me hut journal november 2002

these notes were working their way toward a movie review ... I'm afraid I got sidetracked...maybe it will continue at some point. It was moving toward refining some ideas of the Left (hand path) and the Right (hand path) ... inchoate even for notes..

they walk among us
Red Dragon/The Ring

Book of Enoch
[Chapter 21]
1,2 And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw there something horrible: I saw neither
3 a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible.

november 7 2002

The hardest, indeed maybe impossible, thing to accept about the world is that it is the way it is. That is to say, that the way things SEEM to be is the way they actually are. Vast systems of thought, politics, warfare have been and continue to be based on the seemingy perennial conflict between the way things seem and the way that our minds tell us they must be (or that they can’t possibly be). It would be simple (but with far-reaching complications) to see this hinge point as the pivot of ALL histories and thoughts, a dialectic that perturbs endlessly around conjoined concepts like materal/immaterial, body/soul, thought/feeling, secrecy/transparency etc ... everything that is near us, that seems intimately of us, by us, from us that has the smell, the touch of the immediacy of now, of the functions of the body and its mediacies with the things it can lay hands on, sight to, smell of ... And since the machinery of life for the most part functions adequately within a broad range of workability (in which most pathology also seems to fit) there seldom falls to it any Heideggean tool-fault that would announce the hidden functioning, breaks that reveal inner workings. That is to say, everyday life seldom announces anything other than a smooth surface of functioning and even when it doesn’t work, it’s not-working is within the parameters of the everyday.
Maurice Blanchot puts the confusions and coverings (which could also be read as a con-spiring of a particular structural sort) well in the following quotes:

"The everyday is covered by a surface: that of modernity.”
“By its flash, the miracle separates the indistinct moments of day to day life, suspends nuance, interrupts uncertainties, and reveals to us the tragic truth, that absolute and absolutely divided truth, whose two parts solicit us without pause, and form each side, each of them requiring everything of us and at every instant.”
“The everyday breaks down structures and undoes forms, even while ceaselessly regathering itself behind the form whose ruin it has insensibly brought about."

While some might consider Blanchot’s formulation unecessarily opaque, consider the difficulty (as Jean-Paul Sartre once put it) of discovering the glasses over your eyes if you cannot possibly see the extent of the frames which hold them in place. It’s hard to consider another way of seeing when, upon removing the glasses (asuming that is ever possible although that is a possibility we will find it necessary to make later on) we find ourselves either not seeing at all or seeing very badly only indistinct shapes and threatening shadows.

There is some warrant for concluding that two groups of human are particularly concerned with stepping outside the frame, the artist and the criminal, each with their own reason for doing so but each also oddly converging.

In many esoteric, spiritual, and religious traditions there are two ways of characterizing the dialectic of the approaches to these realities: the Right Hand Path and the Left Hand Path. They seem to have loosely devolved to what we call, appropriately enough, the Right and the Left. The Right is varilously characterized as conservative in the sense of harkening back to past social, political, and cultural structures and in fact of holding tightly to the very concept of ‘firm structures’, foundations, borders, etc. The Right is associated with traditional identity as well as more of a devotion to individual autonomy.

The Left is more associated with the valuations of group identities and with the dissolution of individual identities (this can be seen especially vividly in the support of the Left of certain drug use practices and the condemnation of the Right.)

Alice Bailey says that “The left hand path, therefore, is the path of progress for substance or matter” and “anything that tends to increase the power of matter and add to the potent energy of form-substance produces a tendency to the left hand path and a gradual attraction away from the Plan and the Purpose which it veils and hides.”

( ( We can remember here the Marxist injunction concerning the priorities of materialism, and its eventual alliance with pragmatism in capitalism.)

And there is the other tradition of the left hand path (one story has it that the label comes from Lucifer being on God’s left side) that the left hand path -- that of opening paths by following invisible orders and plans -- is in fact satanic. here we begin to see the conjunction of the criminal and the artistic in many on the right. (here is a good discussion of some aspects of that: ...i’ve known some who fit the discussion at the end to a tee.)
“An interesting note is that the new movie Red Dragon is the second time the book has been filmed (and Anthony Hopkins is therefore the second actor to play Hannibal Lecter). The book was originally filmed as Manhunter in 1986, with William L. Petersen, Dennis Farina, and Brian Cox as Hannibal.”
some web site

difference between the two films: the banality of Manhunter is actually a point in its favor for an ‘enlightened’ audience ... Red Dragon is another beast altogether, giving hints of eldritch goings on with serial killers and never more so than in this one, involving even a secret network (like the postal system in the Crying of Lot 49) that attempts to tunnel through the official police network. (This concept of ‘doubled communication’ is especially pertinent cf: the contemporary Maryland snipers; see also Leo Strauss’s article on doubled communication, that certain information in perilous times needs to be
‘engrypted’: there is an acceptable surface message and a deeper, uncacceptable content that can only be transmitted but not revealed. of course in one sense, the film is only trying to communicate it’s own sequel of which it bacame the prequel which is really a sequel.)
every remake of a film attempts to scape away the previous titular surface carrier and re-install a new, fresher layer that will be responsive to a new cultural/political/social environs. (it’s somewhat of a moot point to take a post modern attitude about this and say there is ONLY surface meaning. The fact that there is ONE name that names two apparently separate events is enough to at least complicate pomo’s attempts to eradicate ‘depth’ even at the level of it’s own ‘surface’. But then I guess there is surface (above) and there is surface (below). Any time there is a surface named an inside there must be an outside .. but whose only surface is an inside, or the boundary connecting the inside and the outside. Communicating that can be difficult notonly for logical reasons but also for perceptual reasons. One can surely point the boundary out (as in the Wittgensteinein finger explicating a fact about the world as a last resort by simply pointing at it) but to say that one has some other knowledge of that world delimitation --ie, from the other side, -- can be hazardous. If nothering else it can be hazardous -- for all parties -- because it increases the possibilities for the dissolution of the human perceptual/logical system itself. That is WHY it is dangerous and why it is often proscribed by official state apparatuses. In this case the center and the periphery take on the characteristics of Right and Left respectively. The left hand path is always about dissolution/reconstitution (in this very specific sense) while the right is about reconstitution/dissolution. If one were to diagram that, it would look like a three-dimensional toroidal display with a center point radiating out in all directions to the edges and the edges feeding back into the center, a donut that is contually rolling in on itself (interestingly enough I did a seach for such a diagram and the first hit was from the NSA: One is also reminded that the toroidal form is also used as a containment form in plasma physics, the tokomat. Such a torus priorizes the center over the perimeter so that the center is continually strengthened and ‘densified’. (see, eg, the diagrams of world net usage: . ). There needs to be a form that equalizes the vectors and relations of center to periphery. That is basically what ‘mysticism’ and the ‘occult’ do but is also why they are proscribed. Here also is where we find the connection between criminality, art, and the occult, in that very dissolution of boundaries and identities.
Every center seeks to expand its hegemony over surrounding territory and this seems true whether we are speaking of cities, states, or personalities. An oppositional way of looking at the rise of so-called rhizomal networks is that it is simply another way that the technical center of western Judeo-Christian culture can expand this centralizing and colonizing tendency.