Jorn's Rabies Shots

[nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii)]

> 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:

I'm not sure that I understand the purpose or value of trying to sound
more ticked off than you are.  

> >|     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  !!!!!!!!!!

I think by now you have seen that Vickie had ample support for that
statement.  The problem we are having here is complicated by semantics. 
Just what does being "into" something mean?  People have different ideas 
of how deeply one must involved in something to be considered "into" it.
My intention with the quote above was to say that you might consider
having read a bit of his work and seen a movie about him to be "into"
him, but I don't, and don't think many other people would, either.

> >> 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???

Because everything that I have read and heard from Kate herself has
indicated that the connection _is_ minimal.  The statement that I
quoted was the only one that I could find in my personal archives that
reflected this but I am sure that there are many others in the Love-Hounds 
archives.  Why do you feel driven to insist on connections that are tenuous 
at best with no corroboration from Kate herself?

> 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!!!

Both those phrases came from the newsletter quote.  With no clear
indication of what you mean by "into" I'm left trying to address a
broad spectrum of possibilities.

As for respect for Kate and respect for the truth, I have ample amounts
of both.  Now that Vickie has provided clear evidence that Gurdjieff's
influence is minimal and the Kate herself has said that she knows very
little about Gurdjieff, I hope you will show your respect for Kate and
for the truth by admitting that you were jumping to conclusions based
on your unsupported interpretations of her songs and further, that you 
were just plain wrong.

> Vickie says "Kate is not into Gurdjieff" without any citations and you make
> warm fuzzy jokes; 

Because based on what I consider "into" and what I have heard and read, 
from and about Kate, she was correct.

> 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!!!

Your citations were based on your own interpretations of songs;
interpretations which are whole unsupported beyond your own statement
of them as fact.  I've already provided a citation from Kate herself 
which indicates that song quotes can provide little insight as to just 
what she is or is not "into".  The most that you can assume from a 
reference in a song, if it's clear - which yours were certainly not, 
is that Kate is aware of the subject.  The nature and degree of her 
interest can only be determined through her own statements.

> >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.)

That "we" was intended to mean myself and many other Kate fans.  I'm as
guilty as anyone.  I'm aware of it and I try to keep it under
control.  


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com