Scrooby's Musings

Started by Scrooby, March 08, 2022, 12:28:53 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


The Master class (17) : Darkness, Sympathy, Freedom


Note the encroachment of dark on Freddy while immersed in the Vision-State.

The dark cloud of Freddy's memories.


The Master regards Freddy with sympathy. We might theorize this sympathy is founded in a genuine sorrow for Freddy's waywardness and lostness. Yet these two negative attributes are at the same time connected to the symbolic value of Freddy as : freedom. Recall that Freddy and Dodd are two aspects of one character (PTA's mind). So when Dodd regards Freddy sympathetically, consider (a) the Dual Gesture, and (b) each character looking into the Mirror of the other. Dodd regarding Freddy sympathetically is Dodd regarding himself sympathetically : because the hyper-responsible Dodd has himself lost the ability (apparently) to embark on flights of such Visionary Freedom (because the stressful exigencies of life has distracted the Master off the purest path). (Mourning the loss of his visionary powers may be connected with his taste for Freddy's potions of "secrets".) So when Dodd watches Freddy tunnel into a Vision-State, there may be a sense in Dodd's mind of the "what might have been" for himself.

Similarly, if Freddy hadn't been cursed with negative genetics, he might have reached a height of achievement and responsibility equivalent at least to the Master.

But such is life, for both of them.


While Freddy is Freedom, this shot captures the general life-mood of Lancaster Dodd

Slow Boat to China

Why does Dodd sing this song at the end? One reason which fits in here, thus expressed here : the dream of escaping into the dream. To flee the "pig fxcks" of people, and to live "all to myself alone" : the blessed dreamstate of the artist.

The state Freddy slips into during Informal Processing.


One Shot of The Master

Notice the three doors in this shot from Hitchcock's Vertigo. Madeleine has four colors associated with her; three are here in the color of the doors : green, grave-brown , and purple. The one color missing is red.

Now notice a similar three-sectioned film frame. This shot from The Master is a spree of symbolism.


Recall the ladder in the previous shot, when Freddy awakens (consider that symbolism). Now notice the staircase visible through the doorway. A staircase is often a symbol of spiritual travel, just as a doorway is a symbol of significant passage. Here we have both together! (And after a shot with a ladder!) Visible here is an intense stargate-like vibe of journeying and progression.


The white staircase and ambience it occupies suggest an antiseptic medical vibe. This vibe corresponds with the scientific aspects of Dodd. The color white also evokes the purity of religion; while the staircase is an emblem of the spiritual Upward Reach (e.g., Jacob's Ladder; any virtuous effort). The antiseptic ambience and the staircase's spare geometric design evoke inhumanness, nihilism. The futural feel recalls 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The vibe beyond the door is of a medical church.

On the left of the screen is the color red. If we speak of the church, then in that context one Red Entity is the Devil : a threat to the sanctity of the self.

With this red and white is the black, the abyssal black. We can assign this black to Freddy; to the ambiguity of Dodd; to nihilism; and so on. We can conclude what we like from the contrast between light and dark. We can think about things forever.

Note the blurry shimmering element in the frame. This foregrounded blur contrasts with the severe-clear lines of the staircase, and the rivets in the door-frame.

Also notice a similarity in visual quality between the red shimmering and the blackness it opposes. . . .

Meanwhile, within this spree of symbolism, is a visible human being, and all that means.


Let's amalgamate two fundamental streams of thought here.

1. CHARACTER : Freddy is freedom, the freedom of the artist living in their interior world in the process of creation. In that time, the artist is set apart, an outsider, a rebel—since Truth has been rebellious since at least the year 1AD, to pluck a date at random. The Master Lancaster Dodd, however, must interact responsibly with the assembly of people around him if his life-plans are to become a reality, because Dodd requires the technical assistance of the outside world. For this reason, he has ceased to have the time to follow his own teaching, having become, instead, exclusively a militant teacher of his already established views. Dodd has to argue for his Views in the same way that a film-star used to publicize a film a year after production : some amount of enthusiasm has been lost from the effort. Consider, Reader : Dodd himself never undergoes his Teaching; he never has a Revelation of his own.

1b. Since we're just sitting here calmly by the fire as at the end of The Thing (1982), and time hasn't any point anymore, since nothing does, your calm author at these last of times may as well contribute an addendum to number one, though usually, up to now, the posts here under the name of Scrooby have been as efficient as one might hope when administering medicine to oneself. So, with that rambling preamble behind us, here goes for the sharply efficient thought : Why does it take Lancaster Dodd the duration of the film to determine the nature of his past relationship with Freddy, when one dose of his own treatment might have dredged up the knowledge in the twinkling of an eye?

2. PTA : At the moment screenwriter PTA prepares to translate his Vision to the screen, time for embellishment or change to the details has narrowed to a great degree; because PTA hasn't the resources that Kubrick had. PTA has only a limited amount of money and must produce his goods at significant speed. So when PTA-as-Dodd has assumed his responsibility on the production, his ability to act like a Freddy is extremely limited : He simply has no time for confrontations. PTA-the-director is stuck in the work, like the Master

An artwork is a memorial for lost freedom. Good news : the memorial inspires the next to scale the ladder.


"I believe I suffered what, in your profession, you call nostalgia." (7:54)



one shot : five rack focus

(19:06-20:27 ἀλήθεια) Are we watching Fassbinder?


The Master class (18) : the End Situation

Here's the thing. We're not skipping to the Emerald City. The Wizard revealed there leads to no spreeful emotional uplift. By "there" your author means the End. PTA is a Freddy freewheeling with the Truth to the extent that the Master is successfully exposed willy-nilly by Freddy's presence : one Truth at the end of The Master is that there is only militancy. The film itself decides on a sober and melancholiac conclusion to our hero of Freedom, Freddy Quell. (Before your free-as-a-bird author just here elaborates, recall how PTA humiliates Woodcock's sister by not allowing her a summing-up scene at the end of PT, but discards this character as if she had never commanded any focus of the film.) Return now to The Master. At the end, the film decides to reduce Freddy to a tearful sludge in the manner of the weak and moronic Dr. Bill at the end of EWS. How is it that Freddy, who is so full of crazy vitality throughout the film, is reduced to a weeping weaking, after all those years interacting with Dodd the Inspiring Master?

Freddy pays attention to the neatness of Dodd's wardrobe when they get close (2:00:49), just as Freddy says "mm-hm" upon completing the successful potion of secrets at (39:38). This "mm-hm" is a very important minor utterance just there, because usually Freddy is quite the antisocial character, but, just there, this "mm-hm" sounds as if Freddy is somewhat pleased and excited about the outcome, suggesting he is eager to interact with Dodd. Freddy is eager once again to interact with society. But . . .

2:00:49 recalls the militant Kane assisting with Thatcher's coat in Kane, but let's move on.

In short : The Master eventually humiliates Freddy. The film abandons him at a position not much different from what we saw of him at the first. The whole Dodd episode in his life has left him with a handful of language to deploy, sure; and this language haunting his conversation at the end is evidence that the experience with Dodd has impressed itself on Freddy to some significant degree—yet we see no difference in Freddy's behavior at the end of the film. This stasis in the character of Freddy suggests that his experience with the Master is nothing more than a Historical event in Freddy's life, a Nostalgia in Freddy's mind. That's the sum total of the years of the Master in Freddy's mind. Dodd's teachings didn't transform Freddy into a better man.

Meanwhile, out in the world, Dodd and family and others continue to fight to grow this failed teaching into all-encompassing reality. Freddy's been abandoned. If he cannot conform—if the results of the Master's teaching won't pay off in him—than it's easier to pretend he doesn't exist, and that the failure that eventuated was all on his part.

By the end of the film, Dodd and Peggy have chosen Power.

Freddy, as human, has nothing to do with Power. So he is brushed aside and left to live out the rest of his life, which the film has decided is of no interest to communicate. Freddy's gone. But the Freedom he represents still exists.


Your humble author is calm with clonazepam and other NHS-prescribed medication to keep him from who knows what; so in this state, let us meander for a moment about story fundamentals. Take a bad guy out to cause damage to someone. Take one guy who breaks into a house in the middle of nowhere in the middle of night. Take another guy who walks among a sunlit lake of 40,000 celebrants on a holiday weekend. Both are seeking a victim to eliminate. This is the character fundamental. The drive to carry out such an act is based in something deep in the psyche of the character. Let us call it a madness, a rage. But this madness, this rage, comes out in these examples in two different situations. One is a quiet night apart from the madding crowd; the other takes place amid 40,000 witnesses amid a wide expanse on a sunny day. What is the difference between the two characters? They are acting out their rage in different situations, in different locations. So what? The different situation, the different location, are not what is vital here. These elements are nothing more than wrapping paper. The fundamental character motivation is the essential for the audience to consider : Rage : What Is It? : all else is Hollywood rubbish.

Who needs an infinite number of stories on essentially the same subject? Imbeciles and Corporations.

First-rate storytellers know what a story is. But they don't tell. They just show.

P.S. It seems I accelerated right to a powerful fundamental of The Master. My work there is done.


Quote from: Scrooby on March 13, 2023, 06:13:38 PMSo what? The different situation, the different location, are not what is vital here. These elements are nothing more than wrapping paper. The fundamental character motivation is the essential for the audience to consider : Rage : What Is It? : all else is Hollywood rubbish.

Who needs an infinite number of stories on essentially the same subject? Imbeciles and Corporations.

First-rate storytellers know what a story is. But they don't tell. They just show.

P.S. It seems I accelerated right to a powerful fundamental of The Master. My work there is done.

Completely agree. And 'character' must be defined from many angles and moments. Many modern mainstream films hinge their character on a singular choice or a singular 'mode.' John Wick iz no different from Evelyn iz no different from a superhero or Toretto. Trials in cinema have been mistaken for genre beats, in a sense, when the drama of watching a character go through trials is uncovering/discovering who they are in the shifting decisions myriad. Anything less isn't only two-dimensional, it's a chance for audiences and studios both to coast.


All right. Shining WorldForgot. Dilution compromises the curative properties of medicines. What people have not yet awoken to, or, perhaps they are just now awakening to it, is the fact that the Horrible Media has had no idea how to tell a story for fifty years or thereabouts. The concept of what a story is and can be is, incredibly, has been lost. With rare exceptions, of course.

Why is the authentic artist necessary for the health of a nation?

Example : the self-defined BBC ("impartial") describes our number-one pharmacy in the UK, Boots, as "Owned by U.S. Walgreens." Now that is a bald-faced lie. Walgreens is wholly owned by a private Swiss company. A small lie (to some; I don't think so); but let us call it a small lie : but multiply this small lie by infinity, and then imagine the rest of your life 24/7.

Now consider the authentic artist and how valuable they are. Only the authentic artist inspires you to seek Truth. Authentic artists are your friends on earth.

Personal note : The world is farcical beyond what this author envisoned in his GRIMWOOD in 2005. In that novel, your humble author imagined a man and woman so cold-hearted and inhuman that your author thought the book barely believable. Point is, my horrible man and woman in 2005 are the ordinary folk running our Tyranny in 2023. To each their own, sure; people around us don't have to truly care. But a part of living in Dreamworlds and not truly caring is Suckerdom for a lifetime. That, too, irritates the artist—that people fight to remain suckers. So why should authentic artists continue? Why fight for imbeciles? Imbeciles who have no idea a fight is even taking place?

What is left to say, what is left to explore, when no one is listening?

Your humble author is thinking. Your blacklisted author. The author someone here back in 2020 said, "Oh, it's just one review".


Here we are at the end times. Return to Oedipus by Sophocles.

ὦ τέκνα, Κάδμου τοῦ πάλαι νέα τροφή,
τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε
ἱκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν ἐξεστεμμένοι;

At line 1 Oedipus enters, looks, defines. Oedipus is Reason. He is the emblem of Power Upright and Stable on Its Foundation. And the man's understanding is communicated efficiently to the people.

πόλις δ᾽ ὁμοῦ μὲν θυμιαμάτων γέμει,
ὁμοῦ δὲ παιάνων τε καὶ στεναγμάτων:

And yet he has no idea what is going on. Oedipus has no idea that the assemblies in the city signify apocalyptic times. Arguably worst of all, Oedipus has no idea that he is the cause of the apocalypse.

ἁγὼ δικαιῶν μὴ παρ᾽ ἀγγέλων, τέκνα,
ἄλλων ἀκούειν αὐτὸς ὧδ᾽ ἐλήλυθα,
ὁ πᾶσι κλεινὸς Οἰδίπους καλούμενος.

There is too much happening here to communicate. Let it be stressed that whatever Oedipus is speaking of—no matter how complex it might be, and how many interpretations one might apply to his language—his language itself, his point of view, his position before he even speaks, is as a character in a play—and somehow he knows this : at times the language of Oedipus overlaps with the Frame.

There is intermixture with Oedipus the play and the audience of Oedipus the play. Local news will be alluded to in Oedipus the play that will have had local relevance to the audience at the time.

Just here, Oedipus is celebrating his application of Doing the Right Thing : his appearing before the people to investigate the city's situation first-hand. He speaks of the citizens before him, of whom the Priest of Zeus is one, as "children". He describes the scent of incense drifting along the streets, yet doesn't panic at its implication of apocalypse.

What day is it? A gathering of the citizens may be uncommon, and even more so on a workday. And bothering the King? Who has the audacity, or the desperation, to bother the King on his doorstep?

Yet the King is flattered—because the citizens are gathered also at the steps of the two temples of Athena. King Oedipus and Athena are associated here with a saving grace. Oedipus is equated favorably with a god.

So leave it to the old man, the Priest of Zeus, to remind the King that Oedipus is no god. The old man repeatedly insults Oedipus the King, intentionally or otherwise, throughout a speech meant to strike the ear of the population favorably.

The Priest of Zeus may not have appreciated Oedipus addressing him so curtly. ("Old man, speak.") It is not that Oedipus is sparing in speech, hence a brusque manner; because after prompting the old man to speak with this short command, Oedipus immediately goes on to explain at length his decision to address the old man in the first place.

Oedipus is a spree of Reason. He concludes his opening speech by reasonably speaking of himself as one more reasonable entity in a reasonable world. He speaks as certainly about himself as he spoke about the Priest of Zeus. Oedipus here celebrates his Power. This Power may save the people, so is worth celebrating. (Nobody knows anything yet.)

ἀλλ᾽ ὦ γεραιέ, φράζ᾽, ἐπεὶ πρέπων ἔφυς
πρὸ τῶνδε φωνεῖν, τίνι τρόπῳ καθέστατε,
δείσαντες ἢ στέρξαντες; ὡς θέλοντος ἂν
ἐμοῦ προσαρκεῖν πᾶν: δυσάλγητος γὰρ ἂν
εἴην τοιάνδε μὴ οὐ κατοικτίρων ἕδραν.

Oedipus enters, looks, defines; then the Priest of Zeus parrots all that, and adds details. This adding of details may irritate the King. For what doesn't Oedipus the King understand? Is this Priest of Zeus colossally insulting?

ἀλλ᾽ ὦ κρατύνων Οἰδίπους χώρας ἐμῆς,
ὁρᾷς μὲν ἡμᾶς ἡλίκοι προσήμεθα
βωμοῖσι τοῖς σοῖς: οἱ μὲν οὐδέπω μακρὰν
πτέσθαι σθένοντες, οἱ δὲ σὺν γήρᾳ βαρεῖς,
ἱερῆς, ἐγὼ μὲν Ζηνός, οἵδε τ᾽ ᾐθέων
λεκτοί: τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο φῦλον ἐξεστεμμένον
ἀγοραῖσι θακεῖ πρός τε Παλλάδος διπλοῖς
ναοῖς, ἐπ᾽ Ἰσμηνοῦ τε μαντείᾳ σποδῷ.

Reader, imagine lighting a fire, then looking into the ashes left behind and reading a prophecy of the future. Aren't ashes in all other contexts discarded usually as expeditiously as possible (such as the ashes of a cigarette, or the ashes of the dearly departed)? Here, the ashes, remnants of an incendiary life now gone, are not defined as detritus and discarded. The ashes are visited as doorways to Vision. Death has opened up a doorway to see through to—what?

μαντείᾳ σποδῷ—prophetic ashes.

πόλις γάρ, ὥσπερ καὐτὸς εἰσορᾷς, ἄγαν
ἤδη σαλεύει κἀνακουφίσαι κάρα
βυθῶν ἔτ᾽ οὐχ οἵα τε φοινίου σάλου,
φθίνουσα μὲν κάλυξιν ἐγκάρποις χθονός,
φθίνουσα δ᾽ ἀγέλαις βουνόμοις τόκοισί τε
ἀγόνοις γυναικῶν: ἐν δ᾽ ὁ πυρφόρος θεὸς
σκήψας ἐλαύνει, λοιμὸς ἔχθιστος, πόλιν,
ὑφ᾽ οὗ κενοῦται δῶμα Καδμεῖον, μέλας δ᾽
Ἅιδης στεναγμοῖς καὶ γόοις πλουτίζεται.

Here, clearly, is insanity. The Priest of Zeus is hair-splitting. The Priest of Zeus is using Reason to hair-split with Oedipus, the Cause of the Catastrophe—though neither of whom knows this important fact. The situation is ludicrous from every angle.

θεοῖσι μέν νυν οὐκ ἰσούμενόν σ᾽ ἐγὼ
οὐδ᾽ οἵδε παῖδες ἑζόμεσθ᾽ ἐφέστιοι,
ἀνδρῶν δὲ πρῶτον ἔν τε συμφοραῖς βίου
κρίνοντες ἔν τε δαιμόνων συναλλαγαῖς:
ὅς γ᾽ ἐξέλυσας ἄστυ Καδμεῖον μολὼν
σκληρᾶς ἀοιδοῦ δασμὸν ὃν παρείχομεν,
καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν οὐδὲν ἐξειδὼς πλέον
οὐδ᾽ ἐκδιδαχθείς, ἀλλὰ προσθήκῃ θεοῦ
λέγει νομίζει θ᾽ ἡμὶν ὀρθῶσαι βίον:

More insult from the Priest to Oedipus. This genius old man ascribes Oedipus' power of thought to a god. The Priest of Zeus might have flattered the king as being blessed with a godlike genius, but he doesn't put his words that way.

νῦν τ᾽, ὦ κράτιστον πᾶσιν Οἰδίπου κάρα,
ἱκετεύομέν σε πάντες οἵδε πρόστροποι
ἀλκήν τιν᾽ εὑρεῖν ἡμίν, εἴτε του θεῶν
φήμην ἀκούσας εἴτ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρὸς οἶσθά του:
ὡς τοῖσιν ἐμπείροισι καὶ τὰς ξυμφορὰς
ζώσας ὁρῶ μάλιστα τῶν βουλευμάτων.
ἴθ᾽, ὦ βροτῶν ἄριστ᾽, ἀνόρθωσον πόλιν,
ἴθ᾽, εὐλαβήθηθ᾽: ὡς σὲ νῦν μὲν ἥδε γῆ
σωτῆρα κλῄζει τῆς πάρος προθυμίας:
ἀρχῆς δὲ τῆς σῆς μηδαμῶς μεμνώμεθα
στάντες τ᾽ ἐς ὀρθὸν καὶ πεσόντες ὕστερον.
ἀλλ᾽ ἀσφαλείᾳ τήνδ᾽ ἀνόρθωσον πόλιν:
ὄρνιθι γὰρ καὶ τὴν τότ᾽ αἰσίῳ τύχην
παρέσχες ἡμῖν, καὶ τανῦν ἴσος γενοῦ.
ὡς εἴπερ ἄρξεις τῆσδε γῆς, ὥσπερ κρατεῖς,
ξὺν ἀνδράσιν κάλλιον ἢ κενῆς κρατεῖν:
ὡς οὐδέν ἐστιν οὔτε πύργος οὔτε ναῦς
ἔρημος ἀνδρῶν μὴ ξυνοικούντων ἔσω.

The end of the Priest's speech is a rubbish of moronic truisms. Worse, is it another threat from a man whom Oedipus the King considers a nothing?

But who in the end is more of a nothing than Oedipus?

So, the beginning of Oedipus by Sophocles :

Oedipus considers himself above the Priest.
The Priest considers himself above Oedipus.
Both are morons.


The Master class : twelve teachings of Dodd (III)


DODD : Freddie, stand in the middle of the room, please. Pick a spot over there, touch it, and describe it to me. . . .  Fine, fine. Walk to this window over here. Touch a spot on the window and describe it to me. . . ."

This scene insinuates itself, through a sort of parallel editing, into ten sequential minutes of running time, 1:24:14–1:34:47.

Let us explore this exercise.

One thing is never only one thing. Freddy is meant to keep reinforcing that principle, by motivating his imagination into action to invent new ways of describing items already defined.

The repetition of this exercise, the implacable returning to the already-seen, to express it in a new way, to see it newly, the Repeated Doubling Back, is a Core Element of Revelation.

Something is up close but unknown. Keep looking.

Ritual humiliation. Freddy doesn't convey anything of imaginative note that might impress the assembly of the Master's votaries.

Repetition stirs the imagination. Repetition opens your eyes. Stick to it, and win; but the world conspires to break your concentration. Art demands your concentration. Whom would you rather trust?

Repetition, in this exercise, is a synonym for knowledge. The more we know, the more positive energy of the Ages flows into the Situation and sweeps us who knows where. Stop, move on to something else . . . but why?


Man is not an animal.
We are not a part
of the animal kingdom.
We sit far above that crowd,
perched as spirits, not beasts.
You are not ruled by your emotions.
It is not only possible,
it is easily achievable
that we do away
with all negative
emotional impulses,
and bring man back to his
inherent state of perfect.

Notice the changes.


So the Priest of Zeus has spoken, and Oedipus responds.

ὦ παῖδες οἰκτροί, γνωτὰ κοὐκ ἄγνωτά μοι
προσήλθεθ᾽ ἱμείροντες: εὖ γὰρ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι
60νοσεῖτε πάντες, καὶ νοσοῦντες, ὡς ἐγὼ
οὐκ ἔστιν ὑμῶν ὅστις ἐξ ἴσου νοσεῖ.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὑμῶν ἄλγος εἰς ἕν᾽ ἔρχεται
μόνον καθ᾽ αὑτὸν κοὐδέν᾽ ἄλλον, ἡ δ᾽ ἐμὴ
ψυχὴ πόλιν τε κἀμὲ καὶ σ᾽ ὁμοῦ στένει.
65ὥστ᾽ οὐχ ὕπνῳ γ᾽ εὕδοντά μ᾽ ἐξεγείρετε,
ἀλλ᾽ ἴστε πολλὰ μέν με δακρύσαντα δή,
πολλὰς δ᾽ ὁδοὺς ἐλθόντα φροντίδος πλάνοις:
ἣν δ᾽ εὖ σκοπῶν ηὕρισκον ἴασιν μόνην,
ταύτην ἔπραξα: παῖδα γὰρ Μενοικέως
70Κρέοντ᾽, ἐμαυτοῦ γαμβρόν, ἐς τὰ Πυθικὰ
ἔπεμψα Φοίβου δώμαθ᾽, ὡς πύθοιθ᾽ ὅ τι
δρῶν ἢ τί φωνῶν τήνδε ῥυσαίμην πόλιν.
καί μ᾽ ἦμαρ ἤδη ξυμμετρούμενον χρόνῳ
λυπεῖ τί πράσσει: τοῦ γὰρ εἰκότος πέρα
75ἄπεστι πλείω τοῦ καθήκοντος χρόνου.
ὅταν δ᾽ ἵκηται, τηνικαῦτ᾽ ἐγὼ κακὸς
μὴ δρῶν ἂν εἴην πάνθ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ἂν δηλοῖ θεός.

The one detail of note interesting to your author just now might possibly be the least interesting to the ordinary reader : syllables. Reader, would you care to hear that in that wordstack, there are only two words above four syllables in length? That is to say : there are two five-syllable words in that speech by Oedipus. The second is "ξυμμετρούμενον"—a heavy-duty word that demonstrates Oedipus' power of thought. Oedipus is rare among the citizens in his power of mind—in this instance his facility to impose calendrical time on undifferentiated temporality. The broad measure of the five-syllable "ξυμμετρούμενον"—the grandiosity of its personality—evokes the power of Measurement, of Definition, of Reason. Now what about the first word? Counting on our fingers, we discover that the word "ἐξεγείρετε" is five syllables in length. What does that word mean? Why would that word be five syllables in length unless, one would assume, it might have some sort of importance? The second word ("ξυμμετρούμενον"), for example, revealed the sharp mind of Oedipus, who solved the riddle of the Sphinx with no help from the city it was devastating. The first word "ἐξεγείρετε" is so uncommon a word it appears only one time in the entire text of Oedipus which comprises 9,736 words. How important can this word's meaning be that it competes in length of syllables with only one other word in the entire stanza? The word is translated generally as "awaken". To awake? That's it? It's a word-form that is seemingly found in Classical Greek only—a word appearing in Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, among a few others. Perhaps it, too, has a heavy-duty poetic function? How did Aeschylus use the word : "raise from the dead" (Choephori, 495, but in a highly metaphorical situation as well). Hmm. What if we approach the word from its components : ἐξεγείρετε begins with a prefix : ἐξ = ex = "out of". This is not just any sleep Oedipus is speaking of. This sleep is the metaphoric sleep of the misinformed. Before the end of Oedipus the play, the baby Oedipus, presumed long dead, will have been resurrected, to the horror of the living. Waking up to the Situation is the fundamental action of Oedipus the play, so why not draw out the concept of waking up to a notable length of five syllables?


The Master class : twelve teachings of Dodd (IV)

"...It was of the utmost importance that you experience every detail, every specific detail, through all of your senses, of that memory, and that we go over it again and over it again and over it again until it loses its power."

Repetition returns. Dismantle; persist; reconstruct; advance. This effort requires a sustained concentration over a duration of time. No surprise then that there are more of Freddy than of the Master; though both are compromised at the end. It's a sick world, so why not get as sick as you can with it? Right, Woodcock? Why pussify halfway? vitae est avidus quisquis non vult mundo secum pereunte mori! The mirror of your phone is calling. Go to it. You're allowed to. Isn't it comfy to do what everyone else is doing? Just ask the Dead.


The Master class : twelve teachings of Dodd (V)

"I'm in love. We've all been in love. And when we're in love, we experience pleasure . . . and extreme pain. And that's what I'd like to talk about."

Dodd suggests that "extreme pain" is not an aberration of love, but a part of the process of love. To navigate successfully through a patch of "extreme pain" is to understand the process of the Situation. If we define love as a type a success, then we must equate extreme pain as an inherent vice of success. Pussies need not apply; only the strong earn the enduring energy of love.