Stephen Scobie on "the poetic life of Mr. Zimmerman"
David Florkow
(Toronto's self-proclaimed 'national' paper) with the publication of his
"And Forget My Name: A Speculative Biography of Bob Dylan" (published by
Ekstasis Editions). The article has nice words about S's previous
publications -- more than 20 of them -- and some quotes from this work
too. Looks good.
Also, in today's Globe (Dec 29/99), a nice picture on p. A3 of Bob and
Rubin Carter (Bob in Desire mode; Rubin in prison drag, behind bars).
The article (but not the picture) is also available on-line from the
Globe's site.
Geozipper12
it strikes me weird (as Dylan might say) that an academic (well, what can you
expect from academicians?) would devote his life to the 'discourse' of 20th
century identity... his faux bio's of historical figures, made into faux
personal poetry, strikes me as very weird indeed, as if this Scobie does not or
cannot connect w/the fabric of his own sensory experience, his own daily life
of dreams & emotions & desires...
in his latest edition, he speaks not from 'Dylan's voice' - - he said that
voice was too "strong to inhabit him". yet, he speaks from a first person
viewpoint, of things (imagining) what Dylan might have felt or experienced in
his early years in Duluth.
i'm no psycho-therapist, but it seems to me that Scobie has some identity
problems of his own & his attachment to important historical figures is his way
of elevating the mundanity of his own existence - - living by proxy as it were
- - 'inhabiting' the minds of these great figures, then creating works of
poetry, supposedly that would give us insight into something of their dreams,
emotions, desires, loves, fears, etc... this to me, sounds like a sad
enterprise indeed.
totally unnecessary, totally superfluous, since we have their OWN poetry &
words to provide that insight.
i mean an interview w/the subject would better serve us. (i believe he's
interviewed Leonard Cohen...) this entire enterprise sounds like nothing more
than a coffee table book, a nic nac, a conversation piece, banking on the
mythic & star quality of the subject, riding those coattails if you will,
rather than delving into the scary & demon-possessed domains of the truly
personal, the deep autobiographical exploration... WHICH IS WHAT HIS SUBJECTS
DO !
that exploration, i think, is much too risky for one whose identity may be so
shaky...
just my 2 cents,
:-) T o n y Z folksinger
When you think that you've lost everything,
You find out you can always lose a little more.
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
> i've read the Scobie article in the Globe & Mail...
Setting aside the gratuitously insulting and personal comments in this
posting (what the fuck do you know about "my" identity problems?):
>
> it strikes me weird (as Dylan might say) that an academic (well, what can you
> expect from academicians?) would devote his life to the 'discourse' of 20th
> century identity...
Why on earth is this weird? What more central problem is there than
the nature of identity, and how can this problem be approached except
through discourse? Does this comment have any meaning at all, other
than a tired and cliched anti-intellectualism?
>his faux bio's of historical figures, made into faux
> personal poetry, strikes me as very weird indeed, as if this Scobie does not
> or
> cannot connect w/the fabric of his own sensory experience, his own daily life
> of dreams & emotions & desires...
You set up an entirely false dichotomy here between experience and
culture. The things we read about, think about, listen to, argue about
*are part of* our daily life, *part of* our sensory experience. You
can't distinguish. If you tried to write about your "dreams and
emotions and desires" with no reference to the culture surrounding you,
you would end up in hopeless solipsism, saying nothing to anybody.
>
> in his latest edition, he speaks not from 'Dylan's voice' - - he said that
> voice was too "strong to inhabit him". yet, he speaks from a first person
> viewpoint, of things (imagining) what Dylan might have felt or experienced in
> his early years in Duluth.
Read the article. The whole point was that in this book I do *not*
speak from a first person viewpoint.
>
> i'm no psycho-therapist,
You certainly aren't. So shut up about my personal life, of which you
know nothing.
> - - 'inhabiting' the minds of these great figures, then creating works of
> poetry, supposedly that would give us insight into something of their dreams,
> emotions, desires, loves, fears, etc... this to me, sounds like a sad
> enterprise indeed.
> totally unnecessary, totally superfluous, since we have their OWN poetry &
> words to provide that insight.
So, you object to all criticism, all interpretation, all commentary on
other people's work? Then why do you yourself write comments on
Dylan's songs? Why aren't your comments "unnecessary, totally
superfluous"?
>
> i mean an interview w/the subject would better serve us.
Not necessarily. Dylan interviews are notoriously variable in what
they tell us.
> that exploration, i think, is much too risky for one whose identity may be so
> shaky...
My identity is fine. How's yours?
>
> just my 2 cents,
An accurate valuation, possibly rather inflated.
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
> i've read the Scobie article in the Globe & Mail...
[I posted a response to this before, but it doesn't seem to have gone
through. With apologies to anyone reading this twice, I'll try again,
and this time attempt to be a little more temperate!]
Much of this posting strikes me as grossly insulting and unwarrantedly
personal. What the fuck do you know about my personal life, or my
"sense of identity"? You can disagree with me if you want to, but
speculations about my personal psychology are unworthy of you, and of
this newsgroup.
>
> it strikes me weird (as Dylan might say) that an academic (well, what can you
> expect from academicians?) would devote his life to the 'discourse' of 20th
> century identity...
Setting aside the tired and cliched anti-intellectualism, what on earth
is weird about this? Would you deny that the nature of identity is a
major issue in the philosophical and intellectual life of the 20th
century? Why shouldn't academics talk about it? And how can it be
approached except through discourse?
(Of course, you may have an idea that "identity" is somehow independent
of "discourse," but that is naive and untenable.)
>his faux bio's of historical figures, made into faux
> personal poetry, strikes me as very weird indeed, as if this Scobie does not
> or
> cannot connect w/the fabric of his own sensory experience, his own daily life
> of dreams & emotions & desires...
Here you set up an entirely false dichotomy between culture and
experience. Culture -- what we read, what we listen to, what we talk
about, what we argue about, history, literature, art -- *is part of*
experience, *is part of* what we dream and desire. There is no such
thing as an emotion unaffected by culture.
I choose in my work to talk about my "dreams & emotions & desires"
through images drawn from culture. I don't pretend that this is the
*only* way to write poetry, but it's my way. You may prefer naked
confessionalism: OK. But even in your own postings to this group, you
talk about "images" -- you appeal to a common experience of the world.
You don;t try to retreat into an impossible solipsism where nothing
exists outside your own head. Why should a biography of a historical
figure be any the less valid, as an image, than a tree or a waterfall?
>
> in his latest edition, he speaks not from 'Dylan's voice' - - he said that
> voice was too "strong to inhabit him". yet, he speaks from a first person
> viewpoint, of things (imagining) what Dylan might have felt or experienced in
> his early years in Duluth.
Read the article. My whole point was that I was *not* using a first
person viewpoint.
> i'm no psycho-therapist
You sure ain't. So why pretend to be one, and write insulting things
about my personal life, of which you have no knowledge?
> poetry, supposedly that would give us insight into something of their dreams,
> emotions, desires, loves, fears, etc... this to me, sounds like a sad
> enterprise indeed.
> totally unnecessary, totally superfluous, since we have their OWN poetry &
> words to provide that insight.
So, do you not believe at all in any form of criticism, interpretation,
or commentary? In that case, why do you yourself write postings on
Dylan's songs to this newsgroup? Aren't they too "unnecessary, totally
superfluous"? Why should it make any difference that my criticism
sometimes takes the form of poetry?
> rather than delving into the scary & demon-possessed domains of the truly
> personal, the deep autobiographical exploration... WHICH IS WHAT HIS SUBJECTS
> DO !
Not all of the time. By your standards, Dylan should never have
written "Song to Woody," or "Blind Willie McTell," or "The Lonesome
Death of Hattie Carroll," or indeed at least half of his work.
> just my 2 cents,
You price yourself way too high ;-)
Stephen
Joe Cliburn
David Florkow wrote:
>
> Stephen Scobie, often seen on this list, has hit the Globe and Mail
> (Toronto's self-proclaimed 'national' paper) with the publication of his
> "And Forget My Name: A Speculative Biography of Bob Dylan" (published by
> Ekstasis Editions). The article has nice words about S's previous
> publications -- more than 20 of them -- and some quotes from this work
> too. Looks good.
Thanks for the pointer, David.
Just my .02, but "And Forget My Name" is a FUN read, simply because it is sooo
different. Not a "bio" but with more bio-type info that you're likely to find in
most "real" bios. I recommend it for anyone who likes to read poetry.
Joe
--
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray."
- Dylan
Joe Cliburn
Geozipper the Pinhead wrote:
>
> i've read the Scobie article in the Globe & Mail...
Obviously, you've not read Stephen's book. It is fun, unpretentious & worth
reading.
> i'm no psycho-therapist, but it seems to me that Scobie has some identity
> problems of his own & his attachment to important historical figures is his way
Ummm... Are you trying to say that somebody who posts as "Tony Z folksinger" &
"Geozipper12" might not have an identity problem hissownself? Get a life!
> just my 2 cents,
I agree with Stephen. That's WAY overpriced.
Geozipper12
From: Maureen & Stephen Scobie msc...@coastnet.com
Date: Wed, 29 December 1999 04:23 PM EST
Message-id: <291219991323484773%msc...@coastnet.com>
>In article <19991229143809...@ng-bk1.aol.com>, Geozipper12
><geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> i've read the Scobie article in the Globe & Mail...
>
>Setting aside the gratuitously insulting and personal comments in this
>posting (what the fuck do you know about "my" identity problems?):
>
educated guess…
>>
>> it strikes me weird (as Dylan might say) that an academic (well, what can
>you
>> expect from academicians?) would devote his life to the 'discourse' of 20th
>> century identity...
>
>Why on earth is this weird?
i don't know if it IS weird or not, but it strikes ME as weird… i certainly
would not use someone else's life & work or *identity*, in order to create
something that supposedly held deep meaning for me, unless it was in the form
of a homage, the way Dylan sings "Song To Woody". i feel intuitively that a
creative artist of any stature would rely on his own experience, rather than
feed into ANOTHER artist's experience in order to produce something worthwhile
- - it just seems false to me somehow, like the artist does not trust his own
life to speak to him, that he has to inhabit some other artist's *more perfect*
life (?)…
>
>What more central problem is there than
>the nature of identity,
i never thought of the nature of identity as being any sort of central
problem… maybe, that's what strikes me weird about it ! why would you deem
it to be such a problem, i wonder? how about food, shelter, the need for love,
the need to deal w/love lost, the need for family, connection, community,
shared dreams, justice, fairness, equal rights…? those seem to be more
central problems for any thinking/feeling person, or even artist, who trusts
his own life to speak to him.
>
> and how can this problem be approached except
>through discourse?
i agree it should be approached thru discourse. or analysis, discussion,
argument, scientific method… but you wrote a book of POETRY. i'm sure it's
fun to read (& maybe even write) but what can poetry (almost by definition, a
human self-analysis, a human self-awareness put into words) bring to this
*discourse* except something superficial, fantasized, imagined? the entire
enterprise of using another artist's experience & life work, just seems
intuitively wrong in the creation of yet another work of art - - like it's
bound to take us further from the truth, rather than closer to it - - it seems
esoteric & unneeded & pretentious - - what is YOUR truth? what has been YOUR
experience? don't give it to us vicariously thru the life experience of some
other artist, some other art, give it to us straight (or don't you know what it
is? don't you have one?).
John Lennon said that it was hearing Dylan that allowed him make the leap from
writing empty pop songs to expressing the actuality of his life & the depths of
his own soul. you listen to Dylan & instead of garnering the courage to
explore those personal secret depths, become entangled in the minutae of his
life, to the point of creating poetry out of HIS life… why doesn't this
strike anyone else as sad, or strange, or weird, or somehow, missing the POINT
of Dylan's value?
>
>Does this comment have any meaning at all, other
>than a tired and cliched anti-intellectualism?
>
yes, the meaning is "the self-ordained professor's tongue, too serious to
fool"… "in a soldier's stance i aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who
teach"… something like that.
>>his faux bio's of historical figures, made into faux
>> personal poetry, strikes me as very weird indeed, as if this Scobie does
>not
>> or
>> cannot connect w/the fabric of his own sensory experience, his own daily
>life
>> of dreams & emotions & desires...
>
>You set up an entirely false dichotomy here between experience and
>culture.
oh, but the dichotomy between experience & culture is not false. turn on the
television - - that's a form of culture, which you will then experience.
whether you embrace that form of culture is up to you (like, you spend 3 hours
a day by yr own admission, on the net, keeping up w/Dylan & the newsgroups -- -
i doubt if you spend 3 hours a day watching WWF wrestling). turn on the radio
- - you can change the station, if you don't like the *culture* found there.
>
> The things we read about, think about, listen to, argue about
>*are part of* our daily life, *part of* our sensory experience. You
>can't distinguish.
maybe that's the problem with identity that yr having… i certainly can
distinguish between my personal experience of people/events in my daily life &
the outside *culture* or the *poetry i might read in yr book*… the fact that
i have read samples of yr poetry on the net, places it within my experience,
but i am sentient enough to know that this poetry is not my *personal*
experience, it is not *yr personal* experience & almost definitely *not
Dylan's* personal experience - - it is a created, imagined fiction, a cultural
artifact - - dare i say, an academic exercise?
>
>If you tried to write about your "dreams and
>emotions and desires" with no reference to the culture surrounding you,
>you would end up in hopeless solipsism, saying nothing to anybody.
>
& if you tried to write about the culture surrounding you, yr so-called
*culture of non-identity* while imagining the dreams, emotions & desires (the
motives) of a cultural icon (Dylan), seems equally solipsistic - - what an
enormous ego that would entail, what pretension, for after all, you are
*pretending* to be *experiencing*
the 1940's & 50's Duluth, as if you, yrself, were there, right?
>>
>> in his latest edition, he speaks not from 'Dylan's voice' - - he said that
>> voice was too "strong to inhabit him". yet, he speaks from a first person
>> viewpoint, of things (imagining) what Dylan might have felt or experienced
>in
>> his early years in Duluth.
>
>Read the article. The whole point was that in this book I do *not*
>speak from a first person viewpoint.
read yr poetry.
"From the earliest years:
the sound of foghorns in the mist
ice grinding on the lakeshore
images that flake off
memory's indifference
like rust from iron
rain
sweeping in curtains dragged across
the dumb grey miles of Superior
rain
breaking against the low sad hills
where the land begins its
long sentence
walking there
with friends whose names he will later
remember or invent"
-- from The Hills of Old Duluth
"There are voices on the wind,
in the air, there is nowhere
that is distant any more.
There are voices you can hear
skipping over airwaves, carried far
from the southern dark
end up on the vagrant frequencies
of Minnesota midnight radio."
-- from Planet Waves
(this poetry is well-written, i enjoy reading it, btw.)
the effect is that the poet is describing his surroundings, some viewpoint is
being used, whether it's 3rd person omniscient or whatever, the effect is a
point of view, a narrative describing Dylan's environment of the 40's & 50's
Duluth. the major point, which i needn't argue, is that it is *imagined*,
since, unless you are a contemporary of Dylan's & grew up alongside him, you
could not have been there to experience in the flesh what Dylan had. am i
right?
>
>>
>> i'm no psycho-therapist,
>
>You certainly aren't. So shut up about my personal life, of which you
>know nothing.
>
in the article, you admitted that you spend 3 or more hours a day on the net
"keeping up w/Dylan." by yr own argument, this *culture* is also yr daily
*experience*, so i am well within the parameters here of making an intuitive
judgment call about this aspect of yr *personal life* - - i had to have been
close,
else i wouldn't have hit such a nerve.
>
>> - - 'inhabiting' the minds of these great figures, then creating works of
>> poetry, supposedly that would give us insight into something of their
>dreams,
>> emotions, desires, loves, fears, etc... this to me, sounds like a sad
>> enterprise indeed.
>> totally unnecessary, totally superfluous, since we have their OWN poetry &
>> words to provide that insight.
>
>So, you object to all criticism, all interpretation, all commentary on
>other people's work? Then why do you yourself write comments on
>Dylan's songs? Why aren't your comments "unnecessary, totally
>superfluous"?
>
i do not couch my commentaries of an artist's work in the form of ANOTHER work
of art (poetry for example), unless they are in homage to someone. each time i
get up & play my songs, it is an homage of sorts to Dylan - - but i do not use,
or pretend to use, Dylan's life or pretend *to be* Dylan when i perform. i can
only be my self…i can only speak from the life i have lived/ am living.
that's a lesson we all should learn. (perhaps, you can write a commentary on
living on the net ;) ? …that's a joke, ok?)
>>
>> i mean an interview w/the subject would better serve us.
>
>Not necessarily. Dylan interviews are notoriously variable in what
>they tell us.
>
true, but to my mind, even those interviews would better serve us, than another
work of art, which apparently is only using Dylan as a vehicle to explore the
issue of *identity* - - i don't think that can tell us anything really
worthwhile about Dylan, his motives, or his experience, since it is so far
removed from the source - - or, are you God & i don't know it?
>> that exploration, i think, is much too risky for one whose identity may be
>so
>> shaky...
>
>My identity is fine. How's yours?
>
who am i again?
in my poetry & songwriting i delve deeply into risky, personal terrain, & i
risk the same in my life (publicly & politically) - - i have frightened off
so-called friends, estranged lovers & scared the bejesus outta musical
compatriots - - all cuz of that hot white light i shine into areas where no
one wants to look. what have you done lately, besides *channel vicarious
experiences of cultural icons* & pretend they were yr own?
i'll take my identity over yours any day. (mmmm, wait a minute, how much do
academicians make these days?)
>>
>> just my 2 cents,
>
>An accurate valuation, possibly rather inflated.
>
>
>Stephen
>
money doesn't talk it swears, propaganda, all is phony…
Geozipper12
>> poetry, supposedly that would give us insight into something of their
>dreams,
>> emotions, desires, loves, fears, etc... this to me, sounds like a sad
>> enterprise indeed.
>> totally unnecessary, totally superfluous, since we have their OWN poetry &
>> words to provide that insight.
>
>or commentary? In that case, why do you yourself write postings on
>Dylan's songs to this newsgroup? Aren't they too "unnecessary, totally
>superfluous"? Why should it make any difference that my criticism
>sometimes takes the form of poetry?
>
read yr poetry again.
it doesn't sound like criticism or commentary in the least, it sounds like
descriptive, narrative POETRY. as poetry, that's fine, i think it's very
well-written. as discourse, or criticism, especially on the nature of
identity, it seems way off the mark TO ME. of course, i haven't read the
entire volume (or would i need all 4?)… why don't you send it to me & i can
really critique it?
>>
>> rather than delving into the scary & demon-possessed domains of the truly
>> personal, the deep autobiographical exploration... WHICH IS WHAT HIS
>SUBJECTS
>> DO !
>
>Not all of the time. By your standards, Dylan should never have
>written "Song to Woody," or "Blind Willie McTell," or "The Lonesome
>Death of Hattie Carroll," or indeed at least half of his work.
>
"Woody" & "Willie McTell" i see as homages to other artists that Dylan
obviously admired. in Woody, his entire style of playing & vocalizing leans
heavily on that folkie's manner, even in the lyric. while in "McTell", Dylan
uses a blues form (played on piano), which sounds to my ear very much like the
melody to the classic blues "Saint James Infirmary"… yr work doesn't seem
like a *homage to Dylan* cuz, well, yr not standing up there w/a guitar & mouth
harp, yr writing POETRY… & Dylan is reluctant to see himself as a poet, he
says "poets drown in lakes".
as for Hattie Carroll, or other figures in the news, i make a distinction - -
they weren't *cultural icons*, they were normal everyday folks. Hattie Carroll
wasn't a poet, or painter, or someone who had already given to the world
creations from his *own life experience* which Dylan then re-worked.
let me put it this way: if a crisis in identity is indicative of 20th century
man, then why couldn't you write either about yr neighbor down the road, or
yrself, rather than a cultural icon who's already given the world wonderful
creations of his own? it's that aspect of it that is giving me trouble… if
it's so pervasive (identity crisis), why look to a major cultural figure?
re-creating a major cultural figure's life & work in poetic form, doesn't seem
to be the correct vehicle for investigating this concept, since we already have
that person's creative literary work available to us - - the enterprise would
seem to lead us further away from that person's truth - - hence i am saying it
is unnecessary & superfluous…
now instead of POETRY, a real critique, however, would get to the guts of the
matter quicker, i think: the whole concept of this 20th century crisis in
identity. maybe THAT'S what it is - - 4 volumes of poetry to explore this
idea, when (i am guessing) they don't really EXPLORE it, they just regurgitate
the details & minutae of a historical figure's life, all the more difficult to
pin down cuz it is POETRY - - i doubt if anything substantial can come of it,
besides an entertaining read, like other posters have commented…
>
>> just my 2 cents,
>
>You price yourself way too high ;-)
>
>Stephen
>
that's the going rate these days, Stephen...
Geozipper12
>&
>"Geozipper12" might not have an identity problem hissownself? Get a life!
Geozipper is a screen name.
Tony Z is a stage name.
do not confuse the finger that points at the moon, with the moon itself (zen).
do not confuse the sign with the signified (linguistics). do not confuse
*names* with *identity*.
"a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet" & "a rose is a rose is a
rose".
& man gave names to all the animals, remember?
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
> i never thought of the nature of identity as being any sort of central
> problem
Well, that's your problem, isn't it?
> i agree it should be approached thru discourse. or analysis, discussion,
> argument, scientific method… but you wrote a book of POETRY.
Here is the crux of the difference between us. You seem to want to put
up some kind of holy, unbreachable wall between "poetry" and all other
forms of discourse. I contend that it all flows together. I want to
write poetic criticism, critical poetry; I want to mix the genres
together; I want them all to talk to each other. I refuse to accept
the distinction you make here.
> what can poetry (almost by definition, a
> human self-analysis, a human self-awareness put into words) bring to this
> *discourse* except something superficial, fantasized, imagined? the entire
> enterprise of using another artist's experience & life work, just seems
> intuitively wrong in the creation of yet another work of art - - like it's
> bound to take us further from the truth, rather than closer to it
Sounds like you've been reading too much Plato. But if you think that
poetry takes us further from the truth, then there's not much more I
can say to persuade you.
> what has been YOUR
> experience? don't give it to us vicariously thru the life experience of some
> other artist, some other art, give it to us straight
Well, I do occasionally. I've written "straight," personal,
autobiographical poetry as well. I just don't think that's the *only*
kind of poetry worth writing, or that I need to do it *all* the time.
> oh, but the dichotomy between experience & culture is not false.
On this point we continue to disagree, totally.
>what an
> enormous ego that would entail, what pretension, for after all, you are
> *pretending* to be *experiencing*
> the 1940's & 50's Duluth, as if you, yrself, were there, right?
Right. The same ego any novelist has, any writer of fiction, any
artist who "pretends" to imagine any experience other than his or her
own. Look -- if artists depended only on their "own" experience, the
whole enterprise of fiction would collapse. The whole point of art --
for both the artist and the audience -- is to imagine something that
you have not yourself experienced.
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
> do not confuse
> *names* with *identity*.
... and then attempted to illustrate this point with three quotations
...
>
> "a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet" & "a rose is a rose is a
> rose".
>
> & man gave names to all the animals, remember?
Unfortunately, all three quotations make exactly the *opposite* point:
that names are deeply, inextricably confused with identity.
Stephen
spjo...@earthlink.net
> would not use someone else's life & work or *identity*, in order to create
> something that supposedly held deep meaning for me, unless it was in the
form
> of a homage, the way Dylan sings "Song To Woody". i feel intuitively that
a
> creative artist of any stature would rely on his own experience, rather
than
> feed into ANOTHER artist's experience in order to produce something
-----------------
While, of course, everyone has his or her own ideas of what makes for
worthwhile art, I know that many people who enjoy poetry are still reading
19th-century works like Robert Browning's "Andrea Del Sarto" and "Fra Lippo
Lippi" -- monologues spoken by two real-life artists as imagined by the
author.
(Incidentally, I wonder sometimes if Browning's "A Toccata of Galuppi's" --
an exchange between a scientist, the ghost of the real-life composer
Galuppi, and the audience for his music -- might have served as an
inspiration for the poetic listing of a chord progression in Leonard Cohen's
"Hallelujah.")
Geozipper12
>> problem
>
>Well, that's your problem, isn't it?
>
no, that's the point. it's NOT a problem for me, Stephen... but when i suggest
that the nature of identity is a *problem* FOR YOU, you get all defensive about
it, saying "what the f**k do you know about my personal life?"
have you even answered this question, or merely dodged it?
it makes sense to me, when an artist of any stature (like yrself) devotes so
much time & energy on a particular issue, then that issue MUST have some
particular *personal* resonance for the artist... in this case, the *nature of
identity problem* would be a particular concern of yours on a personal level.
at least, that is a perfectly reasonable judgment call to make. otherwise, WHY
devote so much time & energy to something, writing 4 volumes of poetry (as
analysis, or critical discourse), if the issue is, let's say, merely a *hobby*
?
& if that is the case, then this suggests a whole OTHER level of absurdity to
the enterprise, wouldn't it? (which probably has something equally relevant to
do w/personal character, personal identity, also - - god knows what...)
pizza is here...
more to come later.
:-) T o n y Z folksinger
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> i never thought of the nature of identity as being any sort of central
> >> problem
> >
> >Well, that's your problem, isn't it?
> >
>
> no, that's the point. it's NOT a problem for me, Stephen
But it should be. Because if you don't think about that problem, it's
hard to think clearly about any others.
> have you even answered this question, or merely dodged it?
I ask this question all the time. So have most of the major artists
and philosophers of the 20th century. It's got nothing to do with any
"insecurity" about our personal lives: it's just that it is a major and
continuing question of intellectual life. It's certainly central to
any consideration of the work of Bob Dylan.
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
\
> creating a *name* to *identify* something has everything to do w/control &
> power & ownership & nothing to do with *identity*.
Power and ownership have a great deal to do with identity. That's why
we call names "proper" -- because they're property.
> what any thing, or any
> person, or any animal, actually IS, cannot be subsumed by the *name* it's
> given...
Maybe not "subsumed," but they can't be separated either.
>(for example, why do we have ONE name for *snow* while Eskimos have
> 50
> names for it?)
Actually, they don't. This is a great popular myth.
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
> i assume the real life artists were Andrea Del Sarto (a name vaguely familiar)
> & Fra Lippo Lippi ? let me ask you... do we have extant works of art by these
> artists? were they known in their own time?
Yes, & yes.
>
> or did Browning bring them to our attention & we'd otherwise not know of them?
What difference does it make?
Stephen
Joe Cliburn
Maureen & Stephen Scobie wrote:
>
> In article <19991231203611...@ng-fk1.aol.com>, Geozipper12
> <geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > do not confuse
> > *names* with *identity*.
<snip>
> Unfortunately, all three quotations make exactly the *opposite* point:
> that names are deeply, inextricably confused with identity.
This asshole has already made my killfile. But I had to look up his idiotic
reply to my post.
Anybody who says that a name & identity aren't linked *deserves* to be in my
killfile. I know I'm reifying like crazy, but it's the ole taxonomist in me. A
rose by any other name is quite likely to be some other sort of flower
altogether.
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
wrote:
> so you totally disagree that we can screen out certain forms of
> culture, by refusing to buy into them, or experiencing them?
Sorry, I just don't follow your argument here at all. If i choose to
"screen out" a certain form of culture, then I must already have
experienced it, at least to the extent that I know enough about it to
know that I want to screen it out.
But that's really not the point of our disagreement. It seemed to me
that you were setting up a dichtomy between "experience" (the people we
meet, the things we do, the emotions we experience) and "culture" (the
things we read, watch, listen to, think about, enjoy as aesthetic
experiences) -- and all I was saying is that I don't recognise that
split as an absolute dichotomy. It's all my life: the books I read,
the job I get paid for, the people I love, the political causes I
support, the music I listen to, the emotions I feel, the landscape I
live in, the fictional realities I imagine, etc.
>
> you've claimed that Dylan was too much of a heavy
> cultural icon to "inhabit". this speaks poorly toward yr achieving any
> level of success w/this particular work.
No: what I said was that I didn't want to try to mimic his voice by
writing about his experience in an assumed first person. That was a
tactical choice for a particular work.
>no
> matter WHAT we create, no matter WHAT we think we are doing, these are
> all SELF PORTRAITS...
I agree. Whatever we write is at some level a self portrait. The self
portrait is always detoured through the image of the other. That's
precisely what Dylan himself did, on the album called "Self Portrait."
So in fact, you're making my point here. You agree with me after all.
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
wrote:
> i am guessing that yr attempt at mixing these genres, would do
> disservice to both
Well, guess on. But maybe your guess would be better informed if you'd
read the book -- which is, by the way, easily available through Rolling
Tomes. If, once you've read it, you think it fails, that is your
privilege as an informed reader. Other readers have come to different
conclusions -- for example, the review of the book in the current issue
of "The Bridge." But no author expects to please everybody.
>
> glad to hear it. tell me, which do you prefer? see, i have a theory
> that artists do this sort of thing when they do not have any real
> material to work from
There you go again, claiming that cultural experience isn't "real."
> it is coming from some esoteric, distant &
> foreign-to-the-soul false place
My cultural experience is not particularly esoteric, it's certainly not
distant, and it's definitely not foreign to my soul. Again, you
project this incredibly narrow and limited concept of art, where the
only thing you can accept as "real" is some impossibly isolated concept
of your own personal experience, which you imagine to be unaffected by
anything outside your own head.
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I ask this question all the time. So have most of the major artists
> >and philosophers of the 20th century. It's got nothing to do with any
> >"insecurity" about our personal lives: it's just that it is a major and
> >continuing question of intellectual life. It's certainly central to
> >any consideration of the work of Bob Dylan.
> >
>
> how so?
I would have thought it was obvious that identity was a central
consideration to the work of any artist whose foundational gesture was
the adoption of a false name. But to see this idea worked out in
detail, I'm afraid I can only refer you to my critical work, "Alias Bob
Dylan," which will be reappearing later this year in a revised and
expanded edition.
>
> why do you say that? what is this exactly, explain it to me, what is this
> exact *problem* with *identity* ?
The problem is that identity (I would contend) does not exist
independent of discourse, and thus that it is constantly in process,
and never fully knowable. But a great deal of our western ideology
assumes the idealist position that identity does somehow exist
independent of, and prior to, our language and our knowing -- and many
of our social, political, philosophical, moral, and religious values
seem to be dependent on this position. The negotiation between these
positions is therefore crucial to almost any serious thought.
If you think this is "navel-gazing," then you are welcome to rest in
your naivety.
And here I will step out of this debate. Have the last word if you
want to. I will not contribute any further to this thread (though I am
sure that the same issues will resurface in other forms as time goes
on).
Stephen
geoffM
I havn't had the opportunity to read Mr. Scobie's book yet. I look
forward to doing so, it sounds like one of the more intelligent
responses to Bob Dylan I've ever read about. As a fellow Canadian who
originated in the UK, I will enjoy an aspect of its tone not present
for most North Americans. I've always been convinced that people who
grew up in some part of the UK, or Europe for that matter, find
something totally different in Dylan's art, something excluded from
anyone who listens through an North American perspective. I know how
that sounds. Ridiculous. But I'm certain that anyone who bothers to
make public their obsession, and I use that word carefully, their
obsession with Bob Dylan, does so knowing full well that their
perspective will not ring true for all people. I can't explain why
Dylan's life and work means so much to me, a person born in Co. Antrim
in Northern Ireland, and who came to "the North Country" 23 years ago,
anymore than I'm writing to this group, which I'd never seen before
tonight and I can assure you, have never done before. We all have our
own reasons to be afflicted with this strange condition. I'm sure Bob
Dylan finds it odd that we are all so "serious" about his job. I've
just been comparing the two versions of Blood on the Tracks, song by
song, some totally different, some the same. It inspired me to come to
this group just to connect with like minded people who for some reason
wouldn't find that an odd thing to be doing. We are all interested in
the minutae of everything about this one individual.
The first time I ever met him I was a 17 year old school boy who had
taken a day off Grammar school to go to Belfast in May 1966. He was
playing his 2nd gig in Ireland, having played Dublin the night before,
and I was taken into the Ritz cinema for the afternoon set up by the
drummer by the name of Mike, a big blonde Texan who was filling in for
Levon Helm who'd left in disgust (not that I knew that then). I met
him at a Belfast hotel combing his hair in the plate glass and asked
him if he was with Dylan. He said yes and invited me to come with him
in the taxi he was waiting for, around to the cinema. I had a sketch
book with me, hoping to draw a portrait of my hero. He seemed
sympathetic but told me not to tell anyone that he brought me in to the
cinema. "When you get in, you're on your own" He was nice but made it
clear that he wasn't taking responsibility for me. That was ok as far
as I went. He walked me in the side door and I found myself standing
on the stage, with various people milling about setting stuff up. I
was immediately told by someone to get off the stage, and did so by
going down below the stage to where the orchestra would be before
coming up to play. There were two side doors at each end of the stage,
below, where musicans could enter for orchestral productions. I've
just realized that this story is too long for my typing skills, so what
I will do is relate the oddest part of the subsequent 4 hours. At one
point, Dylan sent out for a single example of each candy bar available
in the local shops. When someone came back with about 12 candy bars
and set them up along an amp top, I had the uncanny experience of
watching my thin, white faced, crazy hair-do hero approach the bars,
study them in depth, and very gingerly, peel the wrapping paper off the
top of each and carefully, with great seriousness, taste a little bit
of each. Needless to say, I thought that he was not only the strangest
person I'd ever seen (knowing his face only from album covers, don't
forget, Don't Look Back nor Blonde on Blonde had not been released at
this point) but that he was also the strangest acting person I'd ever
seen. He used the word fuck a great deal, and for some reason that
shocked me. I guess that someone I regarded as God sounded strange
being so obviously crude and , on the whole, downright unpleasant. He
seemed to whine about everything, like a small child. I was young and
impressionable, and I guess stunned to be seeing him like this (I have
to tell you, I was hiding in the shadows of the orchestra pit the whole
time ), and when Sally Grossman (as I learned later), looked down at
me in the darkness and said to Bob, "There's someone down there drawing
you". He turned the full dark glasses, Blonde on Blonde, jaw pulsating,
speed freak, laser beam classic Dylan face towards me, looking down to
where I was, and said, "I'll fucking draw him". At this point I stood
up and exposed myself as an intruder. Dylan glared at me and I seemed
to be surrounded suddenly by about 6 people all demanding to know what
I wanted. I think that I went into shock. All I could do was say that
I wanted nothing and walked slowly up to the back of the stalls. I
stood up there trying to compose myself and looking back to where they
were setting up a camera, and Dylan came striding up the isle towards
me, furious and intimidating looking. I was rescued from some serious
verbal abuse by Richard Manual, who called out to Dylan that the taxi
had arrived. Dylan stopped about 15 feet away and glowered at me, like
he wanted to kill me. I think at this point that my mind and body
separated and I had a genuine out of the body experience. There's
nothing like the experience of God striding towards you to give you
some heavy verbal going over to make you feel small. It's a day I will
never forget. In fact, I think that that four hours watching Dylan
from a dark hidey hole is the most acutely felt actuality that I have
ever known. I remember every detail of it as a 51 year old man. I
have never felt so alive as I did for those 4 hours. There is much
more to tell but I havn't got the speed to type it all. I just want to
leave all of you with the solution to what might've been a mystery,
knowing how every detail is important. In the Series of Dreams video,
which I think is one of the best ever done for Bob, the figure holding
the lizard that Bob looks at out the window of the train, after
Napoleon and Jack Kerouac have flowed by, is me. How I ended up in Bob
Dylan video is a whole other story, and will have to wait for another
late night connection.
Have fun with Bob.
Geoff Morrow
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Geozipper12
>> *names* with *identity*.
>
>...
>
>>
>> "a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet" & "a rose is a rose
>is a
>> rose".
>>
>> & man gave names to all the animals, remember?
>
>
>that names are deeply, inextricably confused with identity.
>
>
to some people (some confused people like you), yes, names are inextricably
confused w/identity - - which is probably why those quotations were created to
begin with - - to shed some light on the subject to benefit those poor souls
who keep confusing the sign w/the signified... or the finger pointing at the
moon, for the moon itself.
creating a *name* to *identify* something has everything to do w/control &
power & ownership & nothing to do with *identity*. what any thing, or any
person, or any animal, actually IS, cannot be subsumed by the *name* it's
given... (for example, why do we have ONE name for *snow* while Eskimos have 50
names for it?)
i am surprised that that subtle point has escaped someone who professes that
the nature of 20th century identity is a central problem for all mankind... the
more you argue yr side of the *problem* the more it validates for me that yr
book(s) of poetry would have little insight into it.
you haven't delved very deeply into it have you? you've only superficially
skimmed the surface, to create some poetic entertainment, right?
Geozipper12
>worthwhile art, I know that many people who enjoy poetry are still reading
>19th-century works like Robert Browning's "Andrea Del Sarto" and "Fra Lippo
>Lippi" -- monologues spoken by two real-life artists as imagined by the
>author.
i profess my ignorance here.
i assume the real life artists were Andrea Del Sarto (a name vaguely familiar)
& Fra Lippo Lippi ? let me ask you... do we have extant works of art by these
artists? were they known in their own time?
or did Browning bring them to our attention & we'd otherwise not know of them?
:-) T o n y Z
geozi...@my-deja.com
>
> > oh, but the dichotomy between experience & culture is not false.
>
> On this point we continue to disagree, totally.
so you totally disagree that we can screen out certain forms of
culture, by refusing to buy into them, or experiencing them? if that's
the case, then why have you chosen to participate in the Dylan culture?
Dylan is not high on the list in terms of mainstream American culture,
he's not on television every other day like some artists, as a matter
of fact, judging by the MTV & VH1 polls, he rates rather poorly, almost
as an afterthought... that's the culture of celebrity & image &
television. have you screened that out?
yr lack of a substantive reply just tells me that we do not really
*totally disagree*... that's just yr way of dodging the issue.
>
> >what an
> > enormous ego that would entail, what pretension, for after all, you
are
> > *pretending* to be *experiencing*
> > the 1940's & 50's Duluth, as if you, yrself, were there, right?
>
> Right. The same ego any novelist has, any writer of fiction, any
> artist who "pretends" to imagine any experience other than his or her
> own. Look -- if artists depended only on their "own" experience, the
> whole enterprise of fiction would collapse. The whole point of art --
> for both the artist and the audience -- is to imagine something that
> you have not yourself experienced.
>
> Stephen
>
that may be. but the success of that particular artwork is based upon
the credentials & ability of the artist to get inside his subject, see
thru his eyes, understand his motives, experience what he has
experienced, etc... you've claimed that Dylan was too much of a heavy
cultural icon to "inhabit". this speaks poorly toward yr achieving any
level of success w/this particular work. add in the other levels of
*problem of identity* (which is yr real critical undertaking here)& the
*mixing of genres*, then the work becomes so convoluted w/intentions &
purposes, that it would appear to not get very far off the ground.
if yr true purpose was to simply *imagine something that you yrself
have not experienced*, imagining what it was like for Dylan growing up
in Hibbing, etc... imagining what is was to BE Dylan, you would still
be using yr own experience of what life means, what the cultural &
social contexts mean, how they would impact on yr psyche, etc... no
matter WHAT we create, no matter WHAT we think we are doing, these are
all SELF PORTRAITS...
Lennon has said as much & i believe Dylan has admitted this, too.
:-) T o n y Z
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
spjo...@earthlink.net
familiar)
> & Fra Lippo Lippi ? let me ask you... do we have extant works of art by
these
> artists? were they known in their own time?
They have paintings in the Prado, Hermitage, National Gallery, Uffizi, etc.
I believe that Andrea Del Sarto was quite famous in his own time, while Fra
Filippo was less well-known but much more influential, especially on
Botticelli (Dylan content!).
---------------
> or did Browning bring them to our attention & we'd otherwise not know of
them?
We'd still know of them, through their work and because both artists appear
in Vasari's "Lives of the Painters," which has been read for centuries, and
which is where Browning got his inspiration for the poems.
Still, part of the point of "Andrea Del Sarto" is that the artist allowed
his art to fall short of the greatness that would have kept his name alive.
In any case, I brought up Browning's poems simply to suggest that the lives
of artists, famous or not, have served as the basis for "worthwhile" new
art.
geozi...@my-deja.com
right sometimes... i really had it nailed before, now i'll have to go
w/this version:
>
> Here is the crux of the difference between us. You seem to want to
put
> up some kind of holy, unbreachable wall between "poetry" and all other
> forms of discourse. I contend that it all flows together. I want to
> write poetic criticism, critical poetry; I want to mix the genres
> together; I want them all to talk to each other. I refuse to accept
> the distinction you make here.
>
oh i see. kinda like, not exactly *hard news*, & not exactly
*entertainment*, but something in between, like *info-tainment*.
i do not believe there is an unbreachable wall among various forms of
discourse. many artforms share common traits, & the forms of writing
share plenty more, as they are based on language & communication. what
i am saying is that certain forms of discourse DO CERTAIN THINGS BETTER
than others. poetry seems better at achieving a feeling of being
there, understanding the writer's mind-set of his surrounds, how he
feels & orders those surrounds into a meaningful whole in his psyche.
it puts us there, as does yr poetry, putting us into Duluth & Hibbing
in the 40's & 50's. there are other forms of discourse that are better
at analyzing, better for criticism - - they ususally employ logical
frameworks, the ability to synthesize new ideas from various fields,
discerning similarities, discovering common threads, etc...
i am guessing that yr attempt at mixing these genres, would do
disservice to both... weaken the *critical* aspect by couching it in
the form of poetry, weaken the *poetry* by incorporating analytical
criticism. if yr intention was to provide greater insight into the
concept of the *crisis in identity of 20th century man* i don't see how
yr mixing of genres helps... & it seems that you've taken this
intriguing concept of mixing genres, this *critical poetry* or *poetic
criticism* & created something instead on very simplistic & rudimentary
terms: poetry is the FORM the piece takes, while the *critical* aspect
is satisfied by using a *historical cultural figure*. it seems to be a
diluted & easy solution when you were reaching for something grander.
like *info-tainment* it may be entertaining & fun to read, but is that
ALL you wanted?
now i'll try & keep an open mind here. maybe yr poetry begins to do
some of that harder work, actually give us some insight into Dylan's
*identity* or *motives*. but judging from the examples that were
reprinted in the article, it just sounds like POETRY (doing well what
poetry does) but i don't see it as forging any great synthesis or
providing any real insight into this subject. it appears to be taking
the common knowledge minutae of his life & re-forming it into a
pleasant poetic read. i mean, where is the *critical* part of the
poetry? if it's there, at some point in the book, i am guessing that
is exactly where the *poetry*, that *special being-there language*,
slackens... but i haven't read the book, so maybe i am wrong. perhaps
there is some poetic way of pulling off analysis, critical thinking,
logic? i have some serious doubts...
> > what can poetry (almost by definition, a
> > human self-analysis, a human self-awareness put into words) bring
to this
> > *discourse* except something superficial, fantasized, imagined?
the entire
> > enterprise of using another artist's experience & life work, just
seems
> > intuitively wrong in the creation of yet another work of art - -
like it's
> > bound to take us further from the truth, rather than closer to it
>
> Sounds like you've been reading too much Plato. But if you think that
> poetry takes us further from the truth, then there's not much more I
> can say to persuade you.
>
oh no, i believe in the power of poetry. i can believe in poetry's
particular truth. it is the particular truth of the author. i can
believe in the particular truth of Dylan's words as poetry. i can even
believe in YOUR particular truth of Dylan's experience - - but
ultimately that truth is YOURS.
there is the truth of Dylan's experience (1st level) as he lived it,
only HE knows what that truth is. there is the truth of his poetry &
songs (2nd level)where he uses his experience & responds to his world.
then there is the truth (3rd level) where his life & work is studied,
interpreted, critiqued, imagined - - i think i am on pretty firm ground
here to contend that we are getting further from the particular truth
that Dylan lived, as we enter each new level.
i haven't read Plato. i prefer the philosophy of Charles Schultz &
even he was writing from his own experience.
> > what has been YOUR
> > experience? don't give it to us vicariously thru the life
experience of some
> > other artist, some other art, give it to us straight
>
> Well, I do occasionally. I've written "straight," personal,
> autobiographical poetry as well. I just don't think that's the *only*
> kind of poetry worth writing, or that I need to do it *all* the
time.
>
glad to hear it. tell me, which do you prefer? see, i have a theory
that artists do this sort of thing when they do not have any real
material to work from, nothing of any necessity to speak from, no
importance found in the common fabric of their lives, so it is a way of
forcing a PRODUCT for consumption, a way of producing something,
ANYTHING, with no regard as to whether this product has any real value
or necessity for being. kinda like speaking from the "self-ordained
professor's tongue" - - it is coming from some esoteric, distant &
foreign-to-the-soul false place - - who knows where it's coming from?
a mental exercise, an academic enterprise...
tell me, Stephen, where is this coming from?
:-) T o n y Z
geozi...@my-deja.com
Maureen & Stephen Scobie <msc...@coastnet.com> wrote:
> In article <20000101190054...@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Geozipper12
> <geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
> \
w/control &
> > power & ownership & nothing to do with *identity*.
>
> we call names "proper" -- because they're property.
>
yes, NAMES are PROPERTY... that's what i said, Stephen. "creating a
*name* has everything to do with *ownership*." re-read my statement.
re-read yours. you keep making the LEAP from *names* to *identity*. i
don't make that leap. i make the connection from *names* to
*ownership*.
"power & ownership have a great deal to do with identity." explain how
please... don't just regurgitate what i've said (cuz it doesn't prove
yr point).
case in point: Robert Zimmerman coins the name Bob Dylan for his
performance role as folkie. RZ now *owns* Bob Dylan... RZ feels he has
*control* over *Dylan's* destiny... RZ receives some personal
*empowerment* thru the use of the *name* Bob Dylan. RZ is Dylan's true
identity (which allows the Dylan myth to grow)...
in truth, Robert Zimmerman is just another name. the person who
belongs to the names Robert Zimmerman & Bob Dylan has in truth ONE
identity, one that belongs to neither *name*.
> > what any thing, or any
> > person, or any animal, actually IS, cannot be subsumed by the
*name* it's
> > given...
>
> Maybe not "subsumed," but they can't be separated either.
that comment makes no sense to me.
all the different languages on earth, each using different names for
common things - - are not these names *separate* from the *things* they
name? they must be: we INVENTED the NAMES ! next you'll be saying
these things don't exist until we name them ! (which is false)
>
> >(for example, why do we have ONE name for *snow* while Eskimos have
> > 50
> > names for it?)
>
> Actually, they don't. This is a great popular myth.
>
proof please.
geozi...@my-deja.com
>A rose by any other name is quite likely to be some other sort of
flower
> altogether.
>
> Joe
> --
> "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray."
> - Dylan
>
hey joe...
what's the French name for *rose*? what's the German name for it?
there's 3 names already for the same *rose*... shall i go on?
yr certainly not an IBM computer...
geozi...@my-deja.com
> <geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> i never thought of the nature of identity as being any sort of
central
> > >> problem
> > >
> > >Well, that's your problem, isn't it?
> > >
> >
> > no, that's the point. it's NOT a problem for me, Stephen
>
> But it should be. Because if you don't think about that problem, it's
> hard to think clearly about any others.
>
really? how did you come to this conclusion? have you thought about
other problems without first thinking of the identity *problem* &
compared that to thinking about other problems while first thinking
about the identity *problem* & then decided yr thinking about other
problems were somehow CLEARER once you've already thought about the
identity *problem* first?
have you done careful scientific methoding for this, or is it just yr
*personal preference* ?
for some reason this just doesn't ring true to me... in other words,
who are you to determine WHAT questions each person should concern
themselves with? are you god & we just don't know it (i have to ask
again...) ?
geozi...@my-deja.com
> <geozi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > i assume the real life artists were Andrea Del Sarto (a name
vaguely familiar)
> > & Fra Lippo Lippi ? let me ask you... do we have extant works of
art by these
> > artists? were they known in their own time?
>
>
> >
> > or did Browning bring them to our attention & we'd otherwise not
know of them?
>
>
> Stephen
well, it has something to do with how we *identify* these artists,
Stephen... you who've thought so much on the *problem of identity*.
you'd think you could explain the difference to me, right?
that's a clue...
now write a book of poetry on it. ooops, *critical poetry* i mean...
Geozipper12
>and philosophers of the 20th century. It's got nothing to do with any
>"insecurity" about our personal lives: it's just that it is a major and
>continuing question of intellectual life. It's certainly central to
>any consideration of the work of Bob Dylan.
>
how so?
why do you say that? what is this exactly, explain it to me, what is this
exact *problem* with *identity* ?
you keep claiming there is one, you keep saying over & over & over that it is
CENTRAL to all our lives, in fact, to everything, since that is the FIRST
question that should be asked, but you never say what this *problem* is...
gee, is there really a problem at all? or is this navel-gazing?
:-) T o n y Z
When you think that you've lost everything,
Wolfds
> I've always been convinced that people who
>grew up in some part of the UK, or Europe for that matter, find
>something totally different in Dylan's art, something excluded from
>anyone who listens through an North American perspective. I know how
>that sounds. Ridiculous.
I don't think it sounds ridiculous at all. And that was a great story that
followed. I look forward to reading the Series of Dreams explanation.
Dave
Joe Cliburn
geozipper the pinhead further displayed his far-reaching ignorance:
>
> what's the French name for *rose*? what's the German name for it?
> there's 3 names already for the same *rose*... shall i go on?
Well, I'm no cunning linguist, so I had to use the online translators. I checked
both the infamous Babelfish & Go.com with interesting results. The URLs are
below, if you care to check.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
http://translator.go.com/
To eliminate the translators from returning the past tense of "to rise", use the
phrase "the roses".
English --> French: "les roses"
English --> German: "die Roses" (Yes, I thought it would be "Rosen", too...)
English --> Spanish: "las rosas"
So, I checked for the genus (Latin) & got "Rosa". Close enough for the cigar,
IMO.
As I said, a rose by any other name is likely to be in another genus altogether.
You might try Chinese, Japanese, or Inuit, but I think that would be
over-reaching, don't you?
And you keep asking for ashtrays, can't you reach?
Geozipper12
>>
>> what's the French name for *rose*? what's the German name for it?
>>
>
>English --> German: "die Roses"
>
>
let's go back, Joe... originally you were suggesting that cuz a person may use
more than one *name* that then denotes *identity* problems, remember?
quote:
"Ummm... Are you trying to say that somebody who posts as "Tony Z folksinger" &
"Geozipper12" might not have an identity problem hissownself? Get a life!"
my answer was to suggest that *names* shouldn't be confused with *identity*. i
used *rose* cuz there were a few well-known phrases using *rose* that said as
much... "a rose by any other color would still smell as sweet"... etc.
for the word *rose* there are actually two names for it: *rose* & *rosa*. the
identity of both are the same. 2 names, like "geozipper12" & "Tony Z" for 1
identity.
but let's play this liguistic game:
at random, the word "chair" counts as 5 names:
silla in Spanish
chaise in French
stuhl in German
sedia in Italian
caleira in Portaguese
i thought that word might be too general so i picked a more specific one (like
*rose*) - - again at random, the word "oak" is
roble in Spanish
chene in French
eiche in German
quercia in Italian
carvalho in Portaguese
& for "pin" & "head" we have:
contacto & pista in Spanish
broche & tete in French
anschulbstift & kopf in German
perno & testa in Italian
pino & cabeca in Portaguese
all these *names* stand for the *same thing* - - the *identity* of the thing
doesn't change just cuz it adopts another name.
& the name you've adopted for me doesn't change my identity either, as much as
you'd like it to...
>
>And you keep asking for ashtrays, can't you reach?
>
>
>Joe
i don't find it an insult when someone throws Dylan lines at me, so keep 'em
coming, if you'd like.
:-) T o n y Z "el contacto-pista"
P.S. - i think the whole debate over *names* & *identity* is an important one,
since some people make alot outta Robert Zimmerman adopting the stage name Bob
Dylan - - my emphasis on it is this: it allowed RZ a certain freedom & power,
by using the *name* Dylan. at root tho, the *identity* of this individual (the
person he was to himself) was the same, has always been the same (yes, even
when he *accepted* Christ).
P.S.S. - "cunning linguist" - the AOL police didn't catch that one... very
cute, Joe. hey, maybe that's what i'll call you from now on - - it's about the
same thing anyway.
Geozipper12
>consideration to the work of any artist whose foundational gesture was
>the adoption of a false name.
foundational gesture.
many rock & pop artists of the period in which RZ adopted the Dylan name, were
also adopting false names for their stage persona. it was also a common
Hollywood trend for some years. i don't see Dylan as unique in this.
the situation didn't change much, until a really unique name (& obviously
Jewish one) for an entertainer came along in 1963 - - "Garfunkel" - - formerly
"Tom & Gerry", the execs at CBS didn't know what to call "Simon & Garfunkel" in
their new folk incarnation - - so they simply went ahead with the obvious
"Simon & Garfunkel". & they claimed it ushered in an entirely new way of
relating to performers - - as *real* people, very much an attitude of the 60's.
>The problem is that identity (I would contend) does not exist
>independent of discourse, and thus that it is constantly in process,
>and never fully knowable.
so you are ADMITTING that this *crisis* or *problem* in identity is merely yr
*contention*... the contention that identity is not fully knowable, for it is
constantly in flux, cuz it doesn't exist outside of *discourse*. (i'd like to
say, that once one strips away all the high-minded academic *lingo* in Scobie's
post, that this is bullshit - - i exist OUTSIDE of discourse, i existed before
ever posting here, or before any fellow RMDers even knew of my existence - - i
existed before adopting a stage name - - in fact, i existed BEFORE i was even
given a name by my parents - - so have we all).
second point:
> But a great deal of our western ideology
>assumes the idealist position that identity does somehow exist
>independent of, and prior to, our language and our knowing -- and many
>of our social, political, philosophical, moral, and religious values
>seem to be dependent on this position.
here, you are ADMITTING a second thing, that there actually is a basis for the
school of thought that i am coming from, namely, that *identity* does exist
prior to & independent of language, of knowing, of *naming*. well, i am in
good company i think, since by yr own admission many of our *social, political,
philosophical, moral & religious values* seem to be grounded on that position -
- or are you saying that all these values are inherently wrong? or (leap of
faith) that these values, even tho they are dependent on this fundamental
concept of identity, are still right, even tho the basic tenet is wrong: that
identity exists before naming it.
is that yr position?
is that REALLY yr position?
& many thought Dylan was a revolutionary & an anarchist !
Scobie would have us turn the fundamental principle of western civilization
upside down. why? so he can sell a few poetry books?
(alright maybe that last one was below the belt...)
but look how he couches his biased viewpoint within seemingly reasonable
thoughts & seemingly factual knowledge:
western ideology "assumes"... "idealist" position... identity "somehow" exists
prior to... as if western civilization is just going to roll over & die cuz he
wrote those words.
Scobie is the one assuming alot. Scobie is the one who feels that western
civilization needs to defend its ideology, its "assumptions", its "idealist"
positions, etc... one might think that Scobie should be the one to defend his
*contention* about identity, since it flies in the face of the very foundation
of western civilization itself, a civilization that brought Scobie here & all
the other academicians to do their high-minded & lofty work from the ivory
towers of *critical poetry*.
(ok, i got a lil carried away there, but you get the point...)
> The negotiation between these
>positions is therefore crucial to almost any serious thought.
>
maybe. entire civilization of western thought on one side, Scobie's
*contention* on the other... yeah, that's about even !
>And here I will step out of this debate. Have the last word if you
>want to. I will not contribute any further to this thread (though I am
>sure that the same issues will resurface in other forms as time goes
>on).
why? it was just getting fun !
i'd still like to know how you make that leap from name to property to identity
- - you haven't really told anyone yet. even yr reply to my post about names
really being about *power* & *ownership* etc... only reiterated what i was
saying: proper *names* as in *property*. it didn't hold up yr side of the
argument, nowhere does *proper name* bring us to identity.
our identities ARE independent of the names we use, or the names we are given,
or the names we are known by.
anyone who argues this must really be outta their minds or must so totally
removed from the fabric of their true selves that it is sad.
but don't worry, we're all gonna die anyway...
:-) T o n y Z folksinger "broche-tete"
Geozipper12
>> culture, by refusing to buy into them, or experiencing them?
>
>"screen out" a certain form of culture, then I must already have
>experienced it, at least to the extent that I know enough about it to
>know that I want to screen it out.
>
that's like saying you've gotten an invitation to a party, but didn't go, yet
still KNOW what happened at the party... since you've been to other parties
before.
that's just not so.
culture (the party - whether we screen it out or not) comes to us in many
forms. we're all invited. but we don't have to go. in other words, i am
arguing that yr position of culture somehow *magically* influencing everything
we do, think, experience, etc... is flawed.
>But that's really not the point of our disagreement. It seemed to me
>that you were setting up a dichtomy between "experience" (the people we
>meet, the things we do, the emotions we experience) and "culture" (the
>things we read, watch, listen to, think about, enjoy as aesthetic
>experiences) -- and all I was saying is that I don't recognise that
>split as an absolute dichotomy. It's all my life: the books I read,
>the job I get paid for, the people I love, the political causes I
>support, the music I listen to, the emotions I feel, the landscape I
>live in, the fictional realities I imagine, etc.
Stephen !! hello !!
YOU were the one that said there was a dichotomy - - but that you don't buy
into it. that yr personal experience & that yr cultural experience were ONE.
all i have ever been suggesting is that the *cultural* experience (as it
relates to CREATING yet another body of work about SOMEONE ELSE'S body of work)
is an inferior experience, for it is a lesser truth - - in this case it is
Dylan's (cultural icon) truth filtered thru yr personal experience of Dylan
culture, his life, his songs, the criticisms of them both - - yr imagining of
his life in Hibbing & Duluth are further removed & hence inferior to something
that you'd REALLY know about (yr own upbringing in whatever town you were
brought up in).
if Dylan's life is NOT further removed than something from yr own life (hence
inferior), than my commentary at the outset was correct: someone is living as
a stranger in his own life, perhaps, vicariously living thru Dylan's life. (?)
can you not agree that the *truth* you've imagined for us, is a few steps away
from reality? (you didn't grow up in Hibbing in the 40's... hence, that
particular *feeling-experiencing-emoting-thinking based* life & responding to
it, is foreign to yr senses - - you only *know it* thru *books*, right?)
there is no dichotomy in experiencing our life & experiencing culture in our
lives. i never said there was. i was simply saying that one is superior at
getting at the *truth* of experience... the other is a shadow. but
academicians prefer that kinda life i guess...
(hey, didn't Dylan say universities were like wharehouses or something? wasn't
his position, get out there & live?)
>>no
>> matter WHAT we create, no matter WHAT we think we are doing, these are
>> all SELF PORTRAITS...
>
>I agree. Whatever we write is at some level a self portrait. The self
>portrait is always detoured through the image of the other. That's
>precisely what Dylan himself did, on the album called "Self Portrait."
>So in fact, you're making my point here. You agree with me after all.
>
no, yr making MY point, Stephen: yr *poetic criticism* using Dylan as a
*cultural* icon for a vehicle in exploring the question of *identity* is...
REALLY all about **YOU**.
so you agree with me after all...
:-) T o n y Z "pino cabeca"
Steve Michel
> > >(for example, why do we have ONE name for *snow* while Eskimos have
> > > 50
> > > names for it?)
> >
> > Actually, they don't. This is a great popular myth.
> >
>
> proof please.
>
There's a great discussion of this in Stephen Pinker's "The Language
Instinct" from 1995, I believe. There's no snow that can be described in
an Eskimo language that can't be described in English, or any other
language.
My copy of Pinker's book is, alas, packed away, But here are a few
comments I found using http://www.google.com/:
Geoffrey K. Pullum, in _The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax_ (Chicago,
1991), pp. 168-171, reports the results of his consultation with Anthony
Woodbury, a bona fide expert on Yupik Eskimo, and provides the following
statement for use at cocktail parties:
"Let it be known that Professor Anthony Woodbury (Department of
Linguistics, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712) is prepared to
endorse the claim that the Central Alaskan Yupik Eskimo language has
about a dozen words (even a couple of dozen if you are fairly liberal
about what you count) for referring to snow and to related natural
phenomena, events, or behavior."
This is, he adds, "not remarkably different in size from the list in
English."
(From http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1239.html)
and:
It apparently started like this: Back in the early part of this century,
there was an anthropologist named Franz Boas. Among other things, Boas
made the claim that nonindustrial societies did not speak "primitive"
languages, but languages that were every bit as complex as those of
industrial societies. He once made a remark to the effect that Eskimos
had four unrelated root words for snow.
Now, Boas' claim about language is an important tenet of modern
linguistics, and one of his students, Edward Sapir, made important early
contributions to the field. One of Sapir's students was Benjamin Lee
Whorf (who was, by profession, a fire insurance inspector - his interest
in languages was a hobby). Whorf went on to publish what he called the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, claiming that a person's thoughts are shaped and
limited by his native language. The hypothesis in its strictest form has
long since been discredited (watered-down versions have been found to be
true, but unremarkable), but certain of the "facts" Whorf used to back
up his claim have obtained a life of their own. He took Boas' claim that
there were four unrelated root words, increased it to seven, and implied
that there might be more. In time, the claim has been increased to truly
impressive numbers.
Reality is much more boring. As mentioned above, Boas found four
unrelated roots. But the Eskimo languages are polysynthetic or
"agglutinative" languages, meaning that words are formed by combining
roots and affixes. Trying to nail down the number of "words" Eskimos
have for snow is impossible. Furthermore, it is hardly surprising that
Eskimos have four roots for snow - the ability to describe snow
conditions is pretty important to someone living in the Artic.
(from http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/eskimo_words_for_snow.html)
Though from reading other posts, I doubt that this will make any dent in
Geozipper12's bizarre contetions.
nate
>"Tom & Gerry", the execs at CBS didn't know what to call "Simon & Garfunkel"
>in their new folk incarnation - - so they simply went ahead with the obvious
>"Simon & Garfunkel". & they claimed it ushered in an entirely new way of
>relating to performers - - as *real* people, very much an attitude of the
>60's.
!!
you can bet that they were regretting that notion with
the arrival of Engelbert Humperdink
>..[]..this is bullshit - - i exist OUTSIDE of discourse, i existed before
>ever posting here, or before any fellow RMDers even knew of my existence - - i
>existed before adopting a stage name - - in fact, i existed BEFORE i was even
>given a name by my parents - - so have we all).
bullhockey. all of you, rmd & beyond are just a figment of my imagination.
soon, i will wake up & say to myself: "that was different!"
> it was just getting fun !
yeah...it was, started slow, built up, now it's ready to turn the corner...
only - WHAM - it's all over too fast.
>anyone who argues this must really be outta their minds or must so totally
>removed from the fabric of their true selves that it is sad.
hey - i resemble that remark 'cept for the word, "sad". make that
"exhilirating" or "uncannily dead-on"....
>but don't worry, we're all gonna die anyway...
>:-) T o n y Z folksinger "broche-tete"
;-)
- nate
"Praise be to our hero's hep tunes
They paint such a fantastic scene!
Everyone is shouting:
WHAT DOES THIS ONE MEAN?
and Tony Z & Stephen Scobie
fighting in the Ivory Towers
while usenet spammers laugh at them
and librarians suggest wearing flowers
between the windows on our screen
of lovely concert reviews
and nobody has to think too much
on rec.music.dylan news."
luxe...@twp.com
Tumulty
T.
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
> a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
People frequently quote this line as if it was a direct expression of
Shakespeare's opinion, and obviously true. But it isn't. It's a
statement made by a fictional character (Juliet) in a fictional
position (she is desperately trying to convince herself that names
don't matter). The whole progress of the story proves that she is
wrong: she and Romeo are trapped by their names, and eventually die
because of the power of names. Shakespeare uses the line to
characterise her as young, innocent, and fatally naive.
Stephen
Lloyd Fonvielle
I think this is unfair to Juliet and Shakespeare. Names matter in the
sick society that destroys Romeo and Juliet, but Shakespeare has little
sympathy for this society, and much sympathy for Juliet, who sees
through its sickness and commits herself to something better -- even
though she dies for it. Juliet is not naive -- she's brave . . . and
she's right. She's one of the most heroic characters in all of
literature, and one of the only truly good characters in all of
Shakespeare. And her virtue is not mindless -- its fully self-aware and
fully aware of the ironies of her situation. It's fatal only because
the world around her is so vicious and petty.
luxe...@twp.com
>
> In article <38766C...@twp.com>, <luxe...@twp.com> wrote:
>
> > a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
>
> People frequently quote this line as if it was a direct expression of
> Shakespeare's opinion, and obviously true. But it isn't. It's a
> statement made by a fictional character (Juliet) in a fictional
> position (she is desperately trying to convince herself that names
> don't matter). The whole progress of the story proves that she is
> wrong: she and Romeo are trapped by their names, and eventually die
> because of the power of names. Shakespeare uses the line to
> characterise her as young, innocent, and fatally naive.
>
First of all, it is just a statement. I didn't say that Shakespeare
belived it, I said _I_ did. Even if Shakespeare was being completely
sarcarstic, I could still say what he did in all seriousness.
Second, Juliet was speaking of her love for Romeo. Juliet loved Romeo
even before she knew he was a Montague. Before she knew his name. And
she said she would still love him even if he was called by another name.
The story, therefore does NOT prove her wrong. She loves him to the end,
when she COMMITS SUICIDE because he is dead. She know when she says this
that they are trapped by their names. That's WHY she said it! SHe was
wishing that they weren't. That's why she says that if Romeo was of
another name, everything would be okay.
P.S. I didn't write this in response to this post... I don't quite know
why it ended up here!
geozi...@my-deja.com
> Names matter in the
> sick society...
BRAVO ! & they matter to individuals w/similarly sick minds...
> Shakespeare has little
> sympathy for this society...
nor do i, nor do i have any support or sympathy for those that
propagate the notion that names do matter. a person's identity is
always more than his or her name. & a person's ultimate destiny is not
defined or constricted by the parameters of his or her name.
> and much sympathy for Juliet, who sees
> through its sickness and commits herself to something better -- even
> though she dies for it. Juliet is not naive -- she's brave . . . and
> she's right.
& by extension, anyone who believes as she does, is also committed to
something better, is also brave & is also *right*.
> She's one of the most heroic characters in all of
> literature, and one of the only truly good characters in all of
> Shakespeare. And her virtue is not mindless -- its fully self-aware
and
> fully aware of the ironies of her situation.
& once again, by extension, anyone who stands up to be counted among
those of the Juliet school, anyone who dares to question these so-
called authorities on *identity*, on *Dylan*, on *poetry*, on *names*,
on *culture* & *individual experience*, is also heroic, not mindless &
fully self-aware.
> It's fatal only because
> the world around her is so vicious and petty.
hmmm, like alot of academicians these days.
:-) the Pin Head
geozi...@my-deja.com
Maureen & Stephen Scobie <msc...@coastnet.com> wrote:
> In article <38766C...@twp.com>, <luxe...@twp.com> wrote:
>
> > a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
>
> People frequently quote this line as if it was a direct expression of
> Shakespeare's opinion, and obviously true. But it isn't.
>
i just did an experiment.
i plucked a flower that we call *rose* & smelled it. i did this twice:
in the first instance, i said, "hey lil rose, Stephen Scobie says it is
obviously untrue that you will smell as sweet unless i call you *rose*."
i smelled it & my experience was of a fragrant rose, moist & pleasant.
the second time, i said "hey, lil piece of shit, i will now smell you &
see if you smell differently cuz i called you by another *name*."
i smelled it again & strangely it did not smell as a *lil piece of
shit*, no, rather it still smelled as sweet as the fragrant rose of the
moment before.
conclusion: names do not change the characteristics of a thing. names
function independently of a thing's identity.
you would have thought an academician would've tried this experiment,
before bringing down his gauntlet of truth.
:-) lil ol' piece of Pin Head
geozi...@my-deja.com
>
> you would have thought that academicians would have tried this
>experiment before bringing down their gauntlet of truth.
>
oops, i forgot: academicians do not live within the fabric of their
day to day experience... they live inside their own heads, inside their
books, inside language, inside their rationalizations of linguistics &
philosophy.
here's another experiment: how do you think? do you think in words?
or do you think images? most artists think in images inside their
heads. images connected to real life experience. most ordinary people
think in words...
2nd point: Dylan is noted for his words, for his poetry, for his
insight. but the nature of his words are *imagistic* - - they use a
panoply of imagery to make us feel something, not necessarilly *think*
something.
:-) T o n y Z
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<navi...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> I think this is unfair to Juliet and Shakespeare. Names matter in the
> sick society that destroys Romeo and Juliet, but Shakespeare has little
> sympathy for this society, and much sympathy for Juliet, who sees
> through its sickness and commits herself to something better -- even
> though she dies for it. Juliet is not naive -- she's brave . . . and
> she's right. She's one of the most heroic characters in all of
> literature, and one of the only truly good characters in all of
> Shakespeare. And her virtue is not mindless -- its fully self-aware and
> fully aware of the ironies of her situation. It's fatal only because
> the world around her is so vicious and petty.
This is a good, strong response, and one I can respect. I'd still want
to argue that Juliet is wrong, but I'm pleased to consider a more
positive spin!
Stephen
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
wrote:
> i just did an experiment.
It was, of course, the wrong experiment. The right one is this:
You smell a rose, and express your reactions to the smell.
Then you find someone from another society, who has never smelt a rose
before, who doesn't know the word "rose," who hasn't been exposed to
several hundred years of European cultural discourse on roses, and you
get him or her to smell a rose and express their reactions.
Then you compare.
Stephen
Lloyd Fonvielle
My own feelings about the play, and Juliet, have changed over the years.
Like most Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet" just gets deeper the more time you
spend with it, and expands beyond all obvious interpretation. For me,
Juliet's moral and spiritual grandeur has continued to grow the more often I
have revisited the work. The problem with many productions is that Juliet is
often played by older women who emphasize Juliet's giddiness and innocence as
a way of seeming younger. But the best recent readings by very young
actresses -- Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale, for example -- are more
willing to do justice to her extreme intelligence and self-awareness, which
are certainly there in the text.
Maureen & Stephen Scobie
<navi...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> My own feelings about the play, and Juliet, have changed over the years.
> Like most Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet" just gets deeper the more time you
> spend with it, and expands beyond all obvious interpretation.
We're getting rather far from Dylan here, so perhaps it's time to draw
this thread to its close. For anyone who would be interested in
following up a really detailed commentary on the whole "What's in a
name?" scene in "Romeo and Juliet," allow me to recommend the most
subtle and penetrating analysis I know: "Aphorism Countertime," by
Jacques Derrida, included in his collection "Acts of Literature,"
edited by Derek Attridge, Routledge 1992, pages 414-434. A
twenty-page tour-de-force interpretation of the function of names in
this scene.
Stephen
geozi...@my-deja.com
Maureen & Stephen Scobie <msc...@coastnet.com> wrote:
>
> We're getting rather far from Dylan here, so perhaps it's time to draw
> this thread to its close.
>
not so fast.
i tried two days ago to post two lengthy replies to one of yr last
posts, but deja.com doesn't allow you to use the copy/paste function
button & plop it into their response screen. since i am not about to
write it all out again, i am starting a new thread that specifically
deals w/the last analysis/experiment of "a rose by any other name"...
the only way i know how to post this is to go thru the internet
newsgroups icon - - since RMD doesn't allow you to find a thread you've
already read (i forgot to mark it 'unread')i will have to start a new
one... RMD does allow you to use the copy & paste function, tho.
see you there Stephen
Mike Stillman
: >the situation didn't change much, until a really unique name (& obviously
: >Jewish one) for an entertainer came along in 1963 - - "Garfunkel" - formerly
: >"Tom & Gerry", the execs at CBS didn't know what to call "Simon & Garfunkel"
: >in their new folk incarnation - - so they simply went ahead with the obvious
: >"Simon & Garfunkel". & they claimed it ushered in an entirely new way of
: >relating to performers - - as *real* people, very much an attitude of the
: >60's.
: !!
: you can bet that they were regretting that notion with
: the arrival of Engelbert Humperdink
Believe it or not: Engelbert Humperdinck was actually a stage name, taken
from a 19th Century German composer of the same name.
geozi...@my-deja.com
structuralists can tell you, idenity is a concept idea that exists in
language.... the authorial I can never be known .. we can never get
beyond beneath language to the identity that preceded the image in the
mirror .. get over it guys00010317261...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,