Steven wrote:
"were Gibson to have said that he loves and always will love his father, but has come to conclusions that are different than his dad, this wouldn't
be taken by the public as a 'calling down' of his father in public
or a 'dishonor.'"
You may be right, but it would create a circumstance where journalists would then go to Mel Gibson's father to get his reaction to his son's comments--this is where the dishonour would happen whether Mel Gibson intended it or not and whether or not it would be "taken by the public as a 'calling down' of his father in public." I expect that Mel Gibson wants the media to leave his elderly father alone. I maintain that Mel Gibson has done the right thing by refusing steadfastly to comment on his father's indefensible comments.
It's hard for you and me to imagine the crap that famous people have to put up with--trying to conjure the empathy to imagine myself in Mel Gibson's shoes, I conclude that he has no obligation and, indeed, SHOULD NOT say anything about what his father has said--at least until his father has passed away.
Steven continued:
"I value the tone of this conversation. Were I, though, to
qualify (or disqualify) my observations further
(professionally, academically, whatever), it could start to have the conversation be about me (something I try to avoid). And further nuanced comments about Mel Gibson would veer towards both gossip and inappropriately stripping him naked."
I value the tone, too, Steven. Frankly, though, I don't think there's much to talk about here anyway. We don't know what he thinks so there's no need to argue with your contention that you'd "rather not parse further whether Gibson's alcohol content was a truth serum or not. Proof or disproof, here, wouldn't do him or us any good." I would add that proof here is not available to you or to me, so it is only fair to Gibson to assume him innocent before proved guilty. Hence, I expect he would be found not guilty anyway.
Steven continued:
"I'm not a fan of depth psychology as a "tool." I.m.o, it is not best
suited for most to make substantive change in their lives. I recognize the
value that it sometimes has in explaining why people do things.
There is depth to our psyche and even cognitive approaces and
other "surface" oriented approaches do penetrate to it, when and
if they are effective (despite their generally not placing much
value on "depth" based paradigms)."
Some form of essentialist assumptions are inevitable--we must be aware of where our epistemologies lead us, however--this is only intellectual responsibility. You begin this paragraph by saying that you are "not a fan of depth psychology as a 'tool'" (this is not the "tool" I was speaking of, b.t.w.) but you go on to state that "There is depth to our psyche and even cognitive approaches and other 'surface' oriented approaches do penetrate it . . ." In other words, you do believe in "deep" beliefs.
This is your right, Steven--indeed, I wouldn't claim that a depth paradigm will never have any positive insights to offer. It is still a metaphor, however, and not the only way--or the "correct" way of understanding the human psyche. It is an epistemological construct and we must be cautious and aware of where its terms will tend to lead us.
The issue for me is this: when one is going to claim that one can decide how "deeply" a person whom they have never met holds particular socially unacceptable views, then the depth epistemology veers into dangerous territory, even borders on projection of one's own epistemological prejudices onto the object of "healing" or "abjection," whatever the (simultaneous) case may be. This isn't about you or me, Steven, it's about epistemology--however, I respect your right not to comment. It's just something to think about--that's all. Thank you for a good discussion. Bob Dylan's work could never inspire this kind of "deep" discussion for me, but Cohen's sure can. Go Lenny go!
"Im your man" producer in anti-semitism outburst.
Epistemology
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
-
humanponysss2000
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: ponyland
- Contact:
Stopping at the surface
Not that I can add much to all that has been said on the tiny topic of Mel Gibson's drunken remarks-- in this instance I tend to side with Tchocolatl in finding it all a little absurd
It's clear that some people here see Cohen as more of a "thinker" or at least an influence on their thinking, than Gibson -- not surprisingly, since he's a writer not an actor, and an actor's job is mainly NOT to think but to feel and do (what they are told). Actors are chameleons.
I believe the pretext for this discussion being on this board is that Gibson produced I'M YOUR MAN. So he must have some capacity for thinking, but we don't often turn to the sayings of Mel Gibson for a sense of our direction in life.
Singer-songwriters, on the other hand, have been known to influence whole generations.
Someone told me about an interview Bob Dylan gave on 60 Minutes, in which Bradley confronted him on some outrageous lies he had told to journalists in his youth, and Dylan, without batting an eye, answered something to the effect that he felt no guilt over having lied to the media -- the only way you really get in trouble is when you lie to yourself.
Well, America has a government that lies to its people constantly, and a mass media that mindlessly says what its told to say. So it's no great surprise that some of the players in Hollywood might be as confused and hysterical as the rest of the American public who get their news from TV.
Gibson, like so many other entertainers, is primarily a puppet of those whose project is controlling the minds of Americans, and through them, the world.
In scenarios like this, which conjure up states of mass self-deception similar to in those prevalent Germany in the Nazi era, I don't think it's wise or brave to "stop bravely at the surface."
I'll go with Dylan on the need to Know Thyself and beware the media. They are not exactly friends of Truth, they just make and break careers.
It's clear that some people here see Cohen as more of a "thinker" or at least an influence on their thinking, than Gibson -- not surprisingly, since he's a writer not an actor, and an actor's job is mainly NOT to think but to feel and do (what they are told). Actors are chameleons.
I believe the pretext for this discussion being on this board is that Gibson produced I'M YOUR MAN. So he must have some capacity for thinking, but we don't often turn to the sayings of Mel Gibson for a sense of our direction in life.
Singer-songwriters, on the other hand, have been known to influence whole generations.
Someone told me about an interview Bob Dylan gave on 60 Minutes, in which Bradley confronted him on some outrageous lies he had told to journalists in his youth, and Dylan, without batting an eye, answered something to the effect that he felt no guilt over having lied to the media -- the only way you really get in trouble is when you lie to yourself.
Well, America has a government that lies to its people constantly, and a mass media that mindlessly says what its told to say. So it's no great surprise that some of the players in Hollywood might be as confused and hysterical as the rest of the American public who get their news from TV.
Gibson, like so many other entertainers, is primarily a puppet of those whose project is controlling the minds of Americans, and through them, the world.
In scenarios like this, which conjure up states of mass self-deception similar to in those prevalent Germany in the Nazi era, I don't think it's wise or brave to "stop bravely at the surface."
I'll go with Dylan on the need to Know Thyself and beware the media. They are not exactly friends of Truth, they just make and break careers.
Give me land, lots of land
Under starry skies above
Under starry skies above
sometimes
"I don't think it's wise or brave to 'stop bravely at the surface'"
Fair enough, though I didn't modify it with "always" but with "sometimes" and I qualified my statements by acknowledging that a depth paradigm may have insights to offer sometimes, too. By the way, it ain't just Cohen's idea--I've stolen it from numerous places, including New Rhetoric and Jacques Lacan.
As for Dylan saying on 60 minutes that the only ones you shouldn't lie to are God and yourself--what an idiotic, solipsistic U.S.-centric statement.
Here it is from the horses mouth: "I realized at the time [his early career]that the press, the media, they're not the judge - God's the judge," says Dylan. "The only person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn't either of them. And I just figured they're irrelevant."
Did the Bush administration take lessons from Bob or is he just joking? I hope it's the latter, but, sadly, the man's weird, erratic behaviour makes me not so sure. I hope he's considered that statement a little more carefully since that interview.
Fair enough, though I didn't modify it with "always" but with "sometimes" and I qualified my statements by acknowledging that a depth paradigm may have insights to offer sometimes, too. By the way, it ain't just Cohen's idea--I've stolen it from numerous places, including New Rhetoric and Jacques Lacan.
As for Dylan saying on 60 minutes that the only ones you shouldn't lie to are God and yourself--what an idiotic, solipsistic U.S.-centric statement.
Here it is from the horses mouth: "I realized at the time [his early career]that the press, the media, they're not the judge - God's the judge," says Dylan. "The only person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn't either of them. And I just figured they're irrelevant."
Did the Bush administration take lessons from Bob or is he just joking? I hope it's the latter, but, sadly, the man's weird, erratic behaviour makes me not so sure. I hope he's considered that statement a little more carefully since that interview.
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
-
humanponysss2000
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: ponyland
- Contact:
They didn't ask him if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- they asked where he was born. He lied and said "New Mexico."
The difference between Dylan and the Bush administration is that George, who is wired for sound and repeats messages spoken in his earpiece by his handlers, also believes "God" told him to go to war. He passed this deadly lie, or self-deception, on to the incredibly gullible American people, who apparently believe in the media and believed the lie, and sent their children off to kill and be killed.
Dylan's lie pales by comparison. Perhaps at that early stage of his career, he felt a need to protect his privacy, build a myth around himself -- or trick the tricksters? In any case, it strikes me as a relatively innocent lie -- but were the media any more innocent then than now? My sense is, no. In documentaries I've watched, smug, middle-aged journalists made a living out of misunderstanding, misinterpreting and mocking kids like Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles etc.
Which could explain that primal scene in "Highway 61" where Dylan writes "God said Abraham, kill me a son..."
The same Biblical moment comes up in Cohen's song "The Story of Isaac" -- where he says, with his typical ambivalence, "When it all comes down to dust, I will kill you if I must, I will help you if I can."
Children get slaughtered to feed their parents' hunger for obedience to Gods of war, and their greed for the power that comes from human sacrifice. And that has to be the highest form of idolatry, the real Original Sin, and it repeats itself in every generation.
Gibson's drunken outburst in the cop shop might have been a moment of truth, or just a scene of sad regression to childhood -- a grown man recapitulating his Dad's shabby anti-semitism. And then the media circling in for the kill -- although it was more of a suicide.
My take on Dylan's remark -- and thanks for the exact quotation -- is that he got it right. The media are irrelevant and any artist who hands them a piece of his soul is headed for an early death.
The difference between Dylan and the Bush administration is that George, who is wired for sound and repeats messages spoken in his earpiece by his handlers, also believes "God" told him to go to war. He passed this deadly lie, or self-deception, on to the incredibly gullible American people, who apparently believe in the media and believed the lie, and sent their children off to kill and be killed.
Dylan's lie pales by comparison. Perhaps at that early stage of his career, he felt a need to protect his privacy, build a myth around himself -- or trick the tricksters? In any case, it strikes me as a relatively innocent lie -- but were the media any more innocent then than now? My sense is, no. In documentaries I've watched, smug, middle-aged journalists made a living out of misunderstanding, misinterpreting and mocking kids like Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles etc.
Which could explain that primal scene in "Highway 61" where Dylan writes "God said Abraham, kill me a son..."
The same Biblical moment comes up in Cohen's song "The Story of Isaac" -- where he says, with his typical ambivalence, "When it all comes down to dust, I will kill you if I must, I will help you if I can."
Children get slaughtered to feed their parents' hunger for obedience to Gods of war, and their greed for the power that comes from human sacrifice. And that has to be the highest form of idolatry, the real Original Sin, and it repeats itself in every generation.
Gibson's drunken outburst in the cop shop might have been a moment of truth, or just a scene of sad regression to childhood -- a grown man recapitulating his Dad's shabby anti-semitism. And then the media circling in for the kill -- although it was more of a suicide.
My take on Dylan's remark -- and thanks for the exact quotation -- is that he got it right. The media are irrelevant and any artist who hands them a piece of his soul is headed for an early death.
Give me land, lots of land
Under starry skies above
Under starry skies above
I agree to disagree.
No doubt Dylan's lies about his background were not as serious as Bush's lies about WMDs--but Dylan presents the idea in a general way, as though this is how people generally should approach the world. I consider it a very anti-social attitude and it makes me kind of sad to hear it from him 
Frankly, I think he's a moderate Republican, evidenced by the admiration he expresses for Barry Goldwater in Chronicles. He's probably voted for both mainstream parties in his life, but I imagine his heart is more with the G.O.P. than the Dems. Dylan probably liked Goldwater for his admirable stand on Native American rights, but Goldwater's libertarian tendencies are a good fit for Dylan too, I think.
I don't know him so I can't be certain, but I suspect that Dylan doesn't trust liberals a whit and probably wants as little government in his life and the U.S.A. as possible. As a result, it is to be hoped that he understands that the Patriot Act is a nightmare. However, let's hope also that he's stopped flirting with the Christian right for good.
Frankly, I think he's a moderate Republican, evidenced by the admiration he expresses for Barry Goldwater in Chronicles. He's probably voted for both mainstream parties in his life, but I imagine his heart is more with the G.O.P. than the Dems. Dylan probably liked Goldwater for his admirable stand on Native American rights, but Goldwater's libertarian tendencies are a good fit for Dylan too, I think.
I don't know him so I can't be certain, but I suspect that Dylan doesn't trust liberals a whit and probably wants as little government in his life and the U.S.A. as possible. As a result, it is to be hoped that he understands that the Patriot Act is a nightmare. However, let's hope also that he's stopped flirting with the Christian right for good.
Last edited by Cohendrix on Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
A bigger liar than Bob Dylan was of course Jim Morrison, who famously claimed that both his parents were dead, when his father was in fact a famous admiral and military historian. The family must have found that extremely hurtful.
“If you do have love it's a kind of wound, and if you don't have it it's worse.” - Leonard, July 1988
-
Tchocolatl
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm
Re: Stopping at the surface
humanponysss2000 wrote: (...) in this instance I tend to side with Tchocolatl in finding it all a little absurd
Yep sweetie. What if the policeman would have been Arab?
We can test Gibson on this. Get it drunk, give him a car, and have an Arab policeman arrested him. I can see the big titles in the media (who never spit on an easy way to sell their paper) "Gibson goes into a racist tantrum : "you Arabs are responsible for all the war in the world"." Really smart to insult the policeman who arrests you because you are a public danger drunk at the wheel.If the lifes or at least 4 persons is affected by an alco. Ol-hic Gibson must have hit a record with this.
hydriot wrote:(...) Jim Morrison, who famously claimed that both his parents were dead, when his father was in fact a famous admiral and military historian.The family must have found that extremely hurtful.
Maybe the family asked him to say this.
grrr..... come on baby light my fire
In Jane Campion's movie The Piano, scene i like so much is when the aborigenals thought that a play was the real life and all the spectators in the room were laughing, but we were like them, exactly, laughing and crying for real for made-up characters. Show business. Show business is not real. But it is. This means : the only truth is that we need dreams as much as we need bread. So why blame the cook once he served the soup for us all his life? I wonder.
Barry Goldwater Retraction
I have to retract my statement about Barry Goldwater's "admirable position on Native American rights." I had believed he was something of a land claims legislative pioneer, but a little Internet research has revealed that the historical record is not without blemish. I don't usually improvise statements like that and I must report that it was stated in ignorance of some facts.
--by Cohendrix, a hybrid from the Isle of Wight
-
Tchocolatl
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm
One word for this : panic.
I repeat from post to post : The more the things go wild the more it is important not to panic inside and stay calm. They don't listen
(some of them). And we are just excited by images we see on a screen. Image now living the war in 3D. That does not excuse any violence, but it explains a lot.
I repeat from post to post : The more the things go wild the more it is important not to panic inside and stay calm. They don't listen
(some of them). And we are just excited by images we see on a screen. Image now living the war in 3D. That does not excuse any violence, but it explains a lot.-
humanponysss2000
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: ponyland
- Contact:
I know few people who are not a complicated mixture of Left and Right. Apparently -- and I don't have time to research this now, but it's come up in my reading recently -- Barry Goldwater had a few good points. And Bob Dylan is NOT my hero, but watching the Scorcese documentary, I could see why he spoke to me when I was 15.
Mr. Hydriot: if I had a dad in the military, and I was also Jim Morrison, I might feel tempted to make him disappear. But in the end, it was Morrison who, with or without assistance, tripped out a bit too far.
Joan Baez' dad was a MKULTRA psychiatrist at Cornell. Now I find that interesting. Were all the 60's stars, in one way or another, connected to, or being manipulated by, the CIA?
And then there's Kris Kristofferson -- I once sat next to him in an airport, and he was thumbing through "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, on his way down to Nicaragua.
Is it time we lifted the veil on who has been singing to us, all these years? Or at least, posed a few questions about the true agenda behind the music?
Mr. Hydriot: if I had a dad in the military, and I was also Jim Morrison, I might feel tempted to make him disappear. But in the end, it was Morrison who, with or without assistance, tripped out a bit too far.
Joan Baez' dad was a MKULTRA psychiatrist at Cornell. Now I find that interesting. Were all the 60's stars, in one way or another, connected to, or being manipulated by, the CIA?
And then there's Kris Kristofferson -- I once sat next to him in an airport, and he was thumbing through "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, on his way down to Nicaragua.
Is it time we lifted the veil on who has been singing to us, all these years? Or at least, posed a few questions about the true agenda behind the music?
Give me land, lots of land
Under starry skies above
Under starry skies above
-
humanponysss2000
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:06 am
- Location: ponyland
- Contact:
Ring Them Bells
Yes, sorry I got it wrong. I was repeating a piece of (apparently) misinformation told to me by someone who also referred me to Baez' 1992 song "Ring Them Bells" which is about ritual abuse of children. He said Baez' father was at Cornell for a period -- it's not impossible that he was, but I should have googled it before posting.
I see elsewhere that Baez was trying to get her parents' FBI records -- life is complicated.
"Play Me Backwards" by Joan Baez:
You don't have to play me backwards to get the meaning of my verse
You don't have to try and go to hell to feel the devil's curse
Well I thought my life was a photograph on the family christmas card
Kids all dressed in buttons and bows and lined up in the yard
Were the golden days of childhood so lyrical and warm?
Or did the picture start to fade on the day that I was born?
I've seen them light the candles, I've heard them bang the drum
And I've cried Mama I'm as cold as ice and I got no place to run.
Let the night begin, there's a pop of skin and a sudden rush of scarlet
There's a little boy riding on a goat's head, and a little girl playing the harlot
There's a sacrifice in an empty church of sweel little Baby Rose
And a man in a mask from Mexico is peeling off my clothes.
So I'm paying for protection, smoking out the truth
Chasing recollections, nailing down the proof
You don't have to play me backwards to get the meaning of my verse
You don't have to try and go to hell to feel the devil's curse
I'll stand before your alter and tell everything I know
I've come to claim my childhood at the Chapel of Baby Rose.
Joan Baez, 1992 (CD: Ring Them Bells)
I see elsewhere that Baez was trying to get her parents' FBI records -- life is complicated.
"Play Me Backwards" by Joan Baez:
You don't have to play me backwards to get the meaning of my verse
You don't have to try and go to hell to feel the devil's curse
Well I thought my life was a photograph on the family christmas card
Kids all dressed in buttons and bows and lined up in the yard
Were the golden days of childhood so lyrical and warm?
Or did the picture start to fade on the day that I was born?
I've seen them light the candles, I've heard them bang the drum
And I've cried Mama I'm as cold as ice and I got no place to run.
Let the night begin, there's a pop of skin and a sudden rush of scarlet
There's a little boy riding on a goat's head, and a little girl playing the harlot
There's a sacrifice in an empty church of sweel little Baby Rose
And a man in a mask from Mexico is peeling off my clothes.
So I'm paying for protection, smoking out the truth
Chasing recollections, nailing down the proof
You don't have to play me backwards to get the meaning of my verse
You don't have to try and go to hell to feel the devil's curse
I'll stand before your alter and tell everything I know
I've come to claim my childhood at the Chapel of Baby Rose.
Joan Baez, 1992 (CD: Ring Them Bells)
Give me land, lots of land
Under starry skies above
Under starry skies above
In trying to catch up here and elsewhere on the Forum, a minor correction in the context of all this ~
I'm afraid you took this conjecture [trying to envision any/all possibilities] as being my position, HP, but it wasn't:
However, as you've noted above, I suggested approximately the same as a possibility:
Had there been discussion of the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict earlier
I'm not sure what to make of Bee's follow-up comment on my own:
Not sure if she meant that I was suggesting that Mel was right and that I, along with others, am/are a hypocrite... or whether she's saying that she believes that the Jews were responsible for the wars. Can't conclude one way or the other, with what's here, but I do know that that's not what I meant to say. I meant that [along the lines of Tchoc's and HP's and Hydriot's comments] that it seems a whole lot is being made of this comment when, in fact, real and innocent people are really dying. All anyone needs to know, at least here, is that the media loves to skewer celebrities because it makes great press.
Nor do I want to minimize the implications of dangerous sentiments brewing.
~ Lizzy
I'm afraid you took this conjecture [trying to envision any/all possibilities] as being my position, HP, but it wasn't:
In an even more bizarre world, this could be alleged a 'publicity stunt' ~ "Of course I'm not anti-Semitic. . .
Unlike Lizzy, I don't think Gibson's outburst was a publicity stunt. More likely it was simply a bad blunder. Was he on his way home from a party? What were people talking about at that party? The wars in Lebanon and Iraq, would be my guess. And maybe in his remarks to the cops, he was drunkenly repeating what he had said, or been hearing, at the party?
However, as you've noted above, I suggested approximately the same as a possibility:
Had there been discussion of the Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict earlier
in the evening?
I'm not sure what to make of Bee's follow-up comment on my own:
Lizzy wrote
Quote:
Meanwhile, more innocent people continue to die in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan... as well as Africa and many other places.
...so, in conclusion, Mel was right, wasn't he?, the Jews were responsible for the wars! I cannot believe the hypocrisy of these posts - waaay too much!
Not sure if she meant that I was suggesting that Mel was right and that I, along with others, am/are a hypocrite... or whether she's saying that she believes that the Jews were responsible for the wars. Can't conclude one way or the other, with what's here, but I do know that that's not what I meant to say. I meant that [along the lines of Tchoc's and HP's and Hydriot's comments] that it seems a whole lot is being made of this comment when, in fact, real and innocent people are really dying. All anyone needs to know, at least here, is that the media loves to skewer celebrities because it makes great press.
Nor do I want to minimize the implications of dangerous sentiments brewing.
~ Lizzy
Amongst all the demonstrators against the war I saw locally in August, a new group immediately stood out: "Jews against the War".
This is a very helpful development. What is truly damaging is the way anti-Semitism tends to spring up as a reaction to Israeli foreign policy. So the more Jews who manage to distance themselves from Israel, the better for all of us. We need to distinguish between the religion and that particular state, which claims to fear annihilation from its neighbours while possessing nuclear weapons since at least 1973, and who treated with unspeakable cruelty Mordecai Vananu who merely made public what we all knew.
Some years ago, Gerald Kaufmann, a British Home Secretary who had just retired, wrote a damning indictment of Israel. He was able to say things the rest of us cannot say without risking the accusation of anti-semitism because he is Jewish.
It is very sad when honest political debate is stifled for fear of being accused of being a Nazi, anti-semitic, etc.
This is a very helpful development. What is truly damaging is the way anti-Semitism tends to spring up as a reaction to Israeli foreign policy. So the more Jews who manage to distance themselves from Israel, the better for all of us. We need to distinguish between the religion and that particular state, which claims to fear annihilation from its neighbours while possessing nuclear weapons since at least 1973, and who treated with unspeakable cruelty Mordecai Vananu who merely made public what we all knew.
Some years ago, Gerald Kaufmann, a British Home Secretary who had just retired, wrote a damning indictment of Israel. He was able to say things the rest of us cannot say without risking the accusation of anti-semitism because he is Jewish.
It is very sad when honest political debate is stifled for fear of being accused of being a Nazi, anti-semitic, etc.
“If you do have love it's a kind of wound, and if you don't have it it's worse.” - Leonard, July 1988