which affects, and hopefully improves the sound.

All of this technical stuff only accounts for one of those waveforms we were watching. But we saw two separate waves being displayed simultaneously. The second waveform we have observed actually corresponds to that speaker cone and the enclosing speaker cabinet, but that guy’s equipment does not produce a separate wave because it does not change shape. Our voice box is housed in a sort of conical throat, which we can modify in shape while the vibrating air is passing through. Also the mouth, corresponding roughly to the cabinet, is a shape-changing nightmare too complicated to really analyze, but the idea here is that the separate series of shape changes in the container are producing a new signal which we are ‘listening to’ at the same time we listen to the vocalization, which is also changing while we listen. Other animals have vocalizations, but cannot produce this symphonic orchestration, nor do they have the brains to coordinate all this activity and devise the clever codes we utilize. I know; what about the mynah bird? Mynah birds merely imitate what they hear, and can correctly reproduce human speech because they have two throats and two pairs of vocal chords.

Once the speech is uttered, where then does it naturally tend to go? Students of theater history, or the history of drama, are all made aware of two very important sites that existed in ancient Greece:they are Eleusis and Epidaurus. Eleusis is the sacred place where the mystery religion was practiced; in secret of course. What is important, or elucidating, to the student about this sacred place is the idea that public theater was an innovation that grew out of the dramas seen once only by the initiated. But it is the other ancient site which will elucidate my argument here:Epidaurus was one of the earliest public theaters(actually a magnificent outdoor amphitheater), and has always been considered to be acoustically perfect. Tourists there are treated to a demonstration of this phenomenon by their guides; they generally will stand at the topmost reach of the seating there, which was carved directly into the white marble on that mountainside in such a way that as they look out on the beautiful blue Aegean Sea, they can hear perfectly clearly the unamplified voice of their guide explaining the phenomenon in all its historical detail. He would be standing at the bottom, where the players would have performed many of the great tragedies that are still played before audiences today; but they could have addressed upwards of ten thousand onlookers, while modern orpheums seldom seat more than five thousand, and generally rely on electronic amplification to drive the sound throughout those much smaller theaters.

To look at the place, while contemplating the nature of sound, and more particularly the human voice, you would be seeing a smoothly conical shaping carved into the mountainside in steps that accommodated the seated throngs of people. The first important thing to realize, after having fixed the shape of this perfect cone firmly in mind, is that in ancient times they were not as primitive as we remain today when it came to understanding much of nature and with special respect to the human art of communication.

Even more ancient peoples than these understood the simple logistics of these acoustical phenomena. First visualize for just one moment, the inverted cone that corresponds to the shape we have just seen carved into this Greek mountainside. Imagine the point converging on the mouths of the players. Now imagine a second cone, this time not inverted, which describes the way the sound of the several voices might naturally descend to hearers gathered around and below them at just the proper angle to hear clearly at any distance. That is a pretty good description of what the sound of our voice naturally tends to do as it travels further from the point at which we made utterance. The precise angle can be represented numerically with a five and a two(5:2); that is, for every five feet of distance, you would need two feet of elevation(in the case of Epidaurus), or downslope of two feet(Mt. Olivet?). So our voice continues to ascend into heaven, at the very same time that it tends to descend deep into the earth.

Let me quickly illustrate the ancientness of this ‘technology’ before addressing this Mount Olivet application. The Great Pyramid at Giza has forever been shrouded in mystery; who were its builders and why was it built? It is presumed to have once been covered with a fine smooth facing of finished stone, much of which was removed and used to build beautiful edifices all over Arabia. It is also assumed that at one time there was a capstone at the apex which has been destroyed or lost. As a young man I often pondered who were the mysterious cognoscenti who had preserved this super-relic for all this time in some secret repository only some special few might enter and behold its contents(heady stuff)? I came to appreciate later on that the apex was indeed a flat platform from which ‘high’ priests might address great multitudes of people; this explains the disappearance of the capstone and answers the ‘why of its construction. Of course the many pyramids found in the new world were flat on top and stepped so that throngs of ‘worshippers’ might stand or sit upon its sides at the correct angle to hear clearly. The Tower of Babel was clearly a case of this type construction too; much being made of the fact that they were all able to understand one another(an age of super- communication).

During the period when I was utilizing the Roanoke City Library each day for research, I had located a fine photograph of Epidaurus in a research volume there. Several days later, while sitting in the park and waiting for the library to open, I made a simple drawing with two fishes laid head-to-tail along one axis, and five barley loaves(small ones the same length as the fishes) making the perpendicular axis. I noticed the relationship could describe a slope. I later compared my drawing to the photo of the amphitheater; at first they did not seem to match. But when I viewed the slope in my drawing by holding the paper at an angle to my eye which corresponded to the angle at which the camera had captured certain features of the carved seating in the photo, I was indeed able to claim a very good match. Question: was the multitude then fed spiritually, when they sat all about the Master on the slope of that mountain, because they could hear his words? It certainly seems to me that the numbers two and five may be significant in more ways than one, since they could be used to describe an acoustically friendly slope. The twelve baskets of pieces could signify the incomplete nature of the 'teachings' when received from one of His disciples.

The Master certainly understood the nature of sound in ways few do today. When the multitude gathered on the shore at Galilee, he withdrew some distance in a small boat. This enabled them all to hear his words. He was making use of a thermocline that existed in the atmosphere over the water to reflect the sound waves that were his voice in ways they don’t usually act. Many a sound technician has suffered in reputation, when spending all afternoon fine-tuning a PA system for an outdoor concert to be held that night. When the sun goes down and the temperature drops a bit, a thermocline forms that can play havoc with the system’s sound; but it’s too late to make any adjustments during the performance.

With regard to memory formation, we should consider that each utterance is being recorded in a discrete part of the awesome brain that has facilitated this vocal miracle in the first place. This place is like a file folder into which the file[in this instance a sound file] will be put in order to facilitate future retrieval. That sound file can be associated with other related files; files like the one your brain created for remembering the correct positions, correct duration and correct ordering of the instructions that it had sent to the tongue creating the sounds recorded in that other related file. The more associated files created surrounding some event[an action taken, not a mere thought which can lie in a lonesome file somewhere until completely forgotten], the more easily it can be remembered, or perhaps repeated. The musculature directive file, the facial accompaniment file, the witness recognition file[those faces present at the time of the remembered vocalization], the physical sensation file[where the vibrations felt as the voice vibrated the bones in the head are sorted for remembering], a related semantic content file[where we have stored the meaning intended by all those $2 words we have used], another file where we have recorded carefully the emotional effects stemming from the remembered exchange of ideas along with another half-dozen files where accurate procedural routines that occur sub-consciously whenever one of these vocal miracles has been created are kept handy for comparison or re-use all become associated with the sound file our own hearing has provided.

I think that from this run through of the kinds and number of actual memories created when we have spoken aloud will serve to convince even the most skeptical that indeed there might be, not only a real personal advantage to repeating out loud, perhaps several times or more, the specific data that we need to remember correctly, but that a qualitative difference exists in the memory itself, as well as the more obvious quantitative one. Speaking it aloud can indeed convey through it a power not found when rehearsing the same words silently.

Poor Henry Crawford
Henry Crawford was one of the stagehands that knew and had worked around the Charter Members that started Local 41 at the turn of the last century. He always worked as a flyman, and was considered to be a good one. The flyman's world is a long row of pull-ropes running the length of the wall at one side of the backstage area; which side in many cases is determined by where you can park and unload the trucks just outside. If the loading doors are at the right side of the stage, then the fly system will be installed along the left side.
Fly cues are normally heard from a biscuit, as it wasn't practical for the flyman to wear a headset because he moves up and down the row of linesets during the performance. If told to fly in the backdrop for the cemetery scene, or to bring in lineset 32, the flyman would move to the appropriate location, unlock the brake on his line and pull down to bring that drop, which was waiting in the flyspace above, lower until the bottom just kisses the deck, and re-lock the brake. Sometimes the number 32 has been painted onto the lockrail, and there is usually a replaceable card there marked cemetery backdrop. It is much more likely that when his cuelight comes on, that the stage manager issues awarning for cue number 47. The flymen, who may all have pieces to move, either in or out, when that cuelight goes off. They quickly refer to a long cue sheet that details, for each numbered cue, what linesets or which setpieces will move what direction, and probably who it is that has been assigned that particular cue by the head flyman. Poor Henry Crawford could not read!
How is it that Old Henry is such a good flyman? I worked around Henry for years before I became aware of his 'handicap.' He was not one of the old heads that taught me the business; in fact, Henry was reticent to advise any of his 'wiser' colleagues. Sometimes, when we were hanging a show, if I was out there on the deck doing whatever it was I'd been assigned to do; out there where other work was ongoing and the noise level was escalating as guys shouted back and forth instructions to one another; sometimes Henry was watching me, ...carefully.
When something began to move about on that stage; it could be something that was big and heavy that constituted a safety hazard; it could be something that was fragile or expensive that could have gotten damaged; it could have been a fresh supply of doughnuts just coming in the door; that's when Henry's huge old hand would manifest itself on my shoulder. He'd move me quickly out of harm's way, or call my attention to something I shouldn't be missing. He seldom said a word; just acted in his mysterious way.
Henry's awareness of his surroundings was peculiar; peculiar in a way that escaped the notice of most stagehands. Henry's relationship to the space that we worked in was qualitatively different than the other stagehands working around him. When it was time for Henry to bring in the backdrop for the cemetery scene, he went to the place where we'd hung the stupid thing mere hours ago; the same place where the head flyman had placed a notecard designating it as the place where that drop was controlled by a flyman. If that head flyman had been confused or distracted when he marked the pinrail; marked the wrong lineset by accident; it would not have fooled poor Henry.
If Henry had been directed to pull on a specific lineset, he'd peer out into the darkness that was onstage, looking for the presence(or absence) of the setpiece that was fixing to move; he'd look up and notice the position of the arbor(piled full of counterweights) which is always in the opposite position that the scenic element hanging on his batten will be in; Henry has 'instinctively' taken notice of the positions of any setwagons that will begin to move as soon as the flypieces have flown out of the way; noticing where the personnel are in relation to all this moving hardware; yes, and looking to see just where I have got off to.
I guess, to Henry, the rest of us wiseacres(one of Gurdjieff's favorite terms) really must have looked comically pathetic trying to navigate a world full of spaces in which dynamic objects move and interact by making reference to little signs we have erected, or number strings that bear some mysterious(for Henry, at least) relationship to objects and people that Henry has regarded in the space around him(us), or by making reference to faulty memories we have devised by methods Henry could not fathom.
Henry sometimes would need to rely on someone there on the rail to interpret for him what was the real world meaning of certain cues that are in a language that assumes you are literate(meaning navigating the showspace by means of symbolic referents); the stage manager does not have time to call the cemetery drop the cemetery drop(the 'symbolic' referent Henry is most likely to relate to a place) and if several linesets will move simultaneously on a lightcue, he is just referring to cue 47(which the other flymen relate to a place on their cuesheet). Henry has been sure to nurture the interpersonal relationships with the other flymen that will be sure and further explain what the cue-caller is talking about(frequently by pointing with a finger at the place on the cuesheet where the cemetery drop 'lives' in his symbolic world). They are probably thinking that Henry is 'thick' because he is getting old.
I, of course, cannot approach a place where I can really appreciate what Henry sees/thinks/feels. I only have my own experience to build a better mental model of the real world which threatens to swallow all who fail in the attempt or rashly base their actions on woefully inadequate models as their only guide. Knowing Henry is just such an experience, and deserves pride of place among all the other experience I've had with old timers who were willing to attempt to impart wisdom; for it is the 'knowing Henry-experience' that has required me to look inside myself and take stock of the ways I create memories, the silly ways in which I tend to relate to spaces and potentially dangerous objects, and the ways I create relationships with colleagues with whom I'm interdependent for any successful results we might be able to achieve as a crew and the way I perceive and relate to the Henrys in my world(that above all!).
If I were able to sustain an altered state of consciousness that would approximate Henry's ordinary state, I imagine that a richness of processed perceptions would prevail that would result in a new way of directing my attention to various dynamic aspects(the kind that normally escape my attention); different priorities would develop; that is, the order in which I notice details would become different. Eventually I would begin to associate these impressions with memories not used before to make sense of them. I'd be lost in Henry's world, having no habitual routines to effectively create a meaningful whole from all these new elements and relationships never noticed before; old routines would be useless as they compile scenarios which trigger logic alarms. I would quickly learn new routines in order to cope with a more richly perceived environment, but I'd never catch up to Henry. Add to this the certainty that I could not sustain the altered view and you arrive instantly at the true value of all the Henrys in our world; all the 'handicapped' individuals we know who have very naturally(over the lifetime of their particular handicap) devised work-arounds for every possible situation where 'software' solutions can be helpful.
Here's where Henry's lesson that he has taught us contains for us an invaluable truism regarding any planned or hoped for explorations of these strange inner worlds, and that revelation is contained in the 'work' of work-around; is the reason Gurdjieff's teachings became The Work; why Pirsig's 'enlightenment' came to him while ardently involved with the struggle to keep that old motorcycle of his fully functional; why I have achieved certain higher understandings when being drawn to the light. It is also why the students of Gurdjieff who left the work that was involved while he taught them have so little to give others; why so many who have been involved with TM(transcendental meditation), some for over thirty years, frequently lament the time and energy they have wasted, or become writers or teachers when they are able to stay in denial about their paltry results.
Ineffable is a load of stinky manure; those who have achieved anything at all are fully capable of pointing out multiple examples which abound in a world where it is we who have poorly percieved them. Furthermore, their teachings, as it were, are always made available to those who can hear, free of any charges outside of the work that must be done to achieve any real results.
There are those who have perverted their cognitive abilities to get various 'perceived' advantages over the rest of us who have stuffed our prisons with people guilty of no real crimes( please read Julian Assange-WikiLeaks:WARRIOR FOR TRUTH by Valerie Guichaoua & Sophie Radermecker); sent pesky luminaries to mental institutions where they still reside or where they suffered severe psychological trauma from having been taught to doubt their own sanity; & who are willing to sacrifice this entire planet to prevent the coming together of any effective movement to change society's worldview in this evolving consciousness arena.
Unless homelessness is your ultimate financial goal, you can no longer afford to let others continue to do all your thinking for you! I live in a town that boasts some 6600 millionaires as residents. Doing the math that's around $6.6 Billion, mostly invested in worthless paper that is no longer producing the 15% income they have grown accustomed to! What would happen to their community if they were shown the wisdom in investing all of this wealth in the community they have chosen to live in? What would happen to those individuals that are currently 'managing' all that wealth. Perhaps you are beginning to get the picture!

[jobsaboba]

Thank You

jobs

[Anthony Peake]

Shrimperdude,

What an amazing first posting. Thank you for sharing this with us. You have clearly spent a good deal of time putting this together and your effort is much appreciated.

Anthony

[shrimperdude]

E-MAIL CONVERSATION WITH REBEKAH LEVY
I had sent this amazing lady a copy of my latest Chapter for comment:
Poor Henry Crawford
Henry Crawford was one of the stagehands that knew and had worked around the Charter Members that started Local 41 at the turn of the last century. He always worked as a flyman, and was considered to be a good one. The flyman's world is a long row of pull-ropes running the length of the wall at one side of the backstage area; which side in many cases is determined by where you can park and unload the trucks just outside. If the loading doors are at the right side of the stage, then the fly system will be installed along the left side.
Fly cues are normally heard from a biscuit, as it wasn't practical for the flyman to wear a headset because he moves up and down the row of linesets during the performance. If told to fly in the bacdrop for the cemetery scene, or to bring in lineset 32, the flyman would move to the appropriate location, unlock the brake on his line and pull down to bring that drop, which was waiting in the flyspace above, lower until the bottom just kisses the deck, and re-lock the brake. Sometimes the number 32 has been painted onto the lockrail, and there is usually a replaceable card there marked cemetery backdrop. It is much more likely that when his cuelight comes on, that the stage manager issues a warning for cue number 47. The flymen, who may all have pieces to move, either in or out, when that cuelight goes off. They quickly refer to a long cue sheet that details, for each numbered cue, what linesets or which setpieces will move what direction, and probably who it is that has been assigned that particular cue by the head flyman. Poor Henry Crawford could not read!
How is it that Old Henry is such a good flyman? I worked around Henry for years before I became aware of his 'handicap.' He was not one of the old heads that taught me the business; in fact, Henry was reticent to advise any of his 'wiser' colleagues. Sometimes, when we were hanging a show, if I was out there on the deck doing whatever it was I'd been assigned to do; out there where other work was ongoing and the noise level was escalating as guys shouted back and forth instructions to one another; sometimes Henry was watching me, ...carefully.
When something began to move about on that stage; it could be something that was big and heavy that constituted a safety hazard; it could be something that was fragile or expensive that could have gotten damaged; it could have been a fresh supply of doughnuts just coming in the door; that's when Henry's huge old hand would manifest itself on my shoulder. He'd move me quickly out of harm's way, or call my attention to something I shouldn't be missing. He seldom said a word; just acted in his mysterious way.
Henry's awareness of his surroundings was peculiar; peculiar in a way that escaped the notice of most stagehands. Henry's relationship to the space that we worked in was qualitatively different than the other stagehands working around him. When it was time for Henry to bring in the backdrop for the cemetery scene, he went to the place where we'd hung the stupid thing mere hours ago; the same place where the head flyman had placed a notecard designating it as the place where that drop was controlled by a flyman. If that head flyman had been confused or distracted when he marked the pinrail; marked the wrong lineset by accident; it would not have fooled poor Henry.
If Henry had been directed to pull on a specific lineset, he'd peer out into the darkness that was onstage, looking for the presence(or absence) of the setpiece that was fixing to move; he'd look up and notice the position of the arbor(piled full of counterweights) which is always in the opposite position that the scenic element hanging on his batten will be in; Henry has 'instinctively' taken notice of the positions of any setwagons that will begin to move as soon as the flypieces have flown out of the way; noticing where the personell are in relation to all this moving hardware; yes, and looking to see just where I have got off to.
I guess, to Henry, the rest of us wiseacres(one of Gurdjieff's favorite terms) really must have looked comically pathetic trying to navigate a world full of spaces in which dynamic objects move and interact by making referrence to little signs we have erected, or number strings that bear some mysterious(for Henry, at least) relationship to objects and people that Henry has regarded in the space around him(us), or by making referrence to faulty memories we have devised by methods Henry could not fathom.
Henry sometimes would need to rely on someone there on the rail to interpret for him what was the 'real world' meaning of certain cues that are in a language that assumes you are literate(meaning navigating the showspace by means of symbolic referrants); the stage manager does not have time to call the cemetery drop the cemetery drop(the 'symbolic' referrant Henry is most likely to relate to a place) and if several linesets will move simultaneously on a lightcue, he is just referring to cue 47(which the other flymen relate to a place on their cuesheet). Henry has been sure to nurture the interpersonal relationships with the other flymen that will be sure and further explain what the cue-caller is talking about(frequently by pointing with a finger at the place on the cuesheet where the cemetery drop 'lives' in his symbolic world). They are probably thinking that Henry is 'thick' because he is getting old.
I, of course, cannot approach a place where I can really appreciate what Henry sees/thinks/feels. I only have my own experience to build a better mental model of the real world which threatens to swallow all who fail in the attempt or rashly base their actions on woefully inadequate models as their only guide. Knowing Henry is just such an experience, and deserves pride of place among all the other experience I've had with old timers who were willing to atempt to impart wisdom; for it is the 'knowing Henry-experience' that has required me to look inside myself and take stock of the ways I create memories, the silly ways in which I tend to relate to spaces and potentially dangerous objects, and the ways I create relationships with colleagues with whom I'm interdependent for any successful results we might be able to achieve as a crew and the way I percieve and relate to the Henrys in my world(that above all!).
If I were able to sustain an altered state of consciousness that would approximate Henry's ordinary state, I imagine that a richness of processed perceptions would prevail that would result in a new way of directing my attention to various dynamic aspects(the kind that normally escape my attention); different priorities would develop; that is, the order in which I notice details would become different. Eventually I would begin to associate these impressions with memories not used before to make sense of them. I'd be lost in Henry's world, having no habitual routines to effectively create a meaningful whole from all these new elements and relationships never noticed before; old routines would be useless as they compile scenarios which trigger logic alarms. I would quickly learn new routines in order to cope with a more richly percieved environment, but I'd never catch up to Henry. Add to this the certainty that I could not sustain the altered view and you arrive instantly at the true value of all the Henrys in our world; all the 'handicapped' individuals we know who have very naturally(over the lifetime of their particular handicap) devised work-arounds for every possible situation where 'software' solutions can be helpful.
Here's where Henry's lesson that he has taught us contains for us an invaluable truism regarding any planned or hoped for explorations of these strange inner worlds, and that revelation is contained in the 'work' of work-around; is the reason Gurdjieff's teachings became The Work; why Pirsig's 'enlightenment' came to him while ardently involved with the struggle to keep that old motorcycle of his fully functional; why I have achieved certain higher understandings when being drawn to the light. It is also why the students of Gurdjieff who left the work that was involved while he taught them have so little to give others; why so many who have been involved with TM(transcendental meditation), some for over thirty years, frequently lament the time and energy they have wasted, or become writers or teachers when they are able to stay in denial about their paltry results.
Ineffable is a load of stinky manure; those who have achieved anything at all are fully capable of pointing out multiple examples which abound in a world where it is we who have poorly percieved them. Furthermore, their teachings, as it were, are always made available to those who can hear, free of any charges outside of the work that must be done to achieve any real results.
There are those who have perverted their cognitive abilities to get various 'percieved' advantages over the rest of us who have stuffed our prisons with people guilty of no real crimes( please read Julian Assange-WikiLeaks:WARRIOR FOR TRUTH by Valerie Guichaoua & Sophie Radermecker); sent pesky luminaries to mental institutions where they still reside or where they suffered severe psychological trauma from having been taught to doubt their own sanity; & who are willing to sacrifice this entire planet to prevent the coming together of any effective movement to change society's worldview in this evolving consciousness arena.
Unless homelessness is your ultimate financial goal, you can no longer afford to let others continue to do all your thinking for you! I live in a town that boasts some 6600 millionaires as residents. Doing the math that's around $6.6 Billion, mostly invested in worthless paper that is no longer producing the 15% income they have grown accustomed to! What would happen to their community if they were shown the wisdom in investing all of this wealth in the community they have chosen to live in? What would happen to those individuals that are currently 'managing' all that wealth. Perhaps you are beginning to get the picture!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi there. I had to go out all day yesterday so this had to wait until today. So here are some comments.
Im not sure what you are trying to accomplish here, besides to show how Old Henry doesn't have the "newer" kind of ability to abstract/read and how unappreciated he is, except by you. That may sound a bit harsh, but it's my take on this. In any case, your description of Old Henry is okay, but the qualities you are trying to put forth as the "older consciousness" aren't delineated clearly enough, in my opinion. And this is difficult to do because you don't want to offend anyone. I see this a lot in Jaynesian-type writing. All of a sudden the writers--working in good faith--view themselves and begin to perceive how arrogant and falsely superior they might look to someone who didn't understand what they were trying to describe.
I think and believe this discomfort is due to the fact (as I perceive it) that very few humans are actually capable of what Jaynes thought most "modern" and at least "Western" people were capable of. I think Jaynes was, in some important ways, wrong. I think that the majority of humans are still actually largely "bicameral", and that differentiation between "bicamerality" and non-bicamerality is not as cut-and-dried as Jaynes thought and his disciples like to think. My reasons for saying this are because "Jaynesians", just like almost everybody else in "modern" culture makes the huge mistake of not differentiating between the processing of emotional energy and intellectual. Gurdjieff was just beginning to understand this but he had only extremely primitive ways of dealing with emotional energy in his students (that of public shaming). I don't want to go into it more deeply right here because I don't think you asked for that particular discussion, but there you are.
Your writing needs a lot of editing, but I don't think that's what you asked for in terms of "what I think". You are very unclear with time and tenses, especially in the first half of the piece (was/is/had been). It's actually very interesting, even if it's not on purpose, to be so inconsistent with time...it's more like someone who hasn't yet fully developed the abstract "I", the Jaynesian consciousness, so to speak.
This piece is generally good, as far as what it is trying to show. The writing itself needs a lot of polishing, though.
The principle of it is not something I'm particularly interested in or impressed with, however. The reason for this is because I believe that humanity's task, at the present, is to retrieve the pre-"Jaynesian" consciousness without losing the newer abstractive abilities. And so to most people on the Julian Jaynes website I would sound completely "unfaithful". In other words, I am pretty convinced that we are about to lose more of our bicamerality in the near future--that we haven't lost much of it at all, actually. That's why I don't do much on that website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your writing is certainly a breath of fresh air; your criticisms the oxygen it carries to a gasping wannabe. Thank you for taking some time to work on this.
1)Delineating those qualities of Henry's unique(among his crewmembers) AWARENESS, while more difficult for me because I lack skills successful writers must develop, still remains a word-breaking task for the more letters-oriented craftsman who needs stockpiles of descriptive sentences to accurately transmit with his(her) paltry words what the image would portray so effortlessly. Your excellent skills in this department helps to make those arguing their separate viewpoints on the boards look like clueless stumblebums(now that sounds harsh). Still there remains yet another complicating problem. If I were more of a camera(extremely image-oriented), could I see any more clearly what that 'compiler' in Henry's head does? There was the feeling sometimes, when working around Henry, that his camera made perfect sense of the sterile goings-on in my head. Also, I'm finding that writing our way out just may be about the only technique, which is both widely available, and holds out at least some promise of 'returning' with constructive data relating to the most ineffable experiential phenomena.
2)Jaynes having been frankly wrong on so many points need not lead to as many sides(to some 'central'[?] argument) as there are points on JJ's boards. Losing your valuable input there because of 'imagined' loyalty issues is a windmill I'd certainly turn my steed to tilt at. When I try to picture(that camera again) Jaynes devising his theories, I must begin with the volitional aspect of his hypothesized bicameral man's mental processes, and build out from there.[I find that the will being located in the center corresponds well with many current neurological models.] On the other hand, it is my feeling that the current popularity of these ideas centers itself on only peripheral aspects of Jaynes development of how this may have been(such as [the topic I'm working in] Bible Evidence), even though it is not too difficult to imagine a subconscious part of us that yet yearns for the release from responsibility that results from having to make up our own minds. My twisted mind finds it even easier to imagine a scenario where a young Jaynes was given his ideas fully formed by "an intelligence" not comfortable with being associated with their publication. Or that those mysterious 'Global Moderators' are not the inheritors of Jaynesian wisdom, but busy about the business of guiding the misuse of these ideas & are some/several of the avatar-personas you and I have wrestled with in the development of a thread or two.
3)As to the processing of emotional energy, picture say about 1400 opera patrons, processing(as a group) all the perceptions simultaneously delivered by such a rich experiential medium, where the semantic values carried within impenetrable Italian conversations are so successfully subdued by the other, more appealing sensory choices. Consider that Western man, in this case, has been evolving a powerful 'medicine' for his condition from the rudimentary sacred or religious forebears from which it has grown. Medicine, as opposed to the 'street drug' that video games & RPG's resemble in scary correspondence. Or TM, for that matter; one of my pet peeves(I suppose you had already figured that out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several ways to enhance your own (what I call) indigenous ways of knowing, which is what Old Henry has great access to, because he doesn't abstract very much or very well. Did you mean transcendental meditation by TM? Uh-oh. (1) Meditate regularly. Meditation turns off the Jaynesian "I" (which is pretty much Gurdjieff's Intellectual Center 'I'). This doesn't gain you automatic access to the other forms of knowing, but it does show you how to turn off the "newer" "I". By meditation I mean the kind where you work to (and in the meantime ignore) turn off all inner dialogue.--not contemplation, where you follow one thought as far as you can take it (which is actually good practice for the Intellectual "I" BTW); (2) practice a nonverbal art/craft, such as instrumental music, dance--anything you can't talk while doing; (3) practice some kind of "mindfulness" exercises (often related to mediation instruction if the instructors are Buddhists). Interact nonverbally with animals (domesticated included). We prize our ability to abstract and contemplate--rightfully so--but we have lost the more direct forms of knowing that we all possess up to the toddler years and which Old Henry never lost. It is my contention that the time has come for Homo sapiens to reawaken, recover and re-integrate the older ways of knowing with our newer one. Because the intellect by itself is pathetic, slow, arrogant and quite ignorant of things it's supposed to be making informed choices about. (This is where that book of McGilchrist's comes in very handy to read, The Master and His Emissary).
I'm not sure this is about being "right" or "wrong" here. These are just my observations and experiences over several decades. In fact, I first studied Gurdjieff's work (in Ouspensky) under the supervision of a Native American spiritual teacher (a woman). Around the same period, I also did about three years' worth of Reichian body-based therapy (the kind called Radix). Basically, I began to "get my body back" and the "indigenous" forms of knowing that come with that--I still have to work hard on those, they aren't a "given" when you are a highly intellectually-centered modern person. And then there is the near-impossible work of coordinating the different forms of knowing.
Regarding your remarks on opera...hmm. I happen to think the best way to approach opera is to simply pay attention to where and how your body is vibrating while you're simultaneously into the theater and poetry and music. I am a "classically" trained pianist, conductor and singer, in case you're wondering what I know about that stuff...I used to sing that stuff. Yes, all those musings have their validity but the root of musical experience--as well as emotional experience, whether musical or not--is physical vibration.
Emotional intelligence has little to do with semantics, in my experience. It is merely the ability to identify and process emotional energy (receptive and expressive) well. For that, the work of a brilliant nutcase named Manfred Clynes is stupendously useful. It's called "Sentics" and I think he has a website for it nowadays. Most adolescent or adult people have no idea what basic emotions actually feel like (without acting them out, I mean, or intellectually commenting on them). Sentics is a great exercise for that. I think it would liberate the human race if everybody did Sentics exercises. But perhaps I misunderstand what you are talking about in that paragraph. ?
There is certanly no need to apologize for your work. You asked me to assess it, that's all. My assessment is not an absolute. If you love to write what you are writing (and it seems you do) then by all means, pursue what you love! That's where personal treasure usually hides, yes? Then go for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am especially in tune with what you say about interacting with animals(have some cetacean experiences & have observed others while they had their first); love the idea of St. Francis preaching to birds.
[it's supposed to be making informed choices about]When you started in about right or wrong I detected contradiction with regard to what you say here(a KEY point you made) about 'supposed to be,' as if you have realized a purpose in our sentient lives that is the same one for all, and that equates to RIGHT every time for me. Being a 'radical truth-teller' is a technique other teachers are bringing into their instructional routines more and more; I believe this is because they have 'realized' that WRONGNESS needs opposition because having more individuals making some informed choices is necessary to the transformation needed/expected on this planet right NOW!
[near-impossible work of coordinating the different forms of knowing]Here's where you've smacked the nail in just the RIGHT attitude; a couple of more whacks like that and the iron will be home! Old Henry had nothing on any of us in this department; the only real novelty here worth noting is that for Henry to relate spatially to all that was going on backstage was not WORK for him, it came about naturally; for us to do what Henry does(nobody said it could not be done that way; it's the way I do it) is hard work, and the tendency to slip back into the old 'natural' way is the FORCE that work is applied to. That's where I have my bone-picking with practitioners of TM-like absences from the work-at-hand. If Consciousness(in the purely Jaynesian sense) is evolutionary progress(I have no reason to doubt this), then there exists a path to the next step in propitiously improvised software that FEELS right and comes just as 'naturally' as Henry's practice did for him(he did not have to withdraw from chaotic stimulation, or from the presence[sometimes resistance & even persecution] of others to do his job, and do it well.
I will certainly check out this Manfred Clynes. With regard to the vibrations specifically(and I'm not speaking of the way a violinist feels her instrument while making her song), I believe that the strong sexual stimulation felt when saxophone music is played loud enough is specific to those exact frequencies(which of course can be produced on other instruments) & their interaction with parts of the body that are tuned to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took a look at your Manfred Clynes(yeah, Wikipedia version), the man(musician) Einstein called Ein begnadeter Künstler, but did not venture further into more proprietary space.
I like very much the thought that laughter may be "nature's arrow from appearance to reality." Not so sure about the rhythmic patterns being indicators of compatibility.
Interesting detail that Marvin Minsky quoted from Clynes' poems in his book The Society of Mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Clynes' book Sentics is an excellent read and there was, at least initially, good science behind his stuff. I really don't know about his later work. I spent a day with Dr. Clynes about six years ago or so, at his home in the Napa area. The Sentics Cycles are fabulous for artists. I discovered them (along with the aforementioned book) in the late '70s and it substantially helped numerous artists of various kinds expand their expressive horizons. They (the cycles) are also extremely simple and easy to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What cetacean experiences have you had? Do you know who Kenneth Norris was? I was his assistant for the several years up to his retirement from UCSC. I have had personal relationships with several dolphins (including 2 wild ones).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrimperdude is a reference to my favorite passtime; shrimping with a 99-foot beach seine with half inch mesh(at St. Andrew's Sound[Jekyll Is.,GA], beginning around Jul4 & continuing sometimes into the first week of Nov). With a net like this you can pull from the sea just about any living thing. Porpoises frequently 'fish' right alongside you, making a great game of catching all the large mullet attempting to evade the net. This is Family Entertainment in a world that has forgotten what that is!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem/paradox/challenge with "radical truth-telling" (and I am admittedly someone drawn to doing it) is that, unless you tell YOUR personal radical truth, you don't tap into the collective one...and yet you must always keep in mind it is only yours. The collective consciousness is the one Henry (and the now-disappearing indigenous people) was tapping into. I believe that is currently the Right Brain, the seat of most emotion, the Feminine, and also the receptors for what we call "the Christ" or "the Buddha", which I perceive as the real "collective consciousness" of this species. Not certain about all this, but I have been studying it and turning it around for a long time now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You might enjoy/be ready to take a look at organelle.org ; this is not my preferred 'reality framework' but must admit there is a bit more we could find out about the sun; could it not be a living intelligence? Lost somewhere in the 3-long-pages article on Cain & Abel is an 'explanation' of the tree in the center of the garden being a vestigial artifact from/connected to the creative 'urge' that manifested the garden(like your navel) which interpretation intimates that the sun is that navel-like point where true life flows into this material creation is what the tree metaphor points to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm somewhat familiar with organelle.org and enjoy some of what they have to say quite a bit. I have no doubt whatsoever that both this planet and the sun are beings. I always "knew" that from childhood. And I was interested from a very young age in the archaeology coffee-table books at our house (I was a freak, began reading sometime after turning 2) and the mythology they contained, and all the ancient civilizations knew this too. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure Gurdjieff was correct when he said that humans evolved primarily to process star-energy for the Earth. According to Gurdjieff, we (are supposed to) function for it very much like our neocortex functions for our "lower" (older) brain. I first became conscious of doing just that (waaaay before reading Gurdjieff or Ouspensky) when I was getting my PhD in psychedelics, back in the late '60s, early '70s. I could actually feel the sun drawing organic life from out of the Earth. I could feel the plants breathing, see their auras (energetic envelopes) pulsating in the sunlight, etc. etc. Now I can without the drugs, but it's still work except at dawn and dusk (then it's very easy).
I happen to suspect Cain & Abel describes a flowering/branching/splitting of our actual brain-processing that reflected our first big venture into cultivation and eventual tilling the land, and breeding of animals (rather than more passive hunting/gathering). Also the beginning of what I call The Matriarchy (more recent prehistory, the Goddess Culture). That's my take on that one. Metaphor is fun but I like to do it simultaneously with analogy. I am always interested in the relations of the microcosms to the macrocosms to us in the middle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bekah;
A Ph.D. eh? I wonder just where I fit into a hierarchial experience rating scheme. In the day, I was delving into Castaneda while reading some analyses of Gnostic scripture(thought that was for me); found Frances Yates & then Meetings with Remarkable Men, by which point I knew there was a path that led to 'a far country.' I decided, very consciously, to remain on Earth and make a go of it with 'my fellow man'[the two roads that diverged in a yellow wood]; take a crack at opposing the bondage within a conventional milieu, but daring unconventional methods and taking the risk. In 1969(I was nineteen), I became a union member.
If I view the wisdom in Genesis as high level teachings that reflect a thorough working knowledge of Consciousness, then so much of it not only makes sense, but the whole now has a consistency lacking without the right KEY to understanding it all. But this leaves me with another, perhaps more important, mystery to solve; 'where on Earth' did this stuff come from? I do not believe that Greek philosophy & their unique brand of mystery/initiatory ritual was highjacked from Egypt or anywhere in Africa. Yet there is no 'evidence' that informs with regard to where the Hebrew magic originated.

EXCERPT FROM MY CHAPTER THREE
In Tales of Power(Carlos Casteneda), the apprentice, with Don Genaro wispering instructions in one ear, while Don Juan whispered different commands into the other, was able to 'leap' from the precipice to a spot below them where he and Don Juan had spent some time together the previous day. Don Genaro was calling on young Carlos to feel deeply the bodily sensation produced by his presence in the now on the cliff's very edge. Don Juan was commanding that he recall all the peculiar sensation that was embedded firmly in his memory from his experience in the valley below only hours before. Carlos was easily able to take the mental leap from one location to the other; the sorcery here was that when he did it, his mind produced all the authentic sensations that would be produced had he actually jumped. On what basis, could Carlos then conclude that he had not really jumped into the valley below?

This chapter explains how(and why), when I was listening to the cuing that I heard through my headset, and while my attention was intensely focused on what was occurring down on the stage, and while my motor areas were engaged in following my assignment with my followspot, that the state of my consciousness was consistently changed(I prefer raised or expanded). Subsequent chapters explore other factors(also operative most uniquely in a theatrical setting) that either amplify this effect or can be engaged by your mind in novel ways while in such an altered state.
The way ths writing project morphed from a nostalgic operation manual to a monograph on learning(a trade), and then into an exploration of my own inner space perhaps should inform my evaluation of the scribe or teacher responsible for Genesis. Perhaps it is just what one should expect from a post-bicameral brain when thoroughly engaged in the writing process. Writing could be the(all too simple) next step we energy converters take in reaching a reorganization of the processing/creating organ which in concert with all the others are the neural network of a living planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing is apparently what YOU need. In/from YOUR part of the collective Human brain, to process/transmit/transmute what YOU need to, to do your part for the planet. And the scenario of The Theater is an excellent one...for YOU (as well as a lot of others, though they use "movies"). What is it that needs to "project" onto the world, onto others (for both pleasant and unpleasant, beneficent and cruel purposes)? What "in us" needs to do that? What are we trying to "become conscious" of? The theater is your...um...theater for that to "be shown" to you. Writing is a way of "making things conscious". Have you ever read Was Heisst Denken? by Heidegger? (What is Called Thinking? or What Calls Itself Thinking?.) Very short book that you should only read in tiny bits at a time in order to assimilate and think along with him, which is what philosphy is for. But really important in the way it captures and expresses what the collective human consciousness is trying to get done at this stage.
And something else: How do YOU know you're "post-bicameral"? I often wonder whether Jaynes didn't have the thing totally backwards...that in fact we used to be unicameral and now we are bicameral, because the Left Brain (which we have spent the last 2800 years isolating--this is what McGilchrist's book The Master and His Emissary describes) always thinks it's "seeing everything clearly" when all it really does is register and then gauge and judge a projection of itself AS The World. While the Right Brain...well there's hardly anything we "know" very about it, if you read or read about recent neurobiology and especially neuropsychology work. That's probably because the Right Brain is principally about BEING, not "knowing" in the intellectual, Jaynesian sense of recognizing and naming (that's what the "Logos" is about, isn't it).
Anyway, I have for a couple of years now suspected that Jaynes and the Jaynesians have it backwards, but that is the very nature of being locked in Left Brain abstraction/intellectuality, having abandoned and condemned The Animal (while believing we have "transcended" it, which is total BS), rather than lovingly and patiently tamed it, a la Saint-Exupery's taming (and what all those recent Dog and Horse "Whisperers" are trying to make conscious). But it kinda doesn't matter--bicameral or unicameral. What seems to matter is that, now that the Intellect and its Abstraction Power is "out of the bag", we have to go back and re-connect it to, and re-align it with, the older, body-based, emotion-based (reptilian and mammalian) forms of consciousness in order for the thing (the entire species Homo sapiens) to be able to continue without self-destructing. If we don't, It will be at suicidally fatal odds with Itself. That is the book I am working on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SHORT CHAT DISCUSSION:
12:41 PM
me: Thought I'd just give this a try.
Rebekah: I'm quite busy at the moment. Don't use Chat in any case. DO use Skype.
12:42 PM
me: If this is what we NEED TO BE DOING, then it is probably exactly what we are doing(or trying to); just need to be told that it's all okay!
12:44 PM
Rebekah: OK. So WHAT is it that NEEDS TO BE TOLD? Who/What needs "parental permission" and/or "parental blessing"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just knew I would find a way to blow it with you. Hidden talent of mine. I suppose you were working on this book of yours.
In reply to your last CHAT remark; I was responding to what I'd just read in your e-mail:
now that the Intellect and its Abstraction Power is "out of the bag", we have to go back and re-connect it to, and re-align it with, the older, body-based, emotion-based (reptilian and mammalian) forms of consciousness in order for the thing (the entire species Homo sapiens) to be able to continue without self-destructing
If this is what we NEED TO BE DOING, then it is probably exactly what we are doing(or trying to); just need to be told that it's all okay!
My POINT in the things I have been writing stress that it is the DOING that will facilitate what the collective human consciousness is trying to get done at this stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are right, the doing...for you? I don't know, can't say.
I happen to think, however, it is the Being that will change what needs to change for the surviving members of this species after the approaching series of "die-offs". Gandhi said "be the change you want to see" and I believe this is the keystone of the evolution trying to take place. Who you are, who I am, is NOT WHAT YOU DO. What YOU DO only expresses what YOU ARE. The "wrong" side of the equation is in charge right now...it was OK to believe it was in charge for the last 2800 years--it had to differentiate and define itself and awaken--but now it has to understand itself in a different context.
Homo sapiens is trying to get through late adolescence into adulthood without crashing the car and committing suicide. Adolescents have to get a working sense of "self" and "other" and "other AS self" in order to become healthy (and oh, there are so few of them) adults.
Because "Being" is the FEMININE, the Right Brain, the Ancient Knowledge that we are trying to reconnect with. Doing results from being, not so much the other way around. The hand, after all, and the technology that is the extension of the hand, developed only to extend the reach of our being. My take on it, anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Girlfriend, I love the way you write. The children can still be saved/helped/trained/even enjoyed(maybe?); but not until we can begin to SEE them:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2009
Help Me Finish This Sideshow Article
My attention was drawn to an article which appeared in the local newspaper recently; an article that I suspect was widely syndicated; perhaps you read it as well. With the article was a photograph of a young girl that appeared to be dancing atop the hood of an automobile. This young lady had attended that 'event,' one that had obviously been attended by a number of reporters as well, to celebrate the life of her younger cousin; that cousin had died with two others in an automobile 'accident' earlier that week in the same spot where now they gather bringing memorials. ~ The photo of the dancing girl was not what commanded my attention; it had been the glaring word 'sideshow' in a headline that hinted at the menace that came with such an event. It was the menace that had attended a previous, and unphotographed street gathering, and the three deaths that had resulted that night, that the reporter was detailing with facts and interviews with several that had shown up to memorialize the three dead youths. ~ Sideshows are impromptu events, usually held on a public street after most bars and clubs have closed down for the night. The 'kids' organize these gatherings using their ubiquitous cell phones, texting one another, in code(not sure if the writer meant 33lite or not), with a time and location. Oakland Police are hamstrung in their efforts to crack down on the participants in these potentially lethal social phenomena. ~ When the cars, the real focal point at these sideshows, start to arrive at the advertised location, all too frequently a good-sized crowd of 'pedestrian' on-lookers has already gathered; those cars come zig-zagging all over both sides of the roadway, with headlights blinking, horns and woofers blaring, in a sort of conga line for cars overstuffed with more kids, which they call a hyphy train. ~ Another stunt, one the kids call the ghost riding the whip, involves the driver jumping from his moving vehicle, dancing alongside it as he and the unattended vehicle continue along the boulevard, until he is forced to jump back into the car and regain control. Noticeable in the background of the photo that ran with the article, are a profusion of circular rubber tire-marks on the pavement which instantly put you in mind of the 'celebration' that ensues when the victor in a Nascar race smokes his tires before a packed grandstand, and then leaps from the racecar and climbs high on the safety fencing there, pumping a victory fist with one free arm. ~ Mortal danger is not just making the reckless drivers and their derring-do passengers its subjects. Nor is this 'reaper' content to stalk also those pedestrians who crowd into the dangerous thoroughfare to obtain an unobstructed view of the 'entertainment' on offer there. One girl, who was interviewed for this article, told the reporter she had been hospitalized when she had been seriously injured by one of these cars that came crashing right into her MacArthur Boulevard apartment. Her place must be really close to all this action, having been the 'fixed object' struck by a motor vehicle on no less than 3 separate occasions. ~
Posted by A Love Feast at 10:07 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent a link to where I have posted my Book & now she has read about one third of it; I say:
You must have hated slogging through that horrid first chapter. Guess you noticed the blurb excised from your original comments on Old Henry. Are your students learning to write?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to help them with writing, but I'm much more interested in helping them with following their sensations, feelings and thoughts and then organizing and describing those. This course is music appreciation. I also teach piano and voice, although they were cut this semester for the BS "budgetary" reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you get to my chapter 8, you'll see I have an interest in voice; took linguistics & speech courses in College. Gurdjieff said he'd give up his eyesight quicker than the powerful ability to speak.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That will probably not be for several days since I will be bringing home those midterms, which take a lot of time because I read and comment not just check for wrong answers.
I find the putative subject of this work of yours--the followspot--interesting, mostly in how hard it is to describe something clearly in words that would be much more efficient and take much less time if shown (the maddening but fascinating work of Wittgenstein and language comes to mind).
But I do have to tell you I am put off by a double-sided dose of what I perceive to be false modesty (self-deprecation) and simultaneous "this is so effing hard you could never manage what I learned to do" arrogance masking as meticulous scientific accuracy. And the reason I think this comes through and annoys me is that, on the surface, there appears to be NO acknowledgment or incorporation of the Emotional save for flip humor, gee-whiz-can-you-beat-this efforts to impress, and vague sentimentalism...rather than emotion. If the emotion were right out front with the facts, I am certain I wouldn't be bothered in the least. It's the illness that 95% of males of this species suffer from--the Emotional Plague. Curable but very few men are brave enough to do. Rather go to war instead of dealing with it, as a matter of fact.
But that certainly doesn't mean I'm not interested, or this isn't worthwhile. I'm still reading.
PS I'd love to know why you are on an apparent crusade against transcendental meditation. It's just a tool, and any tool in the "wrong hands" (i.e., intentions based in fear rather than love) can be poisonous or destructive or dangerous. I mean, look what happened to the teachings of Jesus. Mostly people merely buy, sell or trade stock in J.C. Inc., and those same would throw the actual Jesus into Guantanamo. So did you have a disastrous experience with TM?
I learned it in 1975 and it kinda saved my life. I was pretty PTSD-suicidal after having lived next to the West Bank for 2.5 years, including the Yom Kippur War.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've attached the missing Fig. 1(which is a Paint file I made that vaguely resembles a Trouper)
You may want to read this emotional response later when you get back to the 'tract.'
As a child, my favorite 'Golden Book'(after the treatment on the narrow spines; sure my mommy was the reader) was about a steam shovel who'd been supplanted by the newer(NOT better) diesel machinery(an obvious[now] allegory for the pitiful Western attitude towards their older family members); the 'hero' out-dug all those up-and-comers and ended up deep in the foundation they'd been digging for a modern skyscraper; too deep to be gotten back up out of there; then the unexpected happens; a second/new career of some importance; the old steam shovel's boiler is adapted to become the heating system in the new building.
The cusp of modern lighting technology(CH 2) that I was straddling(one foot in each of the generations of working men) became the spoiler; all those centuries of Journeyman/Apprentice structure to a vital trade being passed along to the next generation became something else from the old days that could be dispensed with. No thought for the cost of having done this(Yes, there's anger & deep sadness!). I remember the day I met Paul(He's still around; I'm not!); he showed up with his Apple computer, and an interface he had adapted himself which allowed the cues, which through that interface controlled the dimmers they had rented from the conventional source(one we had complete & ominous control over), to be run from his computer(which of course none of us knew how to run; none of us knew anything at all about computers and the coming digital revolution). Of course, when Paul selected what was the analog of the traditional apprentice, it would naturally be someone who shared with him the tech-speak needed to train him on this proprietary(for a brief moment) equipment.
Having run the gauntlet:humping the cables that was the electrical power network that made the light possible until recognized as a good candidate to be raised to the next level of production; hanging the lighting instruments until I was intimately familiar with their eccentricities and functional capabilities, familiarizing myself with the spaces where the, now two, systems could be accommodated amongst all the vital scenic elements & having interacted with various lighting designers and their assistants long enough to absorb some of the aims to be accomplished in as unassuming an application of all the unsightly components as is possible; then raised to the frontlights where you first become a member of the working crew and get your first glimpse inside the show, begin to appreciate the subtle power the unsensed presence the lighting has to create this grand illusion & begin your cultural education(like seeing for the first time a Nureyev interpret Ballanchine's choreography from out front) necessary to appreciate what the theater is really all about; then, & only then(sometimes only after the death of a very old head electrician) would you be considered capable of operating a switchboard during a performance & supervising a crew of electricians while coordinating all these creative efforts seamlessly with all the other departments and groups of artists that must come together before that curtain can go up.
Now, because a man can acquire the technical jargon necessary and has been sent to the several schools(run by corporate entities solely concerned with extending the short-lived proprietary control they have over their technologies) to learn about the switchboard and its protocols & about the addressable lighting fixture-units(mostly what we call wiggle-lights because they have the capability to change positions and light many areas from one place in the 'hang') which are maintenance nightmares, he may jump to the head of the class, where quite frankly he has no business being.
Ever since the first use of lasers to create a light show at a rock & roll concert, the subtlety that facilitated the magic in the theater has been tossed out on its antiquated ear. Now the lights are the star of the show, their beams swinging from one position on the stage to another(they even use smoke-effect devices to cloud up the atmosphere so the beams themselves are visible) with the accompanying grinding noises and loud clacking when the irises all open or close in perfect(digitally timed) concert. I don't know why the performers agree to share the stage with these much more visually powerful pseudo-characters. I for one, am mourning all that has been lost and do not relish the thought that nobody who even knows what I am talking about here remains in the audience today.
In networking the marketing angles associated with what may one day be a finished book, I ran across a website where this new generation of followspot operators are comparing notes on just the things(regarding hitting a target with your light for instance) I discuss in detail in my work. When I am not howling with laughter(LOL) at the things they say; at the way they frame a question they have been emboldened to ask; then there are the tears for all they will never experience; never even be able to read about.
Thank you Dr. Bekah; I feel so much better now. I hope you see just what all I was indeed holding back in order to better deal with the consciousness issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But emotional consciousness IS the one that needs restoration and repair if this species is going to survive, Shrimperdude. Why? Because emotional consciousness, as it develops, becomes CONSCIENCE, the lack of which is why the "Bad Guys" are winning right now. All the ancient paths of enlightenment discuss it but they only understand it in the capacity of their times and places, i.e., the awakening intellect. We had to leave the Emotional behind for awhile (the Son must leave the Mother) in order to explore and enjoy the newly-differentiated Intellect. But all the time we were supposed to have learned to MASTER the Emotional. Well, we suuuuure did, but only in the context of our pathetically immature definition of mastery--as a brutal slaveowner masters his slaves. Out of deliberate ignorance, arrogance and fearful dominance. This coming Day of Judgment is all about the Conscience--the "higher" (I prefer "deeper") Emotional Intelligence re-emerging into the light of the now-developed Intellect. We were supposed to have mastered emotions as an artist masters the materials of his medium or an athlete masters the materials of her sport. So that we could enjoy them, the way a painter enjoys the full extent of a palate...without acting them out the way children and adolescents do. Simply enjoy them--even the "negative ones"--express them deeply and well, and allow them to color, season and illuminate the facts of our lives. Emotion is about relationship. Most humans barely register an Other. That's completely immature.
I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the functions of "God" for most people (and certainly the regulatory dogma of religion as well) IS as a substitute conscience.
Gotta go to school. Back tonight but will be grading exams for the next couple of days.

[shrimperdude]

COULD IT BE MADE INTO A PLAY?


online and e-mail correspondence w/Neil Colette

hi, i'm new here. i'm working on an improvisational theatre piece called "improvising consciousness," which attempts, in part, to articulate a bicameral person and, by extension, to attempt to induce a bicameral state in a participating subject (as much as is possible, of course). some of the posts in this topic have been helpful (going to check out the battlestar galactica character, for sure). if anyone here has any further suggestions for dramatized expressions of the theory i'd really appreciate it (either actual sources, or just ideas for how this might be done effectively).
thanks! neil
***************************************************************************
the theater is definitely the place to discover modern bicameral man
I am writing a 'human consciousness' piece that is about my 40 years in the biz running a followspot
I experienced some kind of difficulty with your PM service
my e-mail address is: deniseshrimperdude@gmail.com
I'd be glad to let you have a look at the 8 chapters I have completed
~shrimperdude
*************************************************************************
Neil, this sounds interesting. I'm curious to hear more of what you mean by "attempt to induce a bicameral state in a participating subject" — how you plan to go about this, etc.
~Moderator
**************************************************************************
i'm curious myself! still very much in the thinking stages of this but our small group is meeting for regular improvisations to explore how a contemporary person and a bicameral person *might* interact if they were to be put in the same circumstances. the idea would be for the contemporary/conscious person to try to "relate" or assimilate to the bicameral way of thinking in order to a) communicate; b) solve a certain problem; c) achieve a goal, etc etc. thoughts are most welcome! thanks everyone. ~neil
*****************************************************************************
I think that there are several instances where the two types of thinkers confronted one another in Genesis/Exodus; the greatest of these may have been the struggle between Moses and Pharaoh! ~shrimperdude
=====================================
hi and thanks for your post on the j jaynes site. not sure why the pm thing isn't working but i can be reached here. i'd love to see what you're working on and to hear of any suggestions you may have for theatrical strategies portraying a bicameral person, etc etc.
best,neil
**************************************************************************
THANX Neil, for your willingness to dispense with the privacy features available to you(and be sure to reprimand me should I offend or overstep any boundaries that you may be sensitive to), & for responding in a timely fashion(TIME is really not an ally in the very IMPORTANT work we have now undertaken[yes, your IMPORTANT theatrical contributions to the EVOLUTION of all human consciousness]) to my pathetic attempts to CREATE meaningful social change by pursuing a second 'career' as a writer.
Please report promptly any difficulties you may experience with the attached documents(galley proof of my current writing project, 2 images for illustrating the still ill-fitting CH8 just appended, and several other documents which will/may be helpful in determining what I'm doing here in Roanoke, VA), add any literary criticisms that should be specific enough to further improve my efforts to communicate difficult new concepts to general readership, and if you are comfortable with sharing(I'll faithfully keep your communications in strict confidence[I am firmly out of the biz; the only way I have been able to get serious about my writing]) details about how you will attempt to stage this important new work.
In my chapter on Split-Mind where I drop Carlos Castenada into this mess, it may not seem immediately important, but it is in fact KEY, was my habitual use of my LEFT ear for all the cues I received during a performance. I actually had the b_lls to take LSD during a Rock'n'Roll concert I ran my spotlight on(EXPERIMENT was what made the 60's a great place to get 'stuck in again!'). Given that bit of informative bicameral technique, I can envision a production where you have a spotlight operator ONSTAGE(whose light faces/shines out into your audience); a KEY character who illustrates the presence among us of modern bicameral men, who will, execute 'lighting cues(actually heard by your audience from speakers located only along the left side of the house) which require him to open his douser & light various 'house positions! Add to this, an animated spotlight operator projected on a screen somewhere 'outside the proscenium,' whose comments(heard only from speakers along the right side this time) will attempt to help the audience make some sense of all the visual confusion being presented alongside your interior dramatization of 'ancient' bicameral men going about their strange(to us modern conscious individuals) daily routines(where the God-voices they are hearing come from all over the place(while they instinctually crane their heads in its direction. HOW AM I DOING SO FAR??
Please feel free to use any material you receive from me in absolutely ANY way you desire. I have no real expectation that there are commercial prospects for any of my work(although your expeditious use of my ideas and/or original text could CREATE some for me). I hope you can have some FUN with some of this.
THANX again!! [I mean this!] ~shrimperdude
*****************************************************************************
Hi!
Just a quick note to say thank YOU for this great response, and for sharing your work. I'll write more soon but rushing around at the moment. I'm excited to look at this stuff more closely as soon as I have a minute.
Much appreciated. Best, Neil
========================================================================


Danila(doder);
Literacy can best be understood by referrence to experiences(while in the Amazon) which Terrence McKenna describes adequately. Lower in the body of this PM I have included my chapter 9(completed just yesterday) which I think is on point.
I am working on just such a dramatic presentation with Neil Coletta(who has posted on JJ's boards). Here's the way I would do it. The characters in the 'interior' play meet in a space/location where time has no ordinary meaning. Our protagonist would be a highly autobiographical version of Neil(the playwright); Yours could be Saul, or perhaps the commentator who wrote I Samuel. The protagonist in our play can interrogate Julian Jaynes & Isaac Newton regarding the very problems encountered whil dramatizing mental events. Above their heads, projected onto a large screen is an animated 'analog I' who by changing his headgear throughout this interior discussion, gives to the thoroughly confused audience a visual image of the mental proceses involved in complex speech assembly(all these characters are literate). Further along in the play, the characters have swapped positions, and when viewed by the audience, their opposite profiles have different costumes & make-up(the half-costumes & -make-up reinforce the bicameral theme in a thorughly visual way); these characters are bicamerals(Moses & your nabiim, for instance) interacting as they normally would(while the animated guy above naps or eats his lunch) until they need to mak an important decision(at which point the guy overhead must quickly come up with the necessary solutions; he is fumbling with all the various hats he must don & becoming thoroughly confused by his own interior identity issues While the audience who is getting it now howls with laughter). When the animated mind of the appropriate hat/character speaks, the sound comes from the opposite side of the house from which the listener(who cranes his head to better hear while he is making up his mind) is standing in. I think you have enough here to get the general idea. I'll gladly fill in any blanks you may have drawn(a scrabble analogy; perhaps the animated guy could work with lettered tiles for awhile). Just ask!
I thought HBO's productions of the 'movie versions' of Angels In America & Peristroika were particularly well-done(not over-cooked)! In Atlanta, the Alliance Theater offered both plays on one night with a 'romantic' dinner served at a swanky restaurant just across the street in-between. I wish I had been able to come up with the combination-ticket price; fell that I have missed out on a truly remarkable theater-going experience!

[shrimperdude]

When I decided to order William Patrick Patterson's Ladies of the Rope through the Inter-library Loan program, and then was forced to find something to do while awaiting its arrival from Louisville, KY, was when I started to write about G. I. Gurdjieff. I had just re-read Meetings with Remarkable Men, and in researching this topic an idea took root; some of the sites returned in my searches concerned the possible meeting with Joseph Stalin while in Tbilisi; I guess my mind became obsessed with the possibility that the transfer of psychic energies from G. to S. had an impact on History; an idea that had not been seriously explored. Psychic energy indeed!
My research into the Ladies, and into Patterson's history was leading me to believe no such meeting had ever taken place; probably just a poorly executed internet hoax. My writing at first amounted to better defining the problems to be solved if I was to write something scholarly on this subject; the act of writing Gurdjieff Project turned on the learning process that for most of us occurs in an inaccessible part of our brain. The more time I spent writing, the more I facilitated the process where my right brain began recognizing patterns in the data I was accumulating. That's my egocentric representation for what was in effect channeling Gurdjieff's spirit.
Another influence that I should not ignore here is my egocentric reaction to Brian McConnell(I'm sure Bri would love for you to google his name!) bailing out at church; he moved on and now meets with a Sunday morning group at the Unitarian 'place' which is seriously involved in their meditative practice. I have remained behind and am still involved with the Brethren, teaching Sunday School and meeting with a 'small group' that's just men on Thursday mornings. Brian says that, because I do not practice meditation, we have little common ground whereby we might share an understanding; that our attempts at communication issuing from different levels of consciousness fail to convey meaning to one another. Of course his level, due to his meditative practice, is the higher one; I guess I would like to prove him wrong.
Still waiting for the Rope book to arrive, I began to write a piece on Followspot Operators; writers should always write about what they know. Anyhow, that piece took on a life of its own(more channeling); in describing the learning process I went through, I began to see how my consciousness had often been changed while running my spot; how those changes facilitated not only job-related problem solving, but a deep penetration of that thing we refer to as theater. The writing began to facilitate a penetration of the very aspects of Gurdjieff's teaching method that had drawn me to him, instead of some charlatan like Aleister Crowley. I also got a dim glimpse of what was really lacking altogether in Brian's TM.
As the Spot-Op Project continued changing shape, I decided to write a blurb for promoting the financial potential for a book that was about Show Business and Human Consciousness at the same time. I went to the internet to get my facts straight, and that's when I noticed the similarities between what Robert Pirsig had said in his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Gurdjieff's methods that comprise The Work. That is, the 'sorcerer's apprentice' must remain firmly grounded in mundane processes that have value for other members of his society or can become the victim in dangerous encounters with the spirit. I also remember that Don Juan often encouraged young Carlos to continue with his incessant note-taking while under the influence of the Little Smoke.
Taking a closer look at Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality sort of had an enforcing effect on the change in direction my operator piece had already taken, but eventually this forced me up against a block wall(writer's block!); I would need to accumulate more data to break the impasse. Then serendipity kicked in; I found an interview with Richard Powers(author of The Echo Maker) where he talks about two full years of reading neurological research papers and case studies that had resulted in the success that eventually resulted from his drive through Nebraska. One of the questions got him started on spatial functions hidden deep in our brains and how they were related to the 'space' that the high plains were in his story, and even an unsuspected relationship with the flocks of cranes that feature so prominently.
More research into the neurological theories that are so nearly convergent with what the many other disciplines are proposing with regard to Human Consciousness brought me eventually to something I think will be useful going forward with all my projects; I found Julian Jaynes and his online organization.
Jaynes's central idea is that our modern type of consciousness is a recent development; indeed, that it began no more than 3,000 years ago. In earlier times human mentality was characterized by auditory and sometimes visual hallucinations, in which people heard the voices of the gods speaking to them and telling them what to do. Only when this process became internalized and recognized as coming from within the percipients' own minds did truly modern consciousness begin.
The minds of 'preconscious' humans were split in two (the 'bicameral mind'), probably as a result of a dissociation between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Jaynes finds evidence of this in Homer's Iliad, in which the characters continually receive orders and advice from various deities. This, he claims, is no mere literary trope but is an accurate description of how people really experienced the world at the time. In support of this view he cites the eminent classicist E.R. Dodds, whose book The Greeks and the Irrational provides him with plenty of evidence for his thesis.
The heroes of The Iliad do not have the kind of interior monologue that characterizes our own consciousness today. Instead, their decisions, plans, and initiatives are developed at an unconscious level and then are 'announced' to them, sometimes by the hallucinated figure of a friend or a god, sometimes by a voice alone. The Iliad, Jaynes believes, stands at a watershed between two different types of human mentality and affords us an insight into an older mode of being. Once we have begun to see history in this way, we find the same process at work in the art and literature of other ancient civilizations: for instance, those of Mesopotamia and of the Hebrews (in the Old Testament).
While these ideas were not well-recieved by his peers when they first appeared in print, his book is now in its third printing; someone is reading his stuff, even if they do so while 'under the covers;' it's not hard to percieve a wide acceptance of his theories by today's investigators. Another hopeful for wider acceptance in the very near future is Torey Zoltan. He was blinded in an industrial accident when only twenty.
His physicians advised him, when surgeries had been unsuccessful at restoring his eyesight, that he'd have to re-train his mind and learn to ignore the visual 'hallucinations' that would be his only experience of light. He rebelled at the thought, and instead trained the rest of his mind to use the 'new tool' he'd been given to explore its own inner space. Fifty years of such unique methods of experiential inquiry culminated in his publishing The Crucible of Consciousness : An Integrated Theory of Mind and Brain.
When I came to Organelle, via a link found on the Jaynes Society site, I, for just awhile mind you, allowed myself to be duped by my own expectations. I had found there an utterly enlightened treatment of some ancient scripture(Genesis) in an article on Cain and Abel written by the mysterious 'Translator-dude' whose 'voice' is 'heard' throughout this difficult-to-navigate website. That writer(for he certainly is that, at least) claims to have accessed some hard-to-disseminate 'knowledge' while experiencing some sort of 'unity' with what he calls NHI(non-human intelligence)!
Before I had digested even one third of the material in the article on the 'first brothers,' I examined(and shared with some others around me) this 'translator's' ideas about how our limited concept of what the sun we observe in the heavens is had passed the character of that error along to all the dependent concepts which must rest upon it and which underlie such a great part of our generally erroneous concept of 'reality.' He said that we must repair such rudimentary concepts in order to begin to fathom the depths of our error, or to even begin to fashion language even weakly descriptive of the greater reality that can be accessed if we 'harness' some/all of the unused capabilities our minds have; capabilities effectively excluded due to these extremely limited erroneous foundational concepts.
My experience(so far), with the borrowed phrases that represent, but are not the actual expanded concept of just what the sun may really be, is this:compared to the ideas which so easily infect those who read Jaynes(his most vehement detractors seem to have contracted the most virulent inftections), this expanded concept of Sol that I have been 'toying' with seems to be devoid of the 'truth,' resonance or whatever it is that great ideas seem always to have. In this man's defense, he has carefully made all the 'proper' disclaimers, and had(once I finally found it) indeed cited the source for the unusual insights into the hermaneutical values of the scraps that make up the Cain and Abel story which had drawn me deeper into that Organelle site than I would have ventured otherwise.
With respect to Jaynes' ideas, I'm beginning to think that with too many who have been drawn to them(commentators, Neurological researchers and even some other off-the-wall theorists like Terrence McKenna for instance) there has been a tendency to romanticize the pre-conscious state, even unto fostering an earnest desire to somehow return to that powerful mental 'place.' Almost none, that have admitted to the probable reality that at some point in our past(if recent is the only source of your discomfort here) there were men whose state of consciousness differed qualitatively from that which we(as adults) experience in this modern world, have concluded that the evolutionary forces that have brought about these developments(be they hardware- or software-related) are not experimenting with something that must end in a dead end(extinction of mankind and probably much more that has developed down the vertebrate limbs that connect him back to the 'tree'), but have much more probably set the stage for the next sea change in human consciousness that may be one that incorporates all the mental powers imagined by some of these romantics to have been qualities of that pre-conscious state into a more highly evolved post-conscious state that will be much more romantic in very real terms and perhaps creating real value for the entire planet and all of its inhabitants. If in fact Jaynes has gotten it right with respect to the much more recent advent of consciousness(my personal preferrence here), then we should be a little less anxious about the dangers which always have accompanied the exploration of a new eco/socio-logical niche to the species going about those novel explorations. With respect to the invention of potentially destructive thermo-nuclear devices for instance, I am seeing powerful 'external' forces at work here tat have, so far, prevented the more animal urges certainly present in humankind from destroying the best chance evolving life on earth will ever have from going prematurely awry.

[shrimperdude]

There is nobody dropping by to read this post.
I would like to recommend another website where your ideas get read and there is some
useful commentary[and ACTIVE networking]!

join me at gather.com join any number of groups there become a part of something vital

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4980886086

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4980885083

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4980881465

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4980820300

[shrimperdude]

<div align="center" style="text-align:center"><div><a href="http://www.ringsurf.com/ring/jackhammer/">The Mystical Places Community</a></div><a href="http://www.ringsurf.com">Powered By Ringsurf</a></div>