That’s it! That video is our sky.
And what do you suppose the ocean floor looks like under that flow?
Aquarius Moon today, inching closer to that BIG New Moon meet up in Aries!
Sorry I’ve been MIA!!!
Spring sprung all over me, and I’ve been scrambling to catch up!
Not all of them good.
However, information activates us, as the kool kidz can’t stop saying ~ woke. ~
Empowered to take on the responsibility of shaping your own way, as Sweet Honey in the Rock said once upon a time, That’s Good News!
Yesterdays Cardinal T-square with the Moon in Capricorn asked that you respond to new evidence, how will it shape your steps?
Control yourself and make a plan, realizing you don’t yet have every piece of the puzzle?
Annie Dillard sez:
~ The interior life is often stupid. Its egoism blinds it and deafens it; its imagination spins out ignorant tales, fascinated. It fancies that the western wind blows on the Self, and leaves fall at the feet of the Self for a reason, and people are watching. A mind risks real ignorance for the sometimes paltry prize of an imagination enriched. The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world – if only from time to time. ~
Ok. Fair enough and true enough, to warrant reflection, BUT, how do you reconcile this with the idea of the living universe? A universe where when the wind blows over leaves it can only, unquestionably, be there for you, though not you only, as you are there to feel it? If you were not there, it would blow on, without you, for whomever/whatever was there, and you would be involved, encompassed in something else; something offered up to you with no resistance, the slick feel of your keyboard as you type, the chickadee who takes a moment to sing close to your window, close where you can hear. Or more broadly, there is nothing from which we can experience separation, it is only a matter of degrees. We cannot feel a single cell dying inside us, or another one being born, but could we, in any way, be said to be separate from the process?
Read this, it’s a letter by Martin Scorsese written after the death of Federico Fellini
19 Nov 1993
To the Editor:
“Excuse Me; I Must Have Missed Part of the Movie” (The Week in Review, 7 November) cites Federico Fellini as an example of a filmmaker whose style gets in the way of his storytelling and whose films, as a result, are not easily accessible to audiences. Broadening that argument, it includes other artists: Ingmar Bergman, James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, Bernardo Bertolucci, John Cage, Alain Resnais and Andy Warhol.
It’s not the opinion I find distressing, but the underlying attitude toward artistic expression that is different, difficult or demanding. Was it necessary to publish this article only a few days after Fellini’s death? I feel it’s a dangerous attitude, limiting, intolerant. If this is the attitude toward Fellini, one of the old masters, and the most accessible at that, imagine what chance new foreign films and filmmakers have in this country.
It reminds me of a beer commercial that ran a while back. The commercial opened with a black and white parody of a foreign film—obviously a combination of Fellini and Bergman. Two young men are watching it, puzzled, in a video store, while a female companion seems more interested. A title comes up: “Why do foreign films have to be so foreign?” The solution is to ignore the foreign film and rent an action-adventure tape, filled with explosions, much to the chagrin of the woman.
It seems the commercial equates “negative” associations between women and foreign films: weakness, complexity, tedium. I like action-adventure films too. I also like movies that tell a story, but is the American way the only way of telling stories?
The issue here is not “film theory,” but cultural diversity and openness. Diversity guarantees our cultural survival. When the world is fragmenting into groups of intolerance, ignorance and hatred, film is a powerful tool to knowledge and understanding. To our shame, your article was cited at length by the European press.
The attitude that I’ve been describing celebrates ignorance. It also unfortunately confirms the worst fears of European filmmakers.
Is this closed-mindedness something we want to pass along to future generations?
If you accept the answer in the commercial, why not take it to its natural progression:
Why don’t they make movies like ours?
Why don’t they tell stories as we do?
Why don’t they dress as we do?
Why don’t they eat as we do?
Why don’t they talk as we do?
Why don’t they think as we do?
Why don’t they worship as we do?
Why don’t they look like us?
Ultimately, who will decide who “we” are?