Artists and entrainers as mediums

[Z...]

Ark hypothesized in the introduction to CS experiment that our brains might be perfect instruments to receive messages from the future, and that we might be receiving them all the time.


This is very interesting. Very often I notice short messages, almost reminders in lyrics of popular songs. Sometimes you would expect authors of these lyrics to be masters of hidden knowledge but then you get disappointed when it turns out they are usual sex, drugs and r'n'r victims. Its almost like they are channeling without any knowledge of what they are doing.

Here are some examples


1. Are we talking about predator:

"Devil Inside" INXS

Here comes the woman
With the look in her eye
Raised on leather
With flesh on her mind
Words as weapons sharper than knives
Makes you wonder how the other half die
Other half die

Here come the man
With the look in his eye
Fed on nothing
But full of pride
Look at them go
Look at them kick
Makes you wonder how the other half live

The devil inside
The devil inside
Every single one of us the devil inside

The devil inside
The devil inside
Every single one of us the devil inside

Here come the world
With the look in its eye
Future uncertain but certainly slight
Look at the faces
Listen to the bells
It's hard to believe we need a place called hell


2. Are we really talking about the bar or our planet and humanity at this present moment:

Closing time by Leonard Cohen
Ah we're drinking and we're dancing
and the band is really happening
and the Johnny Walker wisdom running high
And my very sweet companion
she's the Angel of Compassion
she's rubbing half the world against her thigh
And every drinker every dancer
lifts a happy face to thank her
the fiddler fiddles something so sublime
all the women tear their blouses off
and the men they dance on the polka-dots
and it's partner found, it's partner lost
and it's hell to pay when the fiddler stops:
it's CLOSING TIME
Yeah the women tear their blouses off
and the men they dance on the polka-dots
and it's partner found, it's partner lost
and it's hell to pay when the fiddler stops:
it's CLOSING TIME

Ah we're lonely, we're romantic
and the cider's laced with acid
and the Holy Spirit's crying, "Where's the beef?"
And the moon is swimming naked
and the summer night is fragrant
with a mighty expectation of relief
So we struggle and we stagger
down the snakes and up the ladder
to the tower where the blessed hours chime
and I swear it happened just like this:
a sigh, a cry, a hungry kiss
the Gates of Love they budged an inch
I can't say much has happened since
but CLOSING TIME

I swear it happened just like this:
a sigh, a cry, a hungry kiss
the Gates of Love they budged an inch
I can't say much has happened since
CLOSING TIME

I loved you for your beauty
but that doesn't make a fool of me:
you were in it for your beauty too
and I loved you for your body
there's a voice that sounds like God to me
declaring, declaring, declaring that your body's really you
And I loved you when our love was blessed
and I love you now there's nothing left
but sorrow and a sense of overtime
and I missed you since the place got wrecked
And I just don't care what happens next
looks like freedom but it feels like death
it's something in between, I guess
it's CLOSING TIME

Yeah I missed you since the place got wrecked
By the winds of change and the weeds of sex
looks like freedom but it feels like death
it's something in between, I guess
it's CLOSING TIME

Yeah we're drinking and we're dancing
but there's nothing really happening
and the place is dead as Heaven on a Saturday night
And my very close companion
gets me fumbling gets me laughing
she's a hundred but she's wearing
something tight
and I lift my glass to the Awful Truth
which you can't reveal to the Ears of Youth
except to say it isn't worth a dime
And the whole damn place goes crazy twice
and it's once for the devil and once for Christ
but the Boss don't like these dizzy heights
we're busted in the blinding lights,
busted in the blinding lights
of CLOSING TIME

The whole damn place goes crazy twice
and it's once for the devil and once for Christ
but the Boss don't like these dizzy heights
we're busted in the blinding lights,
busted in the blinding lights
of CLOSING TIME

Oh the women tear their blouses off
and the men they dance on the polka-dots
It's CLOSING TIME
And it's partner found, it's partner lost
and it's hell to pay when the fiddler stops
It's CLOSING TIME
I swear it happened just like this:
a sigh, a cry, a hungry kiss
It's CLOSING TIME
The Gates of Love they budged an inch
I can't say much has happened since
But CLOSING TIME
I loved you when our love was blessed
I love you now there's nothing left
But CLOSING TIME
I miss you since the place got wrecked
By the winds of change and the weeds of sex.

 

[Z...]

Of course there are countless examples in other form of art.

Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland who was active at the beginning of last century is my favorite. Most of his work can be found in the park called Vigeland's Park in Oslo. Tried to find details about his life and possible hints of esoteric studies. No success. Mind you I only had internet at my disposal.

The art critics would say Vigelands work focuses on humans caught in different scenes from everyday life.
But if you look more closely you cannot fail to notice that something different is going on. His work reeks of this eerie feeling of something nasty hovering over human race.


Look at these people , do they look to you like they are frolicking naked and careless in the meadows

is it just a coincidence that multitude of dazed humans like these, some of them with their gaze up, some looking zombified, and older ones looking horrified , all of them are crowding at the foot of this pyramid of human flesh - which is the central sculptural point of the park known as obelisk

Even this image of love and perfect family doesn't evoke really nice feelings, maybe hope but also a lot of fear

Is it just me or something is terribly wrong with these children

And finally good ol' lizzies, he probably got bored of dropping subtle hints

 

[j0da]

Very interesting sculptures, indeed. My first impression from looking at these figures is that they are golems. Like animated earth matter which is given resemblance of human being, but lacks the soul. One can sculpt the stone in thousand ways, but Vigeland has chosen (?) to deprive his objects of any fragility or profound feeling and gave them massive bodies and somwhat blank expressions. Spooky, but if I visit Oslo anytime, I will certainly see this park.

 

[Johnno]

I suppose it comes down to a concept of Gurdjieff's, that is, of subjective and objective art. Subjective art is art/music/poetry etc that effects people in different ways. That art that we "like" or "do not like". There is music I would like to think as objective music.

Brian Eno's "An Ending-Ascent"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF0qgxV0UW0&mode=related&search=

Moby's God moving over the face of water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfhHC2rcad4

But it isn't, it's my wishful thinking that this will touch everyone. It can evoke the response of "boring" to some people. It "divides" in to those who like or do not like.

Ouspensky early on, thought that "art" was one of the highest forms of human endeavour which Gurdjieff rebuked him quite strongly.

I think I understand what you mean," I said. "And I have often thought how little there is in the world that can stand against this form of mechanization and choose its own path."
"This is just where you make your greatest mistake," said G. "You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical."
"Why, of course not!" I said. "Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order."
"Of exactly the same order," said G. "These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines."

Gurdjieff took this further much later on.

"I do not know of which art you speak," said G. "There is art and art. You have doubtless noticed that during our lectures and talks I have often been asked various questions by those present relating to art but I have always avoided talks on this subject. This was because I consider all ordinary talks about art as absolutely meaningless. People speak of one thing while they imply something quite different and they have no idea whatever what they are implying. At the same time it is quite useless to try to explain the real relationship of things to a man who does not know the A B C about himself, that is to say, about man. We have talked together now for some time and by now you ought to know this A B C, so that I can perhaps talk to you now even about art.

"You must first of all remember that there are two kinds of art, one quite different from the other: objective art and subjective art. All that you know, all that you call art, is subjective art, that is, something that I do not call art at all because it is only objective art that I call art.

"To define what I call objective art is difficult first of all because you ascribe to subjective art the characteristics of objective art, and secondly because when you happen upon objective works of art you take them as being on the same level as subjective works of art.

"I will try to make my idea clear. You say: an artist creates. I say this only in connection with objective art. In relation to subjective art I say that with him 'it is created.' You do not differentiate between these, but this is where the whole difference lies. Further you ascribe to subjective art an invariable action, that is, you expect works of subjective art to have the same reaction on everybody. You think, for instance, that a funeral march should provoke in everyone sad and solemn thoughts and that any dance music, a komarinsky for instance, will provoke happy thoughts. But in actual fact this is not so at all. Everything depends upon association. If on a day that a great misfortune happens to me I hear some lively tune for the first time this tune will evoke in me sad and oppressive thoughts for my whole life afterwards. And if on a day when I am particularly happy I hear a sad tune, this tune will always evoke happy thoughts. And so with everything else.

"The difference between objective art and subjective art is that in objective art the artist really does 'create,' that is, he makes what he intended, he puts into his work whatever ideas and feelings he wants to put into it. And the action of this work upon men is absolutely definite; they will, of course each according to his own level, receive the same ideas and the same feelings that the artist wanted to transmit to them. There can be nothing accidental either in the creation or in the impressions of objective art.

"In subjective art everything is accidental. The artist, as I have already said, does not create; with him 'it creates itself.' This means that he is in the power of ideas, thoughts, and moods which he himself does not understand and over which he has no control whatever. They rule him and they express themselves in one form or another. And when they have accidentally taken this or that form, this form just as accidentally produces on man this or that action according to his mood, tastes, habits, the nature of the hypnosis under which he lives, and so on. There is nothing invariable; nothing is definite here. In objective art there is nothing indefinite."

"Would not art disappear in being definite in this way?" asked one of us. "And is not a certain indefiniteness, elusiveness, exactly what distinguishes art from, let us say, science? If this indefiniteness is taken away, if you take away the fact that the artist himself does not know what he will obtain or what impression his work will produce on people, it will then be a 'book' and not art."

"I do not know what you are talking about," said G. "We have different standards: I measure the merit of art by its consciousness and you measure it by its unconsciousness. We cannot understand one another. A work of objective art ought to be a 'book' as you. call it; the only difference is that the artist transmits his ideas not directly through words or signs or hieroglyphs, but through certain feelings which he excites consciously and in an orderly way, knowing what he is doing and why he does it."

"Legends," said one of those present, "have been preserved of statues of gods in ancient Greek temples, for example the statue of Zeus at Olympia, which produced upon everybody a definite and always identical impression."

"Quite true," said G., "and even the fact that such stories exist shows that people understood that the difference between real and unreal art lay precisely in this, an invariable or else an accidental action."

"Can you not indicate other works of objective art?" "Is there anything that it is possible to call objective in contemporary art?" "When was the last objective work of art created?" Nearly everyone present began to put these and similar questions to G.

"Before speaking of this," said G., "principles must be understood. If you grasp the principles you will be able to answer these questions yourselves. But if you do not grasp them nothing that I may say will explain anything to you. It was exactly about this that it was said: they will see with their eyes and will not perceive, they will hear with their ears and will not understand.

"I will cite you one example only: music. Objective music is all based on 'inner octaves.' And it can obtain not only definite psychological results but definite physical results. There can be such music as would freeze water. There can be such music as would kill a man instantaneously. The Biblical legend of the destruction of the walls of Jericho by music is precisely a legend of objective music. Plain music, no matter of what kind, will not destroy walls, but objective music indeed can do so. And not only can it destroy but it can also build up. In the legend of Orpheus there are hints of objective music, for Orpheus used to impart knowledge by music. Snake charmers' music in the East is an approach to objective music, of course very primitive. Very often it is simply one note which is long drawn out, rising and falling only very little; but in this single note 'inner octaves' are going on all the time and melodies of 'inner octaves' which are inaudible to the ears but felt by the emotional center. And the snake hears this music or, more strictly speaking, he feels it, and he obeys it. The same music, only a little more complicated, and men would obey it.

"So you see that art is not merely a language but something much bigger. And if you connect what I have just said with what I said earlier about the different levels of man's being, you will understand what is said about art. Mechanical humanity consists of men number one, number two, and number three and they, of course, can have subjective art only. Objective art requires at least flashes of objective consciousness; in order to understand these flashes properly and to make proper use of them a great inner unity is necessary and a great control of oneself."

So even John Lennon who set out with the intention to confuse..... "Let the f&!%ers work that one out."..... when he penned "I am the Walrus".....created a divide. I've come across old time Beatles fans who liked everything up 'til "The I am the Walrus stuff." Myself I "like" the more out there Beatles material, mixed in with a couple of sweet McCartney tunes. Did Lennon have "a great control of himself" when he penned that song under the influence of LSD? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, one still lives in some sort of hope that sometimes the art or music that is created has some sort of unconscious "truth" in there, that the artists have these "flashes of objective consciousness". There is this from the C's transcipts in 1998; note the adversion to subjective "like".

07-18-98
Q: (L) Now, frivolous question number one: Do you guys like Pink Floyd?
A: "Like" is a bit off base.
Q: (L) What would be more 'on base?'
A: Absorb. We are Pink Floyd, and all other facets of your higher consciousness.

And this from the aphorisms of Orage.

True artists are the antennae of nature. Coming nature casts its artists before it. The Bohemian is the typical subjective artist, expressing himself.

 

[Kesdjan]

Nevertheless, one still lives in some sort of hope that sometimes the art or music that is created has some sort of unconscious "truth" in there, that the artists have these "flashes of objective consciousness". There is this from the C's transcipts in 1998; note the adversion to subjective "like".

07-18-98
Q: (L) Now, frivolous question number one: Do you guys like Pink Floyd?
A: "Like" is a bit off base.
Q: (L) What would be more 'on base?'
A: Absorb. We are Pink Floyd, and all other facets of your higher consciousness.

Hmmm... maybe its not just about subjective or objective art, but more or less objective or subjective art. Maybe thoe identified as objective artists could channel 100 uncorupted information from the realm of platonic ideals/ thought forms and reproduce them while others' could only produce more or less corrupted models. Art that I think at least conveys a lot of higher truths are Goethe's Faust, Beethoven's moonlight sonata, Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, Mussorgsky's Il vecchio castello (The Old Castle), and this piece :). Also must everyone be affected by objective art, can an op or a psychopath really feel?

 

[kenlee]

Here's some more on what Gurdjieff has to say on art.

Excerpt from Views From The Real World pp.176-178

NEW YORK, MARCH 16, 1924

The actor

Question: Is the actor's profession useful in developing coordinated work of centers?

Answer: The more an actor acts, the more the work of centers becomes separated in him. In order to act, one must first of all be an artist.

We have spoken about the spectrum producing white light. A man can be called an actor only if he is able, so to speak, to produce a white light. A real actor is one who creates, one who can produce all the seven colors of the spectrum. There have been and are even today such artists. But in modern times an actor is generally only outwardly an actor.

Like any other man, an actor has a definite number of basic postures; his other postures are only different combinations of these. All roles are built out of postures. It is impossible to acquire new postures by practice; practice can only strengthen old ones. The longer you go on, the more difficult it becomes to learn new postures-- the fewer possibilities there are. All the intensity of the actor is in vain: it is only a waste of energy. If this material were saved and spent on something new, it would be more useful. As it is, it is spent on old things.

Only in his own and other people's imagination does an actor appear to create. In actual fact, he cannot create.

[...] It is the same in all the arts. Real art cannot be the work of an ordinary man. He cannot act, he cannot be "I." An actor cannot have what another man has --he cannot feel as another man feels. If he plays the part of a priest, he ought to have the understanding and feelings of a priest. But he can have these only if he has all the priest's material, all that a priest knows and understands. And it is so with every profession; special knowledge is required. The artist without knowledge only imagines.

Associations work in a definite way in each person. I see a man making a certain movement. This gives me a shock, and from this associations start. A policeman would probably assume that the man wanted to pick my pocket. But supposing the man never thought of my pocket, I, as the policeman, would not have understood the movement. If I am a priest, I have other associations; I think the movement has something to do with the soul, though the man is actually thinking of my pocket.

Only if I know the psychology both of the priest and of the policeman, and their different approaches, can I understand with my mind; only if I have corresponding feelings and postures in my body can I know with my mind what will be their thinking associations, and also which thinking associations evoke in them which feeling associations. This is the first point.

Knowing the machine, I give orders every moment for associations to change but I have to do this at every moment. Every moment associations change automatically, one evokes another and so on. If I am acting, I have to direct at every moment. It is impossible to leave it to momentum. And I can direct only if there is someone present who is able to direct.

My thought cannot direct, it is occupied. My feelings are also occupied. So there must be someone there who is not engaged in acting, not engaged in life only then is it possible to direct. A man who has "I" and who knows what is required in every respect can act.

A man who has no "I" cannot act. An ordinary actor cannot play a role --his associations are different. He may have the appropriate costume and keep approximately to suitable postures, make grimaces as the producer or the author directs. The author must also know all this.

In order to be a real actor, one must be a real man. A real man can be an actor and a real actor can be a man. Everyone should try to be an actor. This is a high aim. The aim of every religion, of every knowledge, is to be an actor. But at present all are actors.

 

[Johnno]

Art that I think at least conveys a lot of higher truths are Goethe's Faust, Beethoven's moonlight sonata, Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, Mussorgsky's Il vecchio castello (The Old Castle), and this piece :). Also must everyone be affected by objective art, can an op or a psychopath really feel?

8 bars into that piece I switched over to Kashmir in the sidebar because I like it better!

 

[Azur]

Art that I think at least conveys a lot of higher truths are Goethe's Faust, Beethoven's moonlight sonata, Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, Mussorgsky's Il vecchio castello (The Old Castle), and this piece :). Also must everyone be affected by objective art, can an op or a psychopath really feel?

8 bars into that piece I switched over to Kashmir in the sidebar because I like it better!

I'm with you on that one, Johnno.

But if there had been a link for Achilles' last stand, it would have been choice or even When the Levee Breaks.

_http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ny9_CrUVY&mode=related&search=

(Never been much of a Zeppelin fan, Black Sabbath was my fave).

:D

 

[brandon]

This reminds me of this bit of a C's session:

---
09-21-96
Q: (T) Is there any significance to the ID4 movie?
A: Sure.
Q: (L) What was the primary intention of the makers of this movie? The primary message that they attempted to convey?
A: Infuse thinking patterns with [planchette swirled a few times here] concept of aliens. Part of a larger project called "Project Awaken."
Q: (L) And who is behind, or in charge of, this project?
A: Thor's Pantheum. Subselect trainees for transfer of enlightenment frequency graduation.
Q: (L) Well, is this group STS or STO?
A: Both.
Q: (T) They're working together? Bipartisan?
A: No.
Q: (J) Are they aware of each other? Working on this?
A: Yes. There is more to all of this than you could dream. An army of Aryan psychic projectors.
Q: (L) And what do they project?
A: Themselves... Right in to one's head.
Q: (L) And, when they project themselves right into someone's head, what does that someone perceive?
A: Inspiration.
Q: (L) Inspiration to do something?
A: And...
Q: (L) To do something, and to understand or perceive something?
A: Yes.
Q: So, how many are in this army?
A: 1.6 million.
Q: (L) When they're doing this projecting into someone's head, where are they projecting from?
A: Mostly subterranean.
Q: (L) Are they 3rd or 4th density beings?
A: Both.
Q: (T) Let me back up to a question here. If they can do all this projecting on their own, what was the point of the movie?
A: No, you misunderstand... This is an intense activity, directed towards influencing the high level creative forces.
Q: (L) Was there something subliminal in the movie? That opened something?
A: Sure. Not for you, but for others.
Q: (L) What made us immune?
A: You already have the knowledge.
Q: (L) What are these high level creative forces that are needing to be influenced, or desirable of being influenced?
A: Those in the creative arts.
Q: (L) So in other words this group is using their projecting ability to influence those in the creative arts to produce things that will therefore influence the people on the planet. Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: ( L) Can we say that they are stimulating people in a positive way?
A: Maybe.
Q: (J) Can we say that they are stimulating people in a negative way?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) So, there's probably a little of both. And you say that we are immune to it because we already have knowledge. Now, when you say we have knowledge, do you mean just knowledge in particular about aliens and alien realities and alien potentials and so forth?
A: Yes.

---
from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave11i.htm (about halfway down)

 

[Miss Isness]

It always seemed to me that getting into the creative flow involved receptivity to a higher force. In the past, I never really questioned what came out as I considered the high I got from the process was proof of it's validity. Of course, I was aware that some of the content had come from conscious intent, but what about the rest?

Since participating on this forum, I've been struggling with that. I realized I needed to somehow choose what to convey. That's a bit tricky since it involves having control, which is the one thing that seems to automatically halt the whole process. I'm now finding a balance between letting it flow, and analysis and revision - or at least I'm trying. In any case, there's no doubt in my mind that I've been picking up some of that projected inspiration. I've even dreamt songs.

 

[Tigersoap]

Since participating on this forum, I've been struggling with that. I realized I needed to somehow choose what to convey. That's a bit tricky since it involves having control, which is the one thing that seems to automatically halt the whole process.

I have encountered the same struggle.
When you realize that you're mechanical, with maybe some rare glimpse of freedom, you re-evaluate all of your precedent works and ideas.
It came as quite a shock that left me drained out for a while.
I can look back and know exactly who I was at the time and it's not easy to be confronted with yourself in the past :D.

Inspiration can come up when least expected, it sometimes just pop-ups like a flash in my head, so yes, where does it come from, what and who maybe influencing it ?
I think it obviously comes from outside and inner influences, thus it is difficult to perceive what's coming from "higher" or "lower" sources as I am still many.
My emotional center plays a big role in this, it's fuelling the creative process a lot osit.
I can feel when it's empty and it used to wreck me down a lot but although this battle isn't over yet I can look at it without being dragged in it if that makes sense.

I have discovered how hooked I was with the creative process and it isn't a nice find because what I like doing is also what's become my master and I am the willing slave.
It's even hard to write it down.

Yet, just recently I can definitely feel a change in all I've been doing until now and the way I perceive it.
It's parallel to the work I've been doing on myself.
I have seen a clearer view of my inner workings related to creation and I think there is a slight shift.
Still it does not mean that my "filter" is cleaned up or that I am not doing mechanical artworks, I hope to be more aware of it and at least I have a clear goal.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Inspiration can come up when least expected, it sometimes just pop-ups like a flash in my head, so yes, where does it come from, what and who maybe influencing it ?
I think it obviously comes from outside and inner influences, thus it is difficult to perceive what's coming from "higher" or "lower" sources as I am still many.

That is same with me. Inspiration does come when least expected...especially when you're at your job, or you're driving, or you're shaving, or chatting with nosey friends. Ideas and new thoughts come at an unexpected times. When they came, I usually write them down on either a napkin or toliet paper and come back to it later. That's how I wrote my poetry on it. With a new idea, you're forming a structure or explaining in detail in writing when you do have the time. But, when you complete your work (either in art, poetry, film, etc.), then you would have to see if they are influenced by STS or STO before you do anything with it.

osit and fwiw.

 

[Lauranimal]

Taken from Brandon's quote of the C's, above...

Q: (L) What made us immune?
A: You already have the knowledge.
Q: (L) What are these high level creative forces that are needing to be influenced, or desirable of being influenced?
A: Those in the creative arts.
Q: (L) So in other words this group is using their projecting ability to influence those in the creative arts to produce things that will therefore influence the people on the planet. Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: ( L) Can we say that they are stimulating people in a positive way?
A: Maybe.
Q: (J) Can we say that they are stimulating people in a negative way?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) So, there's probably a little of both. And you say that we are immune to it because we already have knowledge. Now, when you say we have knowledge, do you mean just knowledge in particular about aliens and alien realities and alien potentials and so forth?
A: Yes.

I got this in my email today, and all I could think was, "REALLY?!?!"

"For the blind man in the dark room
looking for the black cat that isn’t there

September 11, 2009 – January 3, 2010

In September, the Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis presents its most ambitious group show since its grand opening six years ago. For the blind man in the dark room looking for the black cat that isn’t there starts with the premise that art is not a code that needs cracking. Celebrating the experience of not-knowing and unlearning, the artists in this exhibition understand the world in speculative terms, eager to keep art separate from explanation. Embracing a spirit of curiosity, this show is dedicated to the playfulness of being in the dark...."

[edit: http://www.contemporarystl.org/Fortheblindman.php for anyone who is interested ]

Now I am all about releasing pre-existing notions and allowing creative inspiration to flow forth from an 'unknown' spring without the constraints of expectation and analyzation, but they are actually advocating the idea that it is a good thing, to not be aware. And too, unlearning or deprogramming the things that leave us trapped within a limited boundary, are certainly to be counted as valuable in this idea they are putting forth of, "...Embracing a spirit of curiosity and playfulness..." But they seam to be advocating that it is good to remain in the dark. That it is good not to know.

I was about to just dismiss the whole thing when I realized that the date of the art opening is 9/11. For no other reason than to perhaps break open my pre-concieved notion of what this is about, I may very well attend with an open but scrutinizing mind's eye. Who knows; perhaps I will have something of importance to report as a result.

~Lar
(I hope I posted this in the right place)