Think I'll toss in some old posts from AMK before the Kubrick Truth
Squad took over.
Why do all of you resist the fact that the drug culture may have had an
influense on this film?
Does it really matter one way or the other? Clarke avowed in an interview
that to the best of his knowledge, no member of the crew was using drugs
during production, but that he "wouldn't speak for all the members of the
special effects crew." So maybe some of it was drug-inspired. Either way
it won't change my opinion of the film. None of it would have been
possible without Kubrick's guiding presence.
Kubrick did use LSD -- it was pretty common then, and ordinary -- the
drug was legal, and in anycase is medically (as opposed to
psychologically) harmless -- but says he later came to decide against
it, as it removed one's critical faculties from one's aesthetic
judgements. His pronouncement was that it was probably of more use to
the audience than to the artist for just this reason. In his own
words,
"Perhaps when everything is beautiful, nothing is beautiful".
One should note also that the entire final part of the film -- not
only
the 'lightshow', but the 'exploding' organic forms AS WELL AS the
'hotel
room' scene are perfect duplicates of a (pharmaceutically pure) LSD
experience (at pschedelic as opposed to psychotropic dosage) -- not
only
in it's imagery, but in the sequence of stages a subject follows.
Even
the altered Ligeti is mixed to duplicate the auditory effects of the
drug.
One should note that, LSD is technically not a hallucinogen -- it
doesn't cause you to see physical representations of things that are
not
there (as opposed to the psychosis effected by methamphetamine
overdose,
for example) -- 'psychedelic', a coinage based on the greek
declension
'psychodelien' was applied precisely because it was thought the drug
'manifested the mind' -- that is, removed the affective filters from
one's sensory perceptions (or, as Kubrick would say, one's
criticality),
and placed the brain into a kind of 'feedback' mode, bringing the
entire
apparatus of consciousness into one's awareness. It was widely
believed
(and currently thought, by many) that the experience resulting from
use
of the drug is what our minds were really, in fact, all about -- our
'metareality'. The effect of the drug, it's impression, is deeply
ontological and overwhelmling -- and not 'intoxicating' at all,
except
in the figurative sense.....
It isn't difficult (or discomforting, unless one is prejudiced) to
see
Kubrick's representation of the Infinite (or, as the title-card says,
"Beyond the Infinite") that lies both within and without us, as being
something like that, even visually. Certainly, the scene strikes a
deep
chord within us, even subconsciously. Keeping all this in mind, it's
not
hard to imagine why that mught be the case -- these scenes remarkably
resemble what we get from taking LSD because that's what's REALLY
inside
us...
Bowman's breaking the glass (at jewish weddings a symbol of, among
many
things, Jung-Freud's Reality Principle :) breaks the spell of
course...and brings to death, and transcendence....
__
As an aside, there are a couple of other points re LSD in relation to
'the drug culture' to be considered. Leary and Alpert, the first to
popularise the cultural use of psychedelics (peyote/mescaline, at
first
-- LSD, though around for many years under Sandoz' tradename
'Delysid',
didn't come to their attention until much later) were kicked out of
Harvard for using the mescaline tabs they had been alloted outside of
the established protocols for their testing program (a moot point
perhaps, as they argued the parties they gave for faculty and
students
WERE the protocols for their research :). LSD was not only the
subject
of many researches of the time, it came to be a common social
lubricant,
outlawed only after it became wholly emblematic of the social and
political counterculture, and subject to wide misuse -- this was
shortly
after Owsley, in Berkeley, learned how to inexpensively synthesize
the
drug's complex organic components. Senator Edward Kennedy, while
serving
on the comittee which was responsible for scheduling the drug as a
class
1 controlled substance -- unavailable even for medical research
[where,
for example, it had already been shown to be nearly 90% effective in
the
treatment of achoholism in controlled therapy] -- earned black marks
for
having ruled 'out of order' any testimony by the hundreds of people
in
the medical community who argued against prohibition, and for his
attempts behind the scenes to ridicule and humiliate those who spoke
out
publically again the agenda of his comittee. Shortly after LSD was
scheduled out of common availability, such places as Haight-Ashbury
and
Greenwich Village were flooded by organised crime with readily
available
and inexpensive heroin, along with other narcotics which, up til that
time, were relatively rare in the mainstream under mafia control --
and
the 'drug-culture' as we know it today -- as a criminal enterprise of
narcotics trafficking -- was established.
___
Geoffrey
---------------------------------------------------------------
: Kubrick did use LSD -- it was pretty common then, and ordinary -- the
Isn't this streching things a bit? At least where I'm from, LSD was
never common and ordinary.
Condolences.
: One should note also that the entire final part of the film -- not only
: the 'lightshow', but the 'exploding' organic forms AS WELL AS the 'hotel
: room' scene are perfect duplicates of a (pharmaceutically pure) LSD
: experience (at pschedelic as opposed to psychotropic dosage) -- not only
: in it's imagery, but in the sequence of stages a subject follows. Even
: the altered Ligeti is mixed to duplicate the auditory effects of the
: drug.
Perhaps this is what you experience while on LSD, I don't know. But in my
opinion this is a very shallow interpretation of the end of the film. I
would like to perscribe more deeply metaphysical meanings to this
sequence, not what happens to the brain when you feed it certain
chemicals (which is a very physical process).
I ascribe those meanings too. In fact, my interpretations (as we know)
are
usually so esoterically arcane they're magisterial, in the old
sense :).
But this has little to do with the established fact that the LSD
experience
mimics or duplicates the expriences of both pathological psychosis
and
ecstatic religious experience. All of these have a common ground in a
meta-cognative experince of the Absolute.
: It isn't difficult (or discomforting, unless one is prejudiced) to see
: Kubrick's representation of the Infinite (or, as the title-card says,
: "Beyond the Infinite") that lies both within and without us, as being
: something like that, even visually. Certainly, the scene strikes a deep
: chord within us, even subconsciously. Keeping all this in mind, it's not
: hard to imagine why that mught be the case -- these scenes remarkably
: resemble what we get from taking LSD because that's what's REALLY inside
: us...
I guess this is where we disagree. Even if I were to accept (which I
doubt) that taking LSD gives us the ability to perceive how our brains
"work", I don't think that has anything to do with what's man is really
about. There is nothing metaphysical about the interaction between the
chemical in the brain and the chemicals in LSD no matter how pretty the
pictures are.
Unless the chemicals in the brain are effecteed in such a way as to
allow
it to operate differently.
An additional couple of facts regarding LSD may be in order -- the
'trip'
per se does not begin until after the drug (only about 300 >molecules<
of
the average 250microgram dosage is require to pass the blood-brain
barrier)
is fully metabolised from the body; and, most interestingly, only the
dextro-rotary form of the molecule is effective. Grow the crystal L-
rot,
and it's like taking a sugar-pill. If you anything about
biochemistry,
you'll realise the implications of this :)
This statement you make regarding the 'physicality of the brain's
chemistry' is a perfect example of the the spiritualist fallacy: to
apply
the objectivist strictures of materialism to absurdity. The dualism
you're
assuming logically is inherently contradictory in its terms (and
probably
the levantine residue of some unexamined philosophical assumptions on
your
part).
"Beyond the Infinite" can only mean a non-physical plane of
existance, for in the physical world is inheritly confined within the
infinite.
William Blake, St. Teresa of Avila, San Juan de la Cruz, Guru Nanak
Dev,
Karl Marx, and the Dalai Lama would all disagree with you :) It begs
the
point whether what is inside the mind (which is within the brain) is
infinite. Or, as is commonly posited: the infinitude of the human
imagination with which we are gifted as creatures is the agency of
the
infinite Divine within the limited physical sphere of Its own
creation. Or
something like that. Metaphysics which denies the physical doesn't
have a
leg to stand on :)
: Shortly after LSD was
: scheduled out of common availability, such places as Haight-Ashbury and
: Greenwich Village were flooded by organised crime with readily available
: and inexpensive heroin, along with other narcotics which, up til that
: time, were relatively rare in the mainstream under mafia control -- and
: the 'drug-culture' as we know it today -- as a criminal enterprise of
: narcotics trafficking -- was established.
Which I think illustrates the point that people were not out for
enlightenment, just a good fix. The difference is metaphysical vs.
physcial.
If there is a difference. For either to exist, I maintain the
difference is
illusory. But, the point is that many people were out for
enlightnement,
and many people were out for a good time, and many people could not
tell
the difference between them (as is always the case, whether in
religion or
entertainment :). I would never assert that you'd have to have the
experience to understand it (or at least to understand it's nature
and
implications) but, if you did, you see the fundamental flaws in the
way you
think of it (as an affective intoxicant -- which it isn't).
As Jack Kerouac said after taking it -- "Walking on water wasn't built
in a
day" (and when Abbie Hoffman was asked whether the experience changed
his
religious conceptions, he replied "What, is there supposed to be
ANOTHER
god I don't believe in?"). A religious person will have their
convictions
affirmed mightly, and a thrill seeker will have fun. All you get when
you
take the drug is what's in your head already -- all of it, that is --
at
about 10000x magnification. No wonder some folks went wacky. It is, at
the
very least, and excellent conceptual laxative.
If the final act of 2001 resembles this, it may or may not have to do
with
the recreational activities of the crewpeople, but certainly has
everything
to do with the fact that Kubrick is taking us directly into the heart
of
human consciousness at the same time he has propelled us (plotwise)
into
the furthest reaches of the physical universe. It says, then, that
the
human entelchy is Transcendence (of Whatever). A powerfully
metaphysical
statement, no? expressing not merely the mutual contigency of the
physical
and metaphysical, but their ultimate mutual identity, using to film
disclose it in an awesomely affecting way (here Kubrick makes the art
film
the apotheosis of The Metaphor, superior to written or spoken
language, or
even to painting, sculpture, photography, etc.)....no wonder we have
statements by such as (the noted atheist) John Lennon, that it should
be
shown round the clock on a museum wall (which for me however does
come
disturbingly close to Hitler's announcement to Wagner's daughter that
he
would make a religion out of 'Parsifal'...).
2001 is a jungian hyper-myth, clothing the religious apparencies of
old in
contemporary garb....
Well, anyway, it's 8:30am on a Monday, and I'm grumpy, and perhaps
I'll
feel differently later in the day, after I finally wake up. But,
pretty
much, that's what I have to say about it for now.
__
In the interest of personal disclosure (and not meaning this to be an
advocacy), I haven't taken LSD (or what usually passes for it: the
much
less-affecting Lysergic Amides peddled on the street) myself for over
10
years (I'm about 40 years old now) but to extrapolate the time-frames
during which I've used it, and the frequency with which I did, I've
taken
it close to, if not over, a thousand times. I would hope no one would
suggest it may have had a bad effect on me.
Geoffrey Alexander
__________________________________________________________
If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can
create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered...
Stanley Kubrick
Newsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
From: ***@netins.net (geoffrey alexander)
Date: 1996/12/09
Subject: Re: LSD and 2001
In article <58f9q4$***@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, ***@cse.ucsc.edu
(Jonathan
: Kubrick did use LSD -- it was pretty common then, and ordinary -- the
Isn't this streching things a bit? At least where I'm from, LSD was
never common and ordinary.
Condolences.
: One should note also that the entire final part of the film -- not only
: the 'lightshow', but the 'exploding' organic forms AS WELL AS the 'hotel
: room' scene are perfect duplicates of a (pharmaceutically pure) LSD
: experience (at pschedelic as opposed to psychotropic dosage) -- not only
: in it's imagery, but in the sequence of stages a subject follows. Even
: the altered Ligeti is mixed to duplicate the auditory effects of the
: drug.
Perhaps this is what you experience while on LSD, I don't know. But in my
opinion this is a very shallow interpretation of the end of the film. I
would like to perscribe more deeply metaphysical meanings to this
sequence, not what happens to the brain when you feed it certain
chemicals (which is a very physical process).
I ascribe those meanings too. In fact, my interpretations (as we know)
are
usually so esoterically arcane they're magisterial, in the old
sense :).
But this has little to do with the established fact that the LSD
experience
mimics or duplicates the expriences of both pathological psychosis
and
ecstatic religious experience. All of these have a common ground in a
meta-cognative experince of the Absolute.
: It isn't difficult (or discomforting, unless one is prejudiced) to see
: Kubrick's representation of the Infinite (or, as the title-card says,
: "Beyond the Infinite") that lies both within and without us, as being
: something like that, even visually. Certainly, the scene strikes a deep
: chord within us, even subconsciously. Keeping all this in mind, it's not
: hard to imagine why that mught be the case -- these scenes remarkably
: resemble what we get from taking LSD because that's what's REALLY inside
: us...
I guess this is where we disagree. Even if I were to accept (which I
doubt) that taking LSD gives us the ability to perceive how our brains
"work", I don't think that has anything to do with what's man is really
about. There is nothing metaphysical about the interaction between the
chemical in the brain and the chemicals in LSD no matter how pretty the
pictures are.
Unless the chemicals in the brain are effecteed in such a way as to
allow
it to operate differently.
An additional couple of facts regarding LSD may be in order -- the
'trip'
per se does not begin until after the drug (only about 300 >molecules<
of
the average 250microgram dosage is require to pass the blood-brain
barrier)
is fully metabolised from the body; and, most interestingly, only the
dextro-rotary form of the molecule is effective. Grow the crystal L-
rot,
and it's like taking a sugar-pill. If you anything about
biochemistry,
you'll realise the implications of this :)
This statement you make regarding the 'physicality of the brain's
chemistry' is a perfect example of the the spiritualist fallacy: to
apply
the objectivist strictures of materialism to absurdity. The dualism
you're
assuming logically is inherently contradictory in its terms (and
probably
the levantine residue of some unexamined philosophical assumptions on
your
part).
"Beyond the Infinite" can only mean a non-physical plane of
existance, for in the physical world is inheritly confined within the
infinite.
William Blake, St. Teresa of Avila, San Juan de la Cruz, Guru Nanak
Dev,
Karl Marx, and the Dalai Lama would all disagree with you :) It begs
the
point whether what is inside the mind (which is within the brain) is
infinite. Or, as is commonly posited: the infinitude of the human
imagination with which we are gifted as creatures is the agency of
the
infinite Divine within the limited physical sphere of Its own
creation. Or
something like that. Metaphysics which denies the physical doesn't
have a
leg to stand on :)
: Shortly after LSD was
: scheduled out of common availability, such places as Haight-Ashbury and
: Greenwich Village were flooded by organised crime with readily available
: and inexpensive heroin, along with other narcotics which, up til that
: time, were relatively rare in the mainstream under mafia control -- and
: the 'drug-culture' as we know it today -- as a criminal enterprise of
: narcotics trafficking -- was established.
Which I think illustrates the point that people were not out for
enlightenment, just a good fix. The difference is metaphysical vs.
physcial.
If there is a difference. For either to exist, I maintain the
difference is
illusory. But, the point is that many people were out for
enlightnement,
and many people were out for a good time, and many people could not
tell
the difference between them (as is always the case, whether in
religion or
entertainment :). I would never assert that you'd have to have the
experience to understand it (or at least to understand it's nature
and
implications) but, if you did, you see the fundamental flaws in the
way you
think of it (as an affective intoxicant -- which it isn't).
As Jack Kerouac said after taking it -- "Walking on water wasn't built
in a
day" (and when Abbie Hoffman was asked whether the experience changed
his
religious conceptions, he replied "What, is there supposed to be
ANOTHER
god I don't believe in?"). A religious person will have their
convictions
affirmed mightly, and a thrill seeker will have fun. All you get when
you
take the drug is what's in your head already -- all of it, that is --
at
about 10000x magnification. No wonder some folks went wacky. It is, at
the
very least, and excellent conceptual laxative.
If the final act of 2001 resembles this, it may or may not have to do
with
the recreational activities of the crewpeople, but certainly has
everything
to do with the fact that Kubrick is taking us directly into the heart
of
human consciousness at the same time he has propelled us (plotwise)
into
the furthest reaches of the physical universe. It says, then, that
the
human entelchy is Transcendence (of Whatever). A powerfully
metaphysical
statement, no? expressing not merely the mutual contigency of the
physical
and metaphysical, but their ultimate mutual identity, using to film
disclose it in an awesomely affecting way (here Kubrick makes the art
film
the apotheosis of The Metaphor, superior to written or spoken
language, or
even to painting, sculpture, photography, etc.)....no wonder we have
statements by such as (the noted atheist) John Lennon, that it should
be
shown round the clock on a museum wall (which for me however does
come
disturbingly close to Hitler's announcement to Wagner's daughter that
he
would make a religion out of 'Parsifal'...).
2001 is a jungian hyper-myth, clothing the religious apparencies of
old in
contemporary garb....
Well, anyway, it's 8:30am on a Monday, and I'm grumpy, and perhaps
I'll
feel differently later in the day, after I finally wake up. But,
pretty
much, that's what I have to say about it for now.
__
In the interest of personal disclosure (and not meaning this to be an
advocacy), I haven't taken LSD (or what usually passes for it: the
much
less-affecting Lysergic Amides peddled on the street) myself for over
10
years (I'm about 40 years old now) but to extrapolate the time-frames
during which I've used it, and the frequency with which I did, I've
taken
it close to, if not over, a thousand times. I would hope no one would
suggest it may have had a bad effect on me.
Geoffrey Alexander
__________________________________________________________
If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can
create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered...
Stanley Kubrick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
Date: 1996/11/24
Subject: Re: LSD and 2001
If you take a large enough dose of Acid and meditate on the Mystical
Law
of the Universe, for eight hours, you don't need to see the movie
2001..........it's then too mundane.
dc :)
