See, Share and Ann, our mistake was to think that we were entitled to express any of our own thoughts or experiences on a topic that Barry had written his own posts about. It infringes on his territory, and we can't have that, can we? ;-) << My personal definition of "fame" involves tens to hundreds of thousands of people focusing on you simultaneously, either "live" in a concert or performance, or via movies or TV. If you experienced that as a basketball co-captain, more power to you. :-)
I stick with "silly." In fact, now I double down on it. >> > On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:22 AM, "authfriend@..." authfriend@... > wrote: > > 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. > >> > > >
