The Liminalist # 52: Everything Illusion Touches (with Mark Ehrman)

Ehrman3

Special funeral podcast to commemorate the life of Mark Ehrman, who died January 9th, 2016, the day before David Bowie. This is made up of unused material from two long conversations Mark & I had back in spring of 2015. Mark & I discuss Whitley Strieber & the alien abduction narrative phantasy, Newtonian psychology, putting Strieber out to pasture, selling ancient aliens, the abduction martyr, the dead horse of ufology, materializing psychic fragments, Frankenstein & the golem, Star Wars & social engineering, the overview effect, mythic yearning, agent Ezekiel, Century of the Self & Mad Men, alternative healing and the liminal realms, chronic fatigue syndrome and liminal diseases, the cure that almost works, Prisoner of Infinity Part Two, Jerry Springer and US family abuse, Jimmy Savile & the UK culture of abuse, the recognition of trauma, going down a mine, Seen & Not Seen, Manly P. Hall, religious development in Europe, and the 2nd matrix, Mark in Hollywood, celebrity journalism, going to all the right parties, putting on a persona along with a tuxedo, quotation-hunting, inside the machinery of the military entertainment complex, seeing the artifice, the journalistic selection filter, an interloper in that world, Open Secret and sexual predation in Hollywood, meeting Angelina Jolie, the glamor virus, everything illusion touches, the little people of Hollywood, the Napoleon complex of actors, bubbleheads and anorexics,  the realm of dissociation, dying of encouragement, the Hollywood filter, what runs on bullshit, a closing dingbat.

Songs: “Close Your Eyes, “Old Forgotten Spells,” by Art of Flying; “Let’s Surf the Planet Jupiter” by French Radio Constellation; “Noise Problems”  by Scout Niblett.

13 thoughts on “The Liminalist # 52: Everything Illusion Touches (with Mark Ehrman)”

  1. The characterization of Star Wars as social engineering to promote space travel seems a little bit far-fetched. I recently read “The secret history of Star Wars”, which is on PDF on the net, and it is clearly established that Lucas didn’t inspire himself in Campbell’s work –and that the association between both that pervades pop culture was in fact a maneouver in which Lucas would gain legitimacy and Campbell would gain popularity. Not to say there is something going on, but i kinda see it more closer to cultural drift than anything.

    Reply
    • Here’s a link to the PDF. I only found two references to Campbell, but whether Lucas was consciously influenced by his work or not, the connection between the film and Campbell is established. I delve into this in Prisoner of Infinity part two, and it’s very far from being a stretch, tho I think the notion that pop entertainment is part of a far-reaching propaganda machine IS a stretch to most westerners, esp Americans, precisely because of how effectively we have been propagandized.

      I found this passage on Castaneda, of minor interest:

      An oft-reported claim is that Lucas got the term and basic concept of
      “the force of others” from Carlos Castaneda’s book Tales of Power, a semianthropological
      account of the author’s encounters with a Mexican shaman
      named Don Juan which talks about warrior mysticism. Castaneda’s books
      had been published since the late 60’s, starting with The Teachings of Don
      Juan in 1968, and were very influential in the rising popularity of such
      mysticism in America.* His early books frequently equate “will” with being
      a “force” and “force” with “power.” In Tales of Power, Castaneda also
      occasionally refers to the soul as the “force of life.” This is all a bit of a
      stretch, however. The error of the Tales of Power link is that Tales of
      Power was published in 1975, many months after Lucas would have
      already invented the basic premise of “the force of others” being a
      supernatural power, in fact many months after Lucas had completed the
      second draft where this is the case. Even Castaneda’s seldom and casual
      reference to “force of life” is a highly unoriginal notion, as the concept of
      the soul as “a force,” “life force,” “energy force,” “life energy,” “force of
      life,” and many similar such terms was common and popular amongst New
      Age spiritualists by that point. He was, in fact, drawing from the same
      cultural belief of the 1960’s which Lucas himself was reflecting.
      Additionally, the strongest supposed influence from Castaneda appears
      in his book The Eagle’s Gift, where he describes an energy which defines
      and shapes the universe and emanates from all living things, finally
      detailing the vague “force of life” in which he earlier spoke of. However,
      The Eagle’s Gift, like the frequently cited Tales of Power, is published far
      too late to be an influence—The Eagle’s Gift, very obviously similar to
      Lucas’ concept of the Force in specific details, was published in 1981. In
      fact, Castaneda was highly criticised by real anthropologists once his work
      became known, and many inconsistencies and fabrications have been
      unearthed—most actual anthropologists believe that Castaneda was making
      up most of the content, especially since the books have more in common
      with novels than non-fiction, and he is now regarded as a fraud. Thus, the
      influence may have been the complete reverse—Star Wars’ “the Force”
      may have influenced Castaneda, which is why the only explicit link
      appears well after Star Wars, and especially the more spiritual Empire
      Strikes Back, was released. The books were very popular with young
      people, especially the 1970’s New Age spiritualists who dug the similar
      themes in Star Wars—however, most probably didn’t realise that there was
      no relation between the film and Castaneda (at least in this regard—the
      Don Juan character would have an impact on a certain Star Wars character,
      as we will later see).

      Like the film’s connection to Joseph Campbell, it was one trumpeted
      by the intelligentsia after the film became popular in an attempt to explain
      the success through more scholarly influence. The truth is that “the Force”
      comes from comic books and science fiction novels if it is to come from
      any specific source, from Kirby’s New Gods saga to Smith’s Lensmen saga.
      But it is much more reasonable to observe that this is all a product of the
      1970’s culture itself, when such notions were “in the air” and especially
      common amongst young people, artists and those in the area in which
      Lucas was living. “The ‘Force of others’ is what all basic religions are
      based on, especially the Eastern religions,” Lucas once said, “which is,
      essentially, that there is a force, God, whatever you want to call it.”74
      The name and concept behind the Force can also be vaguely traced in
      influence to experimental Canadian filmmaker Arthur Lipsett’s 21-87, one
      of the most influential films on Lucas during his years at USC. In one of the
      film’s more memorable moments, the life-energy of the universe or god is
      referred to as a “force,” again showing that the term and concept were
      common amongst counterculturalists long before Lucas made it famous.
      The audio clip Lipsett sampled comes from a conversation between
      artificial intelligence pioneer Warren S. McCulloch and cinematographer
      Roman Kroitor. McCulloch argues that living beings are simply highly
      complex machines, but Kroitor replies that there is something more to the
      universe: “Many people feel that in the contemplation of nature and in
      communication with other living things, they become aware of some kind
      of force, or something, behind this apparent mask which we see in front of
      us, and they call it God.”

      * Although the Force is absent of any sort of immediate *
      Castaneda influence, Lucas was obviously familiar with
      Castaneda’s work, as it would have been prominent in the Bay
      area of San Francisco, and Lucas would later make references
      to it

      Reply
      • I would say there’s a difference between “the inteligentsia” making Star Wars a big hit consciously to promote space travel as you say in the podcast and to see it sort of a more impersonal drift ─with, indeed, nearly identical results. Actually in the book it is explained how the new generation of authors─Coppola, Lucas, etc─were seen by senior staff of film companies with dirsregard and suspiciousness, and it was funded with minor budget. It’s like all that stuff about Lucas being a freemason; no, he is not. But if he read all those myths in high school in Modesto, well, the cultural influence of freenasonry in America is there, in the air ─yep Modesto has a freemason lodge, i checked it.

        Reply
        • I would say there’s a difference between “the inteligentsia” making Star Wars a big hit consciously to promote space travel as you say in the podcast and to see it sort of a more impersonal drift ─with, indeed, nearly identical results.

          Is it a question of either/or or both/and? When a) the results of a massive entertainment project are 100% in line with the aims of certain groups and individuals working outside of entertainment on larger social programs; and b) some of these same groups & individuals can be connected to the entertainment project in question, does it not become a tad naive to talk of impersonal cultural drifts? Or perhaps more to the point, who/what created these drifts to begin with?

          For the record, this doesn’t require Lucas being aware of being used for such programs. Awareness is a very slippery concept, anyway.

          The Arthur Lipsett connection is striking, for sure. I knew I’d heard the name before. All roads lead (back) to MKULTRA?

          Reply
          • Yes there’s always the both/and dance, that’s for sure. But in the particular case of Star Wars, since the connections are not very solid i wouldn’t push the personal angle. I don’t think it’s naive to think this way. If indeed Lipsett was under MKultra, does that mean that his film was handed intentionally to Lucas? Again no hard evidence. I find more exciting the “cultural infection” angle, since Lipsett experimental films could be understood from the “thinking in pictures-animist” angle, and that’s surely the reason they were a Lucas favorite, since he’s known for not having interest on characters or plots but on films’ technical aspects.

          • The Lipsett one is new to me; other connections are pretty solid, IMO, but it will have to wait till I post the relevant material, in the POI series at the blog.

  2. One thing about Star Wars that often strikes me is its binary Manichean ” good vs evil ” characteristics . Quite a powerful tool when directed at Americans who have been long conditioned to see things in terms of ” dark versus light”. It was quite the cold war weapon , then seemed quite lame in the late 90s and seems to have been wheeled out again with fresh cachet in the good fights against , Muslims, Greenies , Russians …. insert preferred enemy .
    The hegelian “techno progress” and ” lets get off world ” aspects are added bonuses i guess . I do like certain aspects of it , such as the plethora of jungian archetypes and the way in which the shadow is shown to be intergenerational . I guess the stories not over yet , either .
    Cheers Mark Ehrman , safe journey back into the planet -stuff .

    Reply
  3. Thanks Wacko for the tip , will download the pdf of ” secret life and take a look ” ..
    I like what Mark said to Jasun ” you seem to be post myth and archetype ” . I think that is definitely a nihilistic trap one could fall into once you start looking into the people that are trying to manipulate myths and archetypes in order to manipulate us . Really , the archetypes are all our heritage , and we can all make our own approach to them and the source that lies beyond , whatever ones conception of that may be . Its not easy . Its the little things that point the way for me , dreams , synchronicities , feelings and patterns . Tendencies over time .

    Reply
  4. It’s funny that the article on Lukas/Castaneda references Arthur Lipsett. He was another MKULTRA test subject who committed suicide at age 50. Some of his early documentaries were in fact portaits of the principal MKULTRA scientists then teaching at McGill (1950s and 60s) — i.e. the very scientists studying pain, while keeping children in cages in a secret behavioural lab.

    Lipsett worked for years at the National Film Board in Montreal, where he took lots of LSD, and was a sweet person, although ‘schizophrenic’ and often unable to function. His mother committed suicide when he was very young and his father (a McGill Chemistry professor) appears to have enrolled him in a program for gifted children who ended up being trauma-conditioned by the above0-mentioned McGill scientists. If you watch 21-87 you’ll see plenty of imagery suggesting Lipsett was tortured or knew about torture programming. There is at least one good documentary about him — REMEMBERING ARTHUR — and I think there’s a second, better one, whose title I forget.

    Lipsett was one of the people I looked into when I was researching MKULTRA in Montreal. I was led to him by knowing a number of people in his circle who all were tied into the program. Don’t expect to find confirmation of this anywhere — but it became obvious to me when I researched him and his work.

    I mention this (MKULTRA again!) because I find it”s a very small world that constantly seems to circle back to a particular time, place, and program. I don’t understand why Lucas would have been so influenced by our Arthur, all of whose output can be viewed in 2-3 hours. I know, because I did it all in one afternoon. It’s dense, rewarding material — and once you understand the background, much less obscure than we have been told.

    Reply
  5. Dear Jasun,

    I listened again to your previous interview with Mark ( may 15) ; whether he sensed consciously his ultimate “opting to withdraw” or not, he seemed quite comfortable with the notion- and a very evolved individual at that. Thank you for posting this eulogy to someone worth noting. Your past and present conversations seem even more noteworthy now in this current Amerika- If I were younger, I would buy his guide- but I am riding ( this time) out here at the shoreline-hoping for the promised tsunami!! Be well.

    Reply
  6. I’ve come to realize how different death is in todays world lately. With everyone recording themselves more often with both video and audio, it’s like when they die they haven’t really left us.

    I found it sad and truly strange but wonderful listening to this man, knowing he’s gone, but he can still make me laugh and think about the topics presented in new ways.

    I’ll add that I agree on the Manly P Hall point of him being a social engineer. I admire the mans work, he certainly wrote and revealed a lot about the different secret societies he was involved in, but when you listen to his lectures recorded at his PRS building you can see how a lot of what he was advocating (like extremist enviromentalism aka global warming/climate change fanaticism) came to be deeply implanted within the masses (to use a socialist/communist term).

    Reply

Leave a Comment