Pumpkin Pie Cat Coincidence
Nikolaus Maack
i don't believe in coincidence
especially when it happens
more than once"
--Foetus
I was painting upstairs when I heard a crash and a tremendous scream.
I rushed downstairs to find the woman I live with had dropped the
pumpkin pie she was working on. It was ready to go into the fridge to
be chilled, only she'd misjudged the shelf. Crash, splat. Dead
pumpkin pie on the kitchen floor. She was very upset.
Her husband -- Michael -- and I cleaned it up. He did most of the
work. It was a one man job, really. I went back upstairs to paint.
The phone rang a few minutes later. It was my girlfriend. She was at
work and she'd just received a phone call from her roommate. Her cat
had fallen off the balcony of her second floor apartment.
"He's got blood coming out of his nose and he's not moving," she
sobbed. "I'm hysterical. I don't know what to do."
Michael and I leapt into his car. We drove downtown to assist the
roommate with wounded cat work. As he drove, we discussed the
coincidence of a cat and a pie falling at more or less the same time.
Was this a mystical event or not? Would we require a third event to
tie it all together? People only remember significant coincidences,
but when's the last time you remembered a meaningless and
insignificant event anyway? We shouldn't tell my girlfriend about the
coincidence unless everything was okay.
I once owned a cat named Cake. The name is a trilingual pun --
Spanish for "cat" is "gato", and "gateau" is French for "cake". A pie
falls and a cat falls at the same time. Coincidence? Should I name
my next pet "Pie"?
Anyhow, my girlfriend's cat was fine. Her roommate actually said,
"He's got a bloody nose and he's not moving around a lot," and not
that he wasn't moving and was bleeding from his nose. X-rays revealed
nothing but constipation. The vet waved any fee because my girlfriend
works at the Humane Society. She got off work early because of the
whole trauma.
The pumpkin pie was irreplaceable. However the 8 or 9 guests for
Thanksgiving dinner each brought a dessert. We were buried under
sugary treats. Four pies -- three pumpkin and one blueberry -- two
trays of nanaimo bars, loquat fruit, and more.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
Richard Gardner
I would suggest that there was a point where photons from the cat and the
pie became attached within the retina of the woman with whom you live. They
floated out, perhaps due to pie fumes, reentered the pie, and caused the cat
to come flying off the balcony when the pie was dropped.
Either that or you have done something to upset gravity. This can be
achieved only by throwing yourself at the ground and missing. I suggest you
get chummy with the god of toast, at least that way you'll have a diety on
your side, and your toast will always land butter side up.
By the way, I visited your site today, I like your stuff.
Rich
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:3803c9c8...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
Nikolaus Maack
<bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>as Einstein tried to show long ago, whether events happen simultaneously or
>not is determined by the perspective of the observer.
Jung too, m'boy, Jung too. Synchronicity isn't just a city where
Synchrons live.
>what you don't seem to fully understand is that the point of coincidence is
>not in the things or events you encounter, it is you. the events observed
>are of no significance in themselves ("mystical" or otherwise). the "third
>event to tie it all together" was you. but you didn't.
I did. I have. I continue to do so daily. Let me see if I can prove
to you that I already know the things you think I need to learn.
You are talking to the boy who wanders the streets and looks for
messages in the mundane. (I have described this before.) Pieces of
paper on the street, a dead squirrel in a ditch, a piece of ice
falling off a tree, clouds in the sky, meeting a person and having a
short conversation, signs in windows, cracks in the sidewalk -- all
these things and much more can become powerfully meaningful if you
walk the streets looking for meaning and messages. If you have a
specific question you need answered, the answer suddenly seems to be
everywhere. Reality drips meaning.
And yes, the meaning is in me, not the reality. I spray the meaning
on to reality and read the drips. This is why the iching, tarot, rune
reading, palm reading, automatic writing, ouija boards, dreams and
other "mystical" concepts can be considered "surreal" -- they tap the
imagination and allow the release of "repressed" materials. The
imagination is set free.
A friend of mine and I were having a discussion about the iching on
the phone earlier this afternoon. (Is that just a COINCIDENCE??? Hee
hee!) We talked about how, quite often, all the iching or other
"random element" tools do is allow people to talk about the things
that they would rather not talk about. What you see in an inkblot is
a hint, a secret, a whisper about your own psychology, the things you
don't like to think about or tallk about but probably should. The
repressed material that knots up your day to day living.
l am aware that any messages that I find in any of these mediums
actually originate from my own psyche. However, I like the mystical
aspect to these occurences as well. The mystical feeling, the mood,
the vibe, the little hair erections on the back of the neck, all make
me delighted. I would be loathe to rip out this mystical quality --
whether it is artificial or not -- and merely attribute the discovery
of meaning in the mundane to a dreary psychological process.
When the pie and the cat hit the floor at the same time, is the
universe mystical or am I mystical? The answer is that we are both
mystical because I perceive the universe. You cannot seperate
objective and subjective. Each of us, individually, projects meaning
into every blade of grass.
>and it is
>the imperative to expand and integrate such awareness of poetic potential
>into an enhanced social reality of daily living -- not by way of
>narcissistic personal expression, or eccentric exhibitionist confrontation,
>but as a communal collaboration -- that is the surrealist project.
I agree with you except for the "communal collaboration" part. Why do
you think the communal concept is necessary? Is there really no room
for rogues and loose cannons? Because I am loathe to work with others
on anything.
How can a community get together and promote this concept anyway? For
one thing, not everybody sees the same thing. Each connection a person
makes between individual objects has a personal significance. For
example, the pie and the cat falling at the same time made me think of
my old cat named Cake. Michael, who was also present for both events
-- and was also startled by the "coincidence" -- had no such
connecting experience.
I can promote the usefulness of perceiving reality in a random poetic
connected sort of way, and inform others on how I find it
entertaining, but I would hate to become a militant preacher on the
subject. And I distrust groups attempting to do so. Over time a
group turns play and belief into ritual and dogma.
>and it is your abdication of this creative responsibility for the full
>potential of poetic experience that drains your perspective of surrealist
>interest.
I am responsible for my life, my art, and, to a lesser extent, keeping
the people I care about -- sometimes my immediate friends, sometimes
everyone on earth -- happy. You make it sound like I have a
responsibility to thrust my beliefs down the throats of others. That
can't be what you're saying. What are you saying?
Brandon J. Freels
First, most of these procedures aren't mystical, but occult practices. The
mystic gets in touch with a diety, and not all of these procedures deal with
a diety. The occult can be defined in three parts: 1) esoterism 2) talents
beyond the 5 senses, and 3) the supernatural encounter. It embodies
mysticism, hermeticism, spiritualism, gnosticism, the paranormal, etc.
Second, all of these procedures differ in their original state from what you
are proposing. Automatic writing, and ouija boards were originally ways to
communicated with the dead, not to tap into the imagination. Once the
procedure is used for imaginative purposes it loses its "occult" standing,
and becomes something different.
Third, surrealism interest in the occult has only been to de-mystify,
de-spiritualize, de-occultize, etc [why am I telling you this? I'm sure you
know this]. This "mystical" feeling, the mood, the vibe, the little erect
hair, does not change once the procedure has been freed from banality.
Nikolaus Maack
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>First, most of these procedures aren't mystical, but occult practices. The
>mystic gets in touch with a diety, and not all of these procedures deal with
>a diety.
That's a definition of "mystic" that I was unfamiliar with, so I
thought I'd check.
mystic: n & adj. --n. a person who seeks by contemplation and
self-surrender to obtain unity or identity with or absorption into the
Deity or the ultimate reality, or who believes in the spiritual
apprehension of truths that are beyond the understanding.
[The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990]
Seems to me the definition of mystic or mystical doesn't necessarily
involve a Deity at all. My definition is taken from the second half
of the above -- I believe we can obtain truths beyond understanding
through the "spiritual" realm.
My definition of "spiritual" seems to be broader than most. I'd argue
that the spiritual realm can be considered the realm of intuition,
poetry, art, and irrationality.
I believe that I can achieve understandings of my world based on
seemingly illogical, irrational behavior -- such as by going out into
the world and projecting my meaning on to it, looking for messages.
Whether I conclude this is because I'm performing a psychological
experiment, or that I'm performing a mystical act doesn't seem to
particularly matter.
Picking up a paintbrush or sitting down to write a story and
discovering something about your world or yourself in the process also
strikes me, personally, as a spiritual adventure, similar to going
into the world looking for meaning.
The surrealist movement seems to believe this as well, or am I
mistaken? The problem seems to be that surrealists feel uncomfortable
with God and spirituality and the mystical, as if these very words are
tainted and wrong, as though these very concepts are somehow perverse.
I don't see why it has to be that way.
Emphasize the "demystification" if it makes you feel comfortable, but
still, we're talking about surrealists using tarot cards and the
iching to achieve a better understanding of their own minds. That
doesn't magically make turn off the "aura" of mysticism that these
tools possess.
I believe it's still "magic thinking" when you flip coins for the
iching, whether you think 1) you're contacting the great Tao that
contols the universe, 2) you're making contact with the unconscious,
or, even, whether 3) you're engaging in a strictly rational game of
projecting your meaning upon whatever random reading you happen to
get.
Does it really matter what particular stance you take when you flip
the coins? Isn't it all the same behavior? This is not a rhetorical
question -- what is your opinion?
>Automatic writing, and ouija boards were originally ways to
>communicated with the dead, not to tap into the imagination. Once the
>procedure is used for imaginative purposes it loses its "occult" standing,
>and becomes something different.
Not entirely. Despite the attempt by Freud and other scientists --
and you -- to demystify the subconscious, it is still seen by most as
mystical and mysterious. Seeing as how it is a place in the human
mind where we think intuitively and where we engage in "magic
thinking", it seems somewhat silly to approach it with a cold,
scientific, "I will shed the light of reason on this cloud of
darkness."
By approaching the highly irrational, complicated, interwoven, and
magical subconscious with a rational, straightforward, and simple
state of mind, you're going to miss almost everything that's happening
there. It's like shining a flashlight on the dark to see what the
dark looks like. You're just not going to see it.
(Please note how dangerously close this train of thought is to
dredging up the whole "must surrealism keep itself seperate from
religion?" debate once again.)
>Third, surrealism interest in the occult has only been to de-mystify,
>de-spiritualize, de-occultize, etc [why am I telling you this? I'm sure you
>know this]. This "mystical" feeling, the mood, the vibe, the little erect
>hair, does not change once the procedure has been freed from banality.
We're taking two different approaches here that I think amount to the
same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to feel the need to
render a thing like tarot reading into a useful psychological tool and
rid it of its mystical overtones. The "mystical" feeling still
exists, but we can all nod wisely and recognize that it's an
intellectual game we're playing in order to understand ourselves and
our need to project meaning on to the universe.
It's my view that the spiritual isn't necessarily something big in the
sky that watches down over us. It isn't necessarily bad. A personal
mythology, a mystical stance in your own mind, embracing the intuitive
can all be extremely useful. The mystical *can* be thought of as
merely projecting meaning on to the universe. Despite that, the
mystical is still mystical. The feeling is still there, so why not
ackowledge it, instead of pretending that you've somehow stripped the
mystical from the experience?
You said:
>This "mystical" feeling, the mood, the vibe, the little erect hair does
>not change once the procedure has been freed from banality.
Then please tell me how the procedure has been changed at all -- how
has it been "freed from banality" -- because I don't get it.
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Was this a mystical event or not? Would we require a third event to
> tie it all together?
> [...]
> A pie falls and a cat falls at the same time. Coincidence?
actually, this is a fine illustration of where i think you need to make a
"conceptual breakthrough".
[ and please try to understand what i'm actually saying before you
"translate" and then reactively dismiss comments i haven't made. i'll be
brief. my intent is to help you to _understand_ my criticism, and i'm only
making these comments now because i'm convinced (by all your previous
reactions) that you haven't yet, and this post offers a good opportunity to
make one more attempt. also understand that i wouldn't feel compelled to
offer _any_ criticism if you didn't insist on identifying yourself with some
kind of neutered "surrealism".]
so "a pie falls and a cat falls at the same time" and you pose the question
"Was this a mystical event or not? [...] Coincidence?"
as Einstein tried to show long ago, whether events happen simultaneously or
not is determined by the perspective of the observer.
what you don't seem to fully understand is that the point of coincidence is
not in the things or events you encounter, it is you. the events observed
are of no significance in themselves ("mystical" or otherwise). the "third
event to tie it all together" was you. but you didn't.
there is no inherent meaning in umbrellas, sewing machines or dissecting
tables, only utility relative to a specific human intent. it is only the
active intervention of the imagination which can bring them together on the
poetic plane to reveal their marvelous potential for copulation. and it is
the imperative to expand and integrate such awareness of poetic potential
into an enhanced social reality of daily living -- not by way of
narcissistic personal expression, or eccentric exhibitionist confrontation,
but as a communal collaboration -- that is the surrealist project.
and it is your abdication of this creative responsibility for the full
potential of poetic experience that drains your perspective of surrealist
interest.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
nous...@my-deja.com
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:38:36 -0500, "barrett john erickson"
> <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>
simultaneously or
> >not is determined by the perspective of the observer.
>
> Synchrons live.
>
coincidence is
> >not in the things or events you encounter, it is you. the events
observed
> >are of no significance in themselves ("mystical" or otherwise). the
"third
> >event to tie it all together" was you. but you didn't.
>
> >the imperative to expand and integrate such awareness of poetic
potential
> >into an enhanced social reality of daily living -- not by way of
> >narcissistic personal expression, or eccentric exhibitionist
confrontation,
> >but as a communal collaboration -- that is the surrealist project.
>
> you think the communal concept is necessary? Is there really no room
> for rogues and loose cannons? Because I am loathe to work with others
> on anything.
>
> How can a community get together and promote this concept anyway? For
> one thing, not everybody sees the same thing. Each connection a person
> makes between individual objects has a personal significance. For
> example, the pie and the cat falling at the same time made me think of
> my old cat named Cake. Michael, who was also present for both events
> -- and was also startled by the "coincidence" -- had no such
> connecting experience.
From Rey of SynchroniCity:
I think this is a very good question. Here is some
history regarding the synchronicity study: Jung
pulled from a gold mine and credits forerunners as far
back as early thinkers including philosphers. There
are indeeed many terms that discuss this concept.
Some are: monism-dualism, monism-pluralism,
providence, fate vs. free will, determinism,
predeterminism, multiple-unity, mind and matter,
simultudes, similitudes, coincidences and more.
Jung, irritated at the contemporary scientific
narrow mindness, decided to coin the term "synchronicity"
at the Eulogy for Richard Wilhelm who interpreted and
translated Chinese works, like the I CHING.
Unfortunately, Jung was criticized for dabbling into
the "occult" and sure enough in the 1960's the
subject of synchronicity including Jung's book
"Synchronity: An acausal connecting principle" was
shelved in the occult sections at the libraries.
Arthur Koestler, a British Intelligence Officer saw
the problem that this concept deserved more attention
and on one side of his mouth he tells his readers
to dismiss Jung's synchronicity, and on the other
side of his mouth to accept it. (Order From Disorder,
Janus, a Summing Up, Act of Creation, Roots of
Coincidences, etc.). But by doing this, Koestler
was able to undermine Western young scientific thinking.>
He became the "king of the hill" on the concept of
synchronicity for a period of time. This made the
scientific community at least doubt some of their
vain limited dogmas and consider the element of
phenomenon that can occur beyond what we normally
can expect to know.
Also, at the same time, the late Dr. Ira Progoff was
given a fellowship grant to get some info from Jung
and wrote "Jung, Synchronicity and Human Destiny."
Progoff was instrumental in elevating the concept
to professionals in the area of Depth Psychology and
toured Jungian Associations who are heart warmed by
him and his organization. Cardinals, professionals
and many have found much more to the facets of
synchronicity and in the 70's an explosion of
works about it started to become public.
This surprised Progoff and others because synchronicity
seemed so guarded (including governmental intelligence
because of its implications regarding psychic phenomenon
and mind control) that many kept their experiences
secret. Fear about ridicule was prevalent a few decades
ago, also. The theme of mass media images projected
a fear of assissination if anybody was actively
engaged in such works.
But the horses started to get out of the barn and
the door that was left open was obvious. It was too
late to stop the inquiries. Too many have died and
the population exploded. Too many people started
to talk about it to the point where now we have
not only people who are discussing it but
can offer much contribution to the investigation.
Sincerely,
Rey (of SynchroniCity)
> I can promote the usefulness of perceiving reality in a random poetic
> connected sort of way, and inform others on how I find it
> entertaining, but I would hate to become a militant preacher on the
> subject. And I distrust groups attempting to do so. Over time a
> group turns play and belief into ritual and dogma.
>
> >and it is your abdication of this creative responsibility for the
full
> >potential of poetic experience that drains your perspective of
surrealist
> >interest.
>
> I am responsible for my life, my art, and, to a lesser extent, keeping
> the people I care about -- sometimes my immediate friends, sometimes
> everyone on earth -- happy. You make it sound like I have a
> responsibility to thrust my beliefs down the throats of others. That
> can't be what you're saying. What are you saying?
>
> Nik
> ---
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
> Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
> each painting should not be burned.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.