Rules of evidence (was BucKeT o' Stuff) (long, rabid)

[Jorn Barger <barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>]

I don't think I'm really as ticked off as I'm gonna try to sound in this,
but in <9009290549.AA12384@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R
Caldwell, Ii) writes:

>It is possible for someone to have harebrained ideas and still be a
>nice person and create good music - unlikely, but possible.

This opens quite a can o' worms but if you look at the history of any art,
I'd venture to say _most_ great artists have been prone to harebrained
ideas.  Why this is so might be an interesting thread, if only marginally
gaffa-worthy.

>> 2-- Kate definitely was into Gurdjieff, and there's no onus there-- G. was 
>> an original, advanced, insightful thinker about the human condition.  
>
>Definately?  I guess that depends on just what you mean by "into".  In
>a KBC newsletter from ages ago they asked Kate about Gurdjieff.
>
>|     In _Them_Heavy_People_ you mention Gurdjieff. Do you follow his
>|  teachings?
>|
>|     "I've read some of his work, and recently saw the film _Meetings_
>|  With_Remarkable_Men_, and had tea with Peter Brook, the director,
>|  afterwards. Pa and my brother John are into him seriously, and
>|  I'm hoping to persuade John to write an article about him for a
>|  future _Newsletter_." 
>
>So if you consider having read some of his work, seeing a film about
>him and retaining a few of his ideas as being "into" Gurdjieff I'd
>agree.  She doesn't say, and there's no real evidence to suggest that
>she's "into him seriously".

The point here is that it's disrespectful to KT to make claims one way or
the other without having evidence to back them up.  I wouldn't try to claim
she's "into him seriously", but I think it's insupportable to claim:

> >       KATE IS        NOT      INTO GURDJIEFF  !!!!!!!!!!

>> Aside from the reference in Them Heavy People, there are subtler 
>> references in Full House ("Remember yourself" was G's central teaching), 
>> in Breathing ("All and everywhere" must reflect G's "All and Everything" 
>> series), and I think in Strange Phenomena ("G. arrives, funny had a 
>> feeling he was on his way" is too similar to the style of Ouspenski's "In 
>> Search of the Miraculous" to be coincidental, to my ear...)

>So what?  Even if these are references to some of Gurdjieff's ideas it
>doesn't mean much.  These are the sort of ideas that can be picked up
>in casual reading or everyday conversation with her father and
>brother.  There's a big difference between following the teachings of
>a philosophy and picking up a few of it's more light weight ideas.
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
@$%$%#^%$!!!!! This really stinks of condescension, to G and to KT.  Why do
you feel driven to minimize the connection?  Why???
And when did "following the teachings" come into it?  First you jump from
"into" to "heavily into", and now to "following the teachings"?  I just
want to be clear, respectful of Kate, respectful of the truth!!!

>> Homeopathy and Gudjieff belong elsewhere, but if you have quotes to back 
>> up your claims, they belong here, along with counterevidence about KT's 
>> beliefs.

>Before anyone worries about any sort of counterevidence you need to
>make your statement a bit less nebulous and provide some evidence 
>yourself.  The fact that Kate mentions something in a song doesn't
>particularly have any bearing on her personally.

Vickie says "Kate is not into Gurdjieff" without any citations and you make
warm fuzzy jokes; I say she obviously is and cite several song-quotes, and
you back them up yourself with a newsletter quote, and then you accuse _me_
of making nebulous claims?  Gimme a break!!!

And if you're suggesting that her references to G. are a way of evoking a
fictional character who's into G, I think that's insupportable.  Would you
really try to claim that "Strange Phenomena" is not a reflection of KT's
personal fascination with the 'occult'?

>We Kate fans want so desperately to have some feeling of synergy with 
>Kate that we tend to grasp at even the slightest evidence that she might
>be 'into' some of the same things as we are.

That "we" is pretty patronizing, I feel, considering you haven't the least
notion of what I'm into.  Just because I speak respectfully of his insights
doesn't mean that he's particularly high up on my list.  (If you have to
tar me with that brush, you'd do better with her references to Joyce and
A.I.)

>In the New Musical Express interview Kate says:

>|       "A lot of people will think these songs are about me.
>|  I've always had that. And like, with _Deeper_Understanding_,
>|  people react immediately, saying, "Is this autobiographical?
>|  So you're into computers now? So you spend all night on
>|  computers?' People immediately switch on to the mechanicalness:
>|  It's a song about computers, so she must be into computers!"

>Come on folks, switch off the mechanicalness!

Curiously, this is another Gurdjieff reference on KT's part: G's teachings
were full of descriptions of human behavior as mechanical-- that was the
reason you have to "Remember yourself"!!!