WALKER PERCY WEDNESDAY 55

percycovercroppea

Since that time I have learned that a reading over 6 generally means that a person has so abstracted himself from himself and from the world around him, seeing things as theories and himself as a shadow, that he cannot, so to speak, reenter the lovely ordinary world. Instead he orbits the earth and himself. Such a person, and there are millions, is destined to haunt the human condition like the Flying Dutchman.

. . .

If you measure the pineal activity of a monkey—or any other subhuman animal—with my lapsometer, you will invariably record identical readings at Layers I and II. Its self, that is to say, coincides with itself. Only in man do you find a discrepancy: Layer I, the outer social self, ticking over, say, at a sprightly 5.4 mmv, while Layer II just lies there, barely alive at 0.7 mmv, or even zero!—a nought, a gap, an aching wound. Only in man does the self miss itself, fall from itself (hence lapsometer!) Suppose—! Suppose I could hit on the right dosage and weld the broken self whole! What if man could reenter paradise, so to speak, and live there both as man and spirit, whole and intact man-spirit, as solid flesh as a speckled trout, a dappled thing, yet aware of itself as a self!

. . .

“I mean like this morning I looked at myself in the mirror and I said, Charley, who in the hell are you? What does it all mean? It was strange, Doc. What does it all mean, is the thing.”
“What does what all mean?”

. . .

I nodded, taking hope. He could be right.

A note for physicians: if you listen carefully to what patients say, they will often tell you not only what is wrong with them but also what is wrong with you.

 

Kafka’s Metamorphosis Turns 100

Micah White in Biography.

Kafka used this grotesque scenario as a springboard to explore the confusion and turmoil he experienced as a human living in an uncontrollable modern world. As our world is just as disorderly and unruly as Kafka’s, if not more so, we would be wise to keep The Metamorphosis in mind and to take its implications to heart.

Consciousness and the Extended Mind

The Prefrontal Cortex

The 5th edition of Joaquin Fuster’s classic is now available. Coming soon: a close-grained review by Valerie Hardcastle of Joaquin’s latest The Neuroscience of Freedom and Creativity to appear in The Journal of Mind and Behavior.

MARKOS VAMVAKARIS: THE MAN AND THE BOUZOUKI

My chum Noonie Minogue is the translator of this autobiography (sounds like my kinda guy), heretofore unavailable in English — click on the graphic for Amazon details and check out this Guardian article:

The bouzouki is what the hardened criminals laid hold of, killers with life sentences, the guys on death row… it’s a sacred thing. They didn’t want it to spread. But it did spread — Markos Vamvakaris

The confessions of a man on the fringes of society, who was to alter the music of a nation. A brilliant translation — Markos Dragoumis, Folk Music Archives, Athens

In Piraeus during the 1930s and 40s, dockworkers, tradesmen, thieves, and ex-cons sat together in shacks or mountain caves smoking the arghile and playing stringed instruments. They wrote songs in profusion, about their tough, anarchic lives, their loves, their sacred rituals, and the beloved haunts of a now vanished city. They sang and played Rebetiko. Markos Vamvakaris is the undisputed Patriarch of Rebetiko. Out of the lowlife of the port, the brothels and hashish dens, the man and the bouzouki trod an unlikely path from disgrace to glory. The autobiography was compiled in 1972 by Angeliki Vellou Keil from dictated material and recorded interviews with Markos in the last years of his life. The English translation is by Noonie Minogue. This timely and ground-breaking translation vividly conveys the speaking voice of a Rebetiko legend.

71hdPK-rw2L

WALKER PERCY WEDNESDAY 54

percycovercroppea

Colley, I will admit, has not gone along with my idea of measuring and treating the deep perturbations of the soul. Unfortunately, there still persists in the medical profession the quaint superstition that only that which is visible is real. Thus the soul is not real. Uncaused terror cannot exist. Then, friend, how come you are shaking?

No matter, though. Later I was made a professor and didn’t need Colley’s help.

I have called my machine More’s Qualitative Quantitative Ontological Lapsometer.

. . .

Allow me to cite, in simplified terms, a couple of my early case histories.

Patient #1

One hot summer afternoon as I sat at my father’s old coroner’s desk by the open back door sipping Early Times, watching the flight patterns of the martins, and pondering the singularity of being forty-four years old, my nurse, whom I mainly employ to keep patients away, brought in a patient.

Nothing changes in a man, I was thinking. I felt exactly as I felt when I was ten years old. Only accidentals change. Hair begins to sprout from your ears, your toes rotate, showing more skin.

My nurse first put away the bottle. She is a beautiful though dour Georgia Presbyterian of the strict observance named Ellen Oglethorpe. Her eyes, blue as Lake Geneva, glittered in triumph as she stowed the Early Times and closed the door behind the patient. For she had, to her way of thinking, killed two birds with one stone. She was striking a blow at my drinking and at the same time delivering one of the “better sort” of patients, the sort who have money. She approves of money on religious grounds.

 

 

Brian May on Rory Gallagher

Brian May nails it — the man and the musician. Both men of taste and decency. (A postscript: May mentions Donal, Rory’s brother who talks here about Rory:

We went down to see Muddy and his band playing in a New York club called Ungano’s. The gig was very badly attended by the public, but it was the million dollar audience with Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, Steve Marriott, Buddy Miles and Hendrix all sitting there.

At the end of Muddy’s set, it inevitably turned into a jam session and Muddy called Rory to the stage, but before he got there, Steve Marriott went up and took the guitar! In typical fashion, Rory just shied away and backed off.

The Exterminating Angel

In life, as in film, I’ve always been fascinated by repetition.

I have yet to come across a decent review of this one of the most powerful of all films made (this despite its flaws). Even Roger Ebert seems to skirt things. If one substitutes the “bourgeois cosmopolitans” with the ruling class of sophisticates that run universities (administrators and academics) or the political class of across the ideological spectrum, the film takes on an even more disturbing and salient resonance. As Ebert puts it: “They’re trapped in their own bourgeois cul-de-sac. Increasingly resentful at being shut off from the world outside, they grow mean and restless; their worst tendencies are revealed.”

Here is an extract from Bunuel’s elegant autobiography My Last Breath (with his recipe for a martini) on The Exterminating Angel followed by the great Silvia Pinal talking about it:

The Exterminating Angel was made in Mexico, although I regret that I was unable to shoot it in Paris or London with European actors and adequate costumes. Despite the beauty of the house where it was shot and my effort to select actors who didn’t look particularly Mexican, there was a certain tawdriness in many of its aspects. We couldn’t get any really fine table napkins, for instance, and the only one I could show on camera was borrowed from the makeup artist. The screenplay, however, was entirely original. It’s the story of a group of friends who have dinner together after seeing a play, but when they go into the living room after dinner, they find that for some inexplicable reason they can’t leave. In its early stages, the working title was The Castaways of Providence Street, but then I remembered a magnificent title that Jose Bergamin had mentioned when he’d talked to me in Madrid the previous year about a play he wanted to write. “If I saw The Exterminating Angel on a marquee,” I told him, “I’d go in and see it on the spot.” When I wrote him from Mexico asking for news of his play, he From Spain to Mexico to France (1960-1977) replied that he hadn’t written it yet, and that in any case the title wasn’t his. It came, he said, from the Apocalypse, and was therefore in the public domain. There are many things in the film taken directly from life. I went to a large dinner party in New York where the hostess had decided to amuse her guests by staging various surprises: for example, a waiter who stretched out to take a nap on the carpet in the middle of dinner while he was carrying a tray of food. (In the film, of course, the guests don’t find his antics quite so amusing.) She also brought in a bear and two sheep scene in the movie that prompted several critics to symbolic excesses, including the bear as Bolshevism waiting to ambush capitalistic society, which had been paralyzed by its contradictions. In life, as in film, I’ve always been fascinated by repetition. Why certain things tend to repeat themselves over and over again I have no idea, but the phenomenon intrigues me enormously. There are at least a dozen repetitions in The Exterminating Angel. Two men introduce themselves and shake hands, saying, “Delighted!” They meet again a moment later and repeat the routine as if they’d never seen each other before. The third time, they greet each other with great enthusiasm, like two old friends. Another repetition occurs when the guests enter the hall and the host calls his butler twice; in fact, it’s the exact same scene, but shot from different angles. “Luis,” my chief cameraman said to me while the film was being cut, “there’s something very wrong here.” “What?” I asked. “The scene where they enter the house is in there twice!” (Since he was the one who filmed both sequences, I still wonder how he could possibly have thought that such a colossal “error” had escaped both me and the editor.) The Extermimting Angel is one of the rare films I’ve sat through more than once, and each time I regret its weaknesses, not to mention the very short time we had to work on it. Basically, I simply see a group of people who couldn’t do what they wanted to-leave a room. That kind of dilemma, the impossibility of satisfying a simple desire, often not to mention the very short time we had to work on it. Basically, I simply see a group of people who couldn’t do what they wanted to-leave a room. That kind of dilemma, the impossibility of satisfying a simple desire, often occurs in my movies. In L’Age d’or, for example, two people want to get together but can’t, and in That Obscure Object of Desire there’s an aging man who can’t satisfy his sexual desire. Similarly, Archibaldo de la Cruz tries in vain to commit suicide, while the characters in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie try very hard to eat dinner together, but never can manage to do it.