Well, I've spent a goodly amount of time around a number of famous people, and both these sets of comments seem relevant and insightful to me. (Three of these people had been famous for many years before I ever met them. They had accommodated themselves to their fame early on and hadn't let it interfere with their craft.)
I find both of these sets of comments somewhat silly, because both are voiced by people who seem to have had little to no exposure to fame in their lives. So their raps, as well-intended as they might be, to me seem to have as little relevance as the observations of supposedly enlightened people made by people who never spent any time around them. I don't think anyone knows much about fame and the toll it can take except the people who have it *and* are sensitive enough to feel the energies that come with adulation. There was a great quote in the mock interview/insightful article I posted recently about Bob Dylan that I really liked. Bob attended Jerry Garcia's funeral, and supposedly said to his manager on the way out, "That man was the only person on earth who understood what it's like to be me." One of the things that is spoken of in other -- more occult or Tantric -- studies that MMY clearly knew nothing about was the issue of *focus*. Not only "What you focus on, you become," which is true, but the more occult "What focuses on you, you become, too." The largest crowd I ever "performed" for onstage was at the Christmas residence courses we used to hold at Asilomar, near Carmel, CA. There were 2,000 people in the audience, and I got to give my then-risque "advanced lectures" on things like "SCI and SciFi." It was definitely a rush of sorts, and almost fun at the time, being the focus of that much...uh...focus, but it took its toll on me in the days afterwards. Downright withdrawal symptoms, and craziness. I vowed then and there not to put myself in such a position in the future, because I was pretty sure I couldn't handle the psychic pressure of that many people's attentions being focused on me. Jerry certainly felt the psychic pressure of being considered almost a God by hundreds of thousands of followers. And he fell beneath the weight of it. Bob has managed (and *how* is the subject of the article I mention above) somehow to avoid having this pressure take him down. Others, not so much. If this all sounds too Woo Woo for you, think back to the kinds of things you probably believe, as a diehard TMer or someone who has practiced a spiritual sadhana for years. You probably consider it possible that you can detect "vibes" from people who focus on you. You *feel* them, on an intuitive level if nothing else. Some of them feel "clean," and others...not so much. So what if these "vibes" you feel were somehow touching you, and leaving their residue on your aura? Now imagine someone like Marilyn Monroe, basically a sweet but not-too-bright girl suddenly being focused on by *millions* of people. Imagine the residue left on *her* aura. Imagine what it *felt* like to have tens of thousands of them masturbating to your photo on a daily basis. Is it any wonder that kind of psychic pressure took her down? Now think about all of the spiritual teachers you've known or heard about who "started out well," but then became increasingly despotic, manipulative, narcissistic, and even evil over time. Could the "vibe" they picked up from increasing numbers of followers over the years -- their fame -- have had anything to do with them taking *themselves* down? Just something to think about... --- In [email protected], wrote: > > ---In [email protected], sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > turq, for quite a while I've been befuddled by the whole fame thing. And if > > fame were seemingly central to my success, I bet I'd be tempted by mother's > > little helpers also! > > > For example, if I were an entertainer with any talent and saw the > > Kardashians becoming famous, I'd be tearing my hear out, ranting and > > raving, cursing the gods of fame, etc. I choose them as an extreme example > > of people totally undeserving of fame but getting it anyway. > > The thing with fame is that it is neither positive or negative, good or bad, > desirable or not desirable. In and of itself fame is nothing except being > well known on a superficial level. Fame has no inherent benefits, doesn't > feed you, clothe you, make you more creative or better looking. Fame is > nothing, is empty and at best could be said to result in a lack of privacy in > one's life, that's about it. Now fortune, on the other hand... > > > Another way to say it: nothing seems less under personal control than fame. > > Nothing seems more fickle, less predictable. I'm thinking that artists who > > can be at peace with this are gonna have a better chance at doing their art > > whole heartedly and steadfastly without being schtooked by the fame game. > > I think really great artists find fame an unwanted result of pursuing their > art. Many despise the notoriety that goes along with practicing their craft. > Often, they simply want to have the freedom to act or write plays or books > without all the hooplah, in fact, some are often astounded by the kind of > fame that dogs them as a result of their work. Many revile the adulation or > the ridiculous sex-object attention that they might find directed at them. > And in a way it is tragic that these people can not simply pursue their love > of their art or craft without the heavy trappings of the slobbering masses. > > > In some ways I find the whole award season heart breaking because usually > > all 5 nominees did fabulous work. Yet there are gonna be 4 losers! How do > > they deal with that? Or someone who has done great work for decades but > > never even been nominated?! > > > I admire the artists who hang in there job after job, year after year, > > perfecting their craft, paying their dues, showing up. And my heart goes > > out to them too. There may be no business like show business. But it > > certainly requires the ability to gird up one's loins, grit one's teeth, > > suck it up, on a daily basis! > > > On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:11 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: > > [ Caveat emptor. This is just a rap about creativity and its sometimes > association with drug use. In it I am neither advocating drugs nor condemning > them...just rapping about them over coffee this morning. So try to keep your > in-a-twist panties safely up your butt cracks and your ankle-biting dentures > in the glass beside the bed. :-) ] > > In what is possibly a timely film release, the following article is about a > documentary -- punnily called a Dockumentary -- about the player who was > infamous for being one of the most in-yer-face "mushroom-cloud-layin' > motherfuckers" (to quote Pulp Fiction) ever to hit major league baseball, > currently playing at the Sundance Film Festival. It's about Dock Ellis, most > famous for having -- and try this one on for size, those of you who admit to > some experimentation with Better Living Through Chemistry in your youth -- > pitched a major league no-hitter while stoned on LSD. > > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/no-no-a-documentary-on-mlb-pitcher-dock-ellis-who-pitched-a-no-hitter-while-tripping-on-acid.htm > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/no-no-a-documentary-on-mlb-pitcher-dock-ellis-who-pitched-a-no-hitter-while-tripping-on-acid.html > l > > > Now compare that to the recent sad news about Philip Seymour Hoffman. Chances > are that some of *his* notable performances were done under the influence of > drugs, too. Certainly many of our favorite musicians' most famous works were > substance-influenced, and I'm not talkin' Jimi Hendrix here, more like > Berlioz (opium), Satie (absinthe), Beethoven (alcohol), and an estimated 27% > of modern classical musicians who admit to using beta-blockers, Valium, and > other drugs to get over their performance anxiety. > > It all falls into the category of "Go figure" for me. I would not for an > instant claim that the drugs or other mind-altering substances "enhanced" > these people's performances or "caused" their creativity, but I might be up > for them having helped the artists to "release" them. If an artist (or > performer of any stripe, including baseball players) has so much shit running > around in their heads that it inflates their sense of self and thus blocks > the free expression of their creativity, then a little snort, sniff, or gulp > of something that helps move that self out of the way may have been of use to > them. > > Actors (including the late PSH, Keith Ledger, and others) may be particularly > prone to drug use, because they're *so fuckin' self-absorbed and anxious*. > Their entire livelihood -- and thus their ability to exercise their artform > -- depends on how they are perceived by the people paying the bills. And in > the world of acting, that is *not* the audiences; it's the producers and the > "money people" who react to the director's cast suggestions with a thumbs-up > or a thumbs-down. Having spent some time around actors when living in L.A., > there is a "rule of thumb" that seems to be sadly true -- the confident ones > get the parts, and the less confident ones don't. > > This "rule of thumb" encourages narcissism, which is often perceived by > others as "charisma," but it also encourages the use of mind-altering > substances that keep their fears at bay and allow these actors to *act more > confident*, even though they aren't. Most actors I've met are a seething mass > of insecurities and doubts, inwardly convinced that every role is going to be > their last, and that people are going to figure out that they're really > talentless oafs at every moment. As a result, many of them take to drugs that > inflate the self, and then allow them to channel that inflated self in their > acting. I feel for the bind they find themselves in, because it places them > at risk of OD-ing like PSH or Ledger, or of just spinning out of control and > having their drug use become public like Robert Downey Jr. > > Bottom line, as I read the article about Dock Ellis, is that we'll probably > *never know* who among our idols in music, writing, and acting are using > drugs to keep doing what they do. Some allow their habits to creep over into > offscreen or offstage life, and when they do society judges them and tries to > make them pariahs. But others just keep on keepin' on, "maintaining," using a > few illicit substances to get through the day, or through the next > performance, or the next novel. It's been going on since the beginnings of > creative effort on this planet, and I suspect it'll keep going on until the > end of it. Some will spin out of control and self-destruct, and others will > manage to "maintain" and make it through a long career without their > "mother's little helpers" ever being discovered. > > So when it comes to evaluating their worth as artists, I don't think it'll be > the drugs or alcohol that will ever be considered the "source" of their > creativity, any more than the ludicrous notion that TM could be considered > the "source" of the Beatles' creativity (get real...they were already the > most famous people on the planet when they heard of TM...and let's face it, > the Beatles *never* stopped doing drugs...ANY of them). > > Similarly, I would imagine that Phil Hoffman was pretty fuckin' stoned during > some of his performances. In retrospect, I can detect a few hints of heroin > use in his performance in the recent "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," which > was an OK but forgettable performance. But I can also detect them in his > portrayal of the tortured priest in "Doubt," and that was a masterpiece. So > did the drugs fuck up the former performance, or "cause" the second? My guess > is No, in either case. >
