The Liminalist # 117: The Media Mirror (Back to the Kubrickon, with Alex Fulton)

First of a two-part conversation with Krypto-Kubrologist Alex Fulton, on a mutual interest in Stanley Kubrick, agreement and disagreement, Crypto-Kubrology vs. Kubrickon, creating AI via the Internet, Paul Thomas Anderson, JFK, RFK, & 237, a temporal algorithm, how algorithms run the world, 2001, the question of intention, the emperor’s nakedness, Kubrick’s intentionality, generating the emperor’s clothing through attention & desire, John de Ruiter, the blank monolith of the numinous, a perceptual lens, the media-mirror, snippets of time, the God-tone, the Bible code, parallel realities, decoding the matrix, when Neo pops, seeing the impossibility of existence, the cognitive dissonance of consciousness, Being John Malkovich, child abuse, & people-as-puppets, Leonard Cohen & MKULTRA, Anomalisa, ancestral possession & The Shining.


Songs:  “The Kommema and his Religion” by SunWalker; “The High-Wire Act,” by Robert Farmer; “All is Clear,” by Big Blood.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. Nick Kalani
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    43:43 Why are we here? How do we approach the “why” as detectives? To what extent and degree are our existences separate?

    Is it the anxious numerologist separate from the existential detective or the ground level actor/agent?

    Each is analyzing the intelligent design of the other.

    As the agent-type, observing and play-acting detective, “walking among them,” I intuit similarities and functionality between my experience of existing and how I’m drawn here, more so than a dysfunctional standalone complex dissimilar from Jasun or Alex.

    Did any of us choose our proclivities in our methods of searching to understand and heal?

    What are the chances a government-trained cryptologic linguist would ever compare himself to you or point out your relative experience as an intelligence analyst?

    I’m an Aries that varies between cherry-picking points, while disjointing the seen and not seen.

    • Jasun
      Posted July 1, 2017 at 11:55 am | Permalink

      Quite a cryptic run of comments. You self-identify as a ground agent? 😮

      Who is the government-trained cryptologic linguist?

  2. Nick Kalani
    Posted July 1, 2017 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    I self-identify as a person with a tending enigmatic behavior that lends to detecting the ground level concrete essence of these “airborne” abstractions, by assuming the character/agency required to navigate the environment. It’s not a profession or conscious, overt methodology, yet it’s what I time and again reflect upon how I got here, right now. I used to include false spoken words as part of those characterizations. I would say many people do this to a degree in a job interview.

    Putting that out in the open and striving for spoken truth seems to be the only methodology I have in counter-balancing those tendencies, which left unchecked lead to further fragmenting. Perhaps I will leave it behind some day, however it seems essential to integrate that aspect of myself, not least of all that it’s one of my ways of searching and understanding the other.

    I was a professional government-trained Airborne Cryptologic Linguist, in the United States Air Force.

    I don’t hold a belief or purport that I am a primary, professionally-trained covert ground agent. Rather, a secondary culturally entrained one, with a closer than average connection to overt government influence. My aptitudes lead me there. My self reflection lead me here.

    I mean to compare this searching in abstraction to intelligence analysts flying high above the ground, out of sight, though not of mind, of targets.

  3. Mr.P
    Posted July 2, 2017 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    Just wanted to share this: on 9/11 morning after being shocked by the second tower falling, I remember going to my bedroom in which now i wd describe as a “light trance” and pìcking up the book I was reading the night before: Clarke’s 2001. I remember re-reading the prologue. It’s last sentence, «The truth, as always, will be far stranger» has remained in since then in my mind. So: was, in some sense the monolith witnessing me witnessing the towers fall, the same way was it doing that in its Millenium Hilton form?

  4. MikeB
    Posted July 2, 2017 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Good start lads.

    Kubrick knew and Ashby too :

    Kubrick = demiurge

    “Stanley’s act of creation occurs in unconscious semblance of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Kubrick films act as a solution to (or, at least possibly, the problem or cause that gives rise to) the problem of evil.”

  5. Chopo Jensa
    Posted July 2, 2017 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Fascinating talk. It’s curious how Jasun’s thesis is that the internet is being imbued with life, and that Alex’s thesis revolves around puppets, also. Both trains of thought revolve around the creation of a golem, in some sense, or psychological projection into the not-self…It’s funny, I tried applying the same methods of analysis to the worst director I could think of, Tommy Wiseau (of The Room) and the results were very weird. It’s one of the films that has made me analyse most anally and obsessively out of all the films I’ve obessed over. So in a sense, that gives strength to the assertion that you can do this with anyone. And yet, most of the patterns I perceived in Wiseau’s work were very “Kubrick-ey”. Of course, this could be due to me being already pre-conditioned to see Kubrick themes everywhere. In another sense, it could be that all artists somehow channel stuff from the same reservoir of human imagination, which is inevitably going to have common, universal symbols within it (the twins, the scary father and his demise, etc etc).
    Another possibility would be that “big names” act as magnets for psychological projection at a mass scale. So Kubrick’s films are seen as symbolically dense precisely because he is famous, and then that could apply to Tommy Wiseau: he is a “big name” in the sphere of bad movies, he is the “Citizen Kane of bad movies”, as he is called, so in a sense it is that fame that gives his film its mythological power, because the viewer sees it as a “legendary work” even before having watched it.
    Great great talk and can’t wait til part 2!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


%d bloggers like this: