RUDIMENTS, pt. 1,129
(moving the concepts along)
'High Time For the Hecklemeyers'
was going to be a film I was to
make. A few of us had gotten
together, but we had no money.
Nothing much came of it - it
was real simple, film-camera,
moving-pictures, as it was then
called. I showed about 15 minutes
of what I had made, one time, to
my father-in-law. He laughed and
said, 'You're the only person I know
who takes moving pictures of things
that don't move.' He meant rocks,
and buildings. The comment was
sort of on-point - and I had taken
those things - but to hear it said
in isolation like that was new. So
I showed him some footage of water
I had taken as well - a running
stream, over rocks and such -
and I asked what he thought of
that, and if it was still or moving.
He had to think, but then went on
to other matters. The question
still wrankles. You see, all that
we take on is 'concept,' not actual
reality. What he was getting at,
unwittingly, was concept, totally.
His opposition, or observation
enough to comment anyway, was
conceptual. Glacial rocks of the
Watchungs, in central Jersey, could
be said to be unmoving; but, in
fact, and to belie ALL, everything
is moving. That's part of 'concept'
to, we just don't notice it because
we are all in consort, together, as
one, falling through what we call
(ungloriously) 'space' (which in
itself is another concept). The fact
that we - and the glacial and
bedrockian boulders, are falling
together, in union, as it were, makes
us see nothing of that movement at
all, nor does the 'parade' of man-made
time allows us to observe or notice,
on a glacial time-scale, the enormous
geological forces by which things
are always undergoing decay, change,
and/or movement. It's a real sucker's
deal, but we get way too proud over
it. From the beginning or our days,
we ourselves begin decaying. We
move through corridors of Time,
as WE create it; and we insist then
on ONLY seeing that, or through
that lens.
-
I went all through local grade schools
with only the barest essentials of the
'acceptable' knowledge of that day
being imparted. Most of the teachers
were bumblers, more happy to just
smile and laugh willingly along.
By the time I was wandering the
streets of NYC, my mind was
busy 'cancelling' so much of that
I had been told, by that simple
process of experiencing, instead,
the very sobering reality around
me, BUT, those New Yorkers
around me had little awareness
of the differences I was seeing.
So, my idea of the 'High Time For
the Hecklemeyers' was supposed
to somehow enclose all this in
an hour and a half or so of some
oddball sort of filmic expose. I
realized that, if one uses a sliding
scale of things, the start-point, or
the number ONE is different for
each person - which then becomes
the movie-screen of their own lives,
and which IS reportable. My
reported experiences in NYC,
which had begun from my own,
stupid, ONE, was already 35 for
the average New Yorker, whose
life-view and experience already
contained the early numbers which
had so startled me - filth, crime,
food, muck, police, boats, bridges,
water, traffic, prostitutes, mobsters,
fights, rumbles, and 'turf.'
-
So, you can see how stuck I was.
NYU back then, right down the
street at the Park, was in turmoil,
as was most every other 'organized'
place. Girls were serving up their
virginity on platters. Boys were
flopping around trying to see what
they really wanted to be, and if any
of that girl stuff really interested
them. (It's still done today; called
gender-identification, or gender-search,
and the limits of sexual experiment
have become vastly different. No, it's
not vas deferens. I said Vastly Different.
Now, I suppose, they make films about
that stuff, more than films about
the Hecklemeyers' stuff). I had to flip
everything upside down to see what
it looked like that way, in the same
way, oddly, that our own eyes take
in information upside down, and
flip it. What sort of world is all
this, really?
-
Part of what I'm saying is that the
experience level of most people is
appalling, myself included, And, in
line with that, the more they bellow
and rant about it, or about something,
the less they know. It's all, using the
eye reference again, a myopia of
self and intent. Almost Copernican,
in the way it reverts back to the
universe revolving around the.
You may recall what happened
the last time such presumptions
were prevalent (see for starters,
the Catholic Church, concepts of
'God,' and any premised privileged
priorities of Earth-bound creatures).
-
I have a non-movie friend around
here somewhere who insists on
referring, for example, to Jan. 6,
2021, in Washington DC, as a
putsch. Boy' I'd like to film that
scenario! The bullshit meters
would be flying. The concepts
embedded in all of this are
staggering. First off, like reverence
for the church or whatever, any
reference for the Capitol Building
itself as 'sacred space,' which I've
also heard, is patently ridiculous
and bespeaks conceptual assumptions
that are untenable. Assuming that
structure of 'reverence,' already
tilts the argument widely in favor
of the concept being used. Anyone
who assumes the Capitol as sacred -
in spite of all its graft, corruption,
payoffs, deals, slime and hidden sex,
will - of course - find the 'actions'
of that day reprehensible, (by the way,
I do not. I view it as a needed shock
treatment, for starters), and therefore
is beginning with a sealed platform
for argument before they even get
started. Once again, like beginning
at #35, instead of #1. Taking that
to its limit, calling it a putsch is so
wildly off-base that it shows ignorance.
More than that, it shows goading.
A means of goading a very poor
argument into territory so more-wildly
off-base as to allow for exaggerations,
false-claims, and scare-mongering.
It's the same false territory as the
Hecklemeyer's film may have turned
out to be - moving pictures of things
that do not move.
No comments:
Post a Comment