image: Seated Hermes, found in the Villa of the Papyri, Hurculaneum. Wikimedia commons (link).
One of the most important talks at the recent Secret Space Program
-- among a lineup of talks that were all extremely important, each in its own way and also in conjunction with the others and with the larger thesis that was being explored from many different angles -- and one of the most memorable was undoubtedly the theatrical tour de force delivered by Jon Rappoport.
It was "theatrical" in the sense that Jon Rappoport seamlessly "channels" the voice and persona of whatever character he needs at any moment in order to illustrate his message, at times more than one character at a time (for instance, when depicting a dialogue or a debate), and at other times (after the fashion of the classical orators of antiquity) he will declare: "But I hear someone saying . . . " and then he will deliver the imagined counter-argument or challenge to his thesis, before he takes up his own voice again and demolishes their objection.
It was also theatrical in the sense that the heart of his message involved the use of "a little theater" -- as in, Let's show that the entire construct of reality is nothing but theater, a willful "suspension of disbelief" by those who have bought into it as if it were actually real. According to his argument, theater is a powerful tool by which we can "upset the apple cart," and demonstrate a different reality than the one that everyone is accepting as "the only reality" by unthinking default.
His talk was so successful in its theatricality and its delivery of his powerful message that it deserves to be seen and heard -- and I've been waiting to see if it would show up on YouTube or some other public outlet, so that I could link to the video of the presentation itself, allowing readers to go watch and listen to Jon Rappoport for themselves. However, so far it has not shown up in any public outlet that I have found, although it is available on the Secret Space Program official website, where those who purchased tickets to the event (either tickets to attend in-person or tickets to watch the streaming videos from the conference) can log in and see all of the videos of the presentations.
So, I will discuss what I felt to be the most important points of Jon's talk, along with some quotations from the talk itself -- with the hope that if the video does become public at some point in the future, readers can go check out the entire thing.
The core of his message is at once both simple and profound . . . and so challenging that it is difficult to face, so challenging that it invites all the "defense mechanisms" of the brain to find a way to bury the message somewhere that we won't see it or have to think about it.
His message is that imagination produces "reality."
This message is exactly what I am trying to articulate when I say that the unified message of every ancient mythology is shamanic and holographic
at the same time -- but Jon Rappoport articulates this message without using either of those two terms, and in a way that is perhaps more direct, more profound, and more eloquent.
Let's "listen" to some of the most important parts of his lecture, to hear him in his own words. First, his argument that, in the most profound way possible, you are not material: that is, the part of "you" that actually makes you "you" is not the material part -- and the implications of that fact will be seen to be enormous, and will lead right into the most paradigm-upending pronouncements of quantum physics, and the "holographic universe" models that theoretical physicists have been proposing for the past forty or fifty years:
OK – so let’s take the materialist’s view of life:
by conventional physics – conventional physics, OK? Everywhere’s particles.
Tiny little particles. Call ‘em whatever you want: say they’re matter, say
they’re energy, whatever you want – but that’s
it! As far as you can go in the universe, that’s it, that’s what you’ve got
when you boil it all down, you’ve got these little particles, right? Quarks and
the things and the wavicles and the bah-bah-bah-bah. OK. And a conventional
physicist will tell you, if you (you know) press
them far enough, that none of these particles contain consciousness (what?) or
the ability to understand anything –
you know, what we ordinarily take to be understanding. They’re just particles,
right? This thing here? Particles.
Particles, particles, particles, particles, particles, particles. Brain? Same particles. No different! Don’t
give me that – same particles.
Sorry! So, how is it possible,
then, that I’m talking and you understand what I’m saying? It’s not. Something
impossible is happening here right now. Your brain is made out of the same
particles mine is, same as the chair is, same as that camera, same as her
lipstick, same as that strap, same as that thing you’re wearing, a bracelet.
It’s all the same particles. Brain? Same particles. [. . . ] So by conventional
physics (materialism, that’s the philosophy aspect of it) there’s no possible
way that I could be talking and you could be sitting there understanding what
I’m saying. But yet, it’s happening! Impossible! Therefore . . . you’re not material.
Hate to break it to you. Neither am I. We’re inhabiting these things, but we’re
not material. These things are
material, but we’re not . . . and we possess this capacity to understand each
other. Yes, the physical vehicle has a part to play, in the theatrical this and the that and the blueah-yuh-yuh-yuh,
but that’s it. The actual understanding
is non-material. Somebody says, “WAIT a
minute! I don’t like that. Don’t try
to pull that one on me. I’m not non-material,
my good friend.” Well, too bad. So if that’s the case, here, what we’re really
looking at is a roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies, who are
basically being confronted with the idea that they have extremely powerful
imagination and creative power . . . That doesn’t seem like a stretch to me
anymore. “Well, Hey! If I’m not really made out of matter, some pretty wild
things are goin’ on here! You know? And if imagination happens to be one of
those things, well why not? Yeah, I could see that! I create something, I
create something!” Now somebody says, “Well, can you snap your fingers and make
an elephant appear over there?” Nope! Nope! I can make him appear to me (hey, Bozo), but . . . if we go
back into ancient Tibet, which is a whole other topic, I think we can see that
they were on the trail of making an elephant that everybody could see – that’s
another story for another time, perhaps – but the point is: it’s non-material you, asking yourself the
question, “What can I do?” It’s not John Q. Patterson, of 63 Gobby-gooby Drive
in San Jose, California, blah-blah, with a phone number of this, and a cell,
and a pair of glasses, and a fence around his yard, and a thing, saying “What
can I do?” . . . That’s not it! Because that dude has absolutely no chance! He
has no answers -- he has no clue! He’s the wrong character in the play to be
dealing with that issue. [Beginning at 01:10:46 into the presentation from Sunday, June 29, 2014].
In other words, once we have established that you, your consciousness, is non-material and that it is not being produced by the material physical universe of particles (it cannot be), then some pretty incredible ramifications immediately begin to force their way to the front of the crowd and start demanding we address them -- ramifications such as, "if my consciousness is not actually being generated by these particles, then is it actually dependent upon these particles, or is it somehow above and beyond them?" and "if I am not dependent upon the particles, then does that mean I can create realities with this non-material consciousness I've got? What about creating an elephant?" and "If this is true, then to what degree do we have to accept the tidy little boundaries and structures that seem to give meaning and identity to everything?" (these questions are my extrapolations of some of the implications raised by the subject which Jon is discussing in the quoted segment above -- they are not quotations from the talk but I put them in quotation marks to point out that these are the kinds of questions that the point that Jon is making above should cause us to start asking).
These are implications raised by what I would call the holographic part of the formula "shamanic-holographic." But Jon Rappoport's real gift to the world is his articulation of what I would label the shamanic -- but what he calls the artist.
The artist (and the shaman) transcends the artificial boundaries of what most of us accept as "reality" -- and in doing so they actually create a new reality.
This is the message that I believe to be at the heart of all of the ancient myths of the world -- a shamanic message, a shamanic-holographic message. And, in a profound and memorable part of his talk (the most profound and memorable part, to me) Jon Rappoport made this very point by invoking the trickster god -- specifically Hermes. Listen as he describes the process by which certain people who want to control others have become very adept at "creating reality" and handing it off to people who don't know that they can transcend the limitations of those so-called realities, and how the message that the trickster god desperately wants to get through everybody's head is that this reality is just one big giant construct, and that we should be using our imagination to transcend it and to create our own!
But it is, unfortunately, the answer:
Imagination. You would think, uh, well . . . I was hoping it wouldn’t be that. [. . .]
To look at it another way: the bad
guys are already using their imagination. They’ve been doing that for a
long time. And what they have created is this strange thing called “reality.”
Who knew, right? That’s what they do. In my book The Secret Behind Secret Societies, I go into this at, you know, excruciating
and painful length. The bad guys have been painting the mural of reality for a
long time, but they’re not interested in looking at it themselves, unlike an
actual painter. They just want to turn it the other way and show it to
everybody else and say: “This is reality! OK? This is it!” And the last thing they want other people to
then do is to say: “Well, who painted that?” No -- they want to make it so
convincing that people are just gonna say, “Yeah! OK! That’s reality!
Yeah! It looks like a reality – Uh, you
know . . . I don’t know what to compare it to (maybe a ringing cellphone) – uh,
it is, it must be reality! And I will accept it because . . . it’s here! You see,
this is the requirement. We’re all intelligent people, and, so, well, we all
know: Let’s see -- what’s the definition of reality? What’s here! Anything
else?” What else could it be? Now, if you’re a particularly perverse artist and
you produced that painting, you’re going – “Man! You see this guy? He comes up
to us in the museum and he goes: ‘Uh huh, yeah, that’s reality!’” In fact, in
fact – this is very important – he doesn’t just look at the painting: he walks
into the friggin’ painting. And he takes
a left, and a right, and he finds a little cottage, and he says: “Can I move in?”
and everybody says: “Sure!” And he moves in, and he stays there. That’s how convinced . . . So somebody else, not just one person, of course,
but . . . the mural is being painted.
Right? Has been, for a long time. That’s called imagination. Now we can say, “Well, we just don’t have what it
takes to do a better, different mural. You know. We gotta go with the one that
we got.” And what I’m saying is, “That’s all wrong, you see.” But it kind of
depends on you, saying, actually, “You know, I have an imagination, and I’m
going to imagine a different reality, and some means of getting there. I’m
gonna do something big.” All right?
Theater – let’s have a little theater. Let’s upset the apple cart for example with
some theater. Poke a hole in the
status quo. This is what
the trickster-god, Hermes or Mercury, was all about in the ancient Greek
culture. He had enough firepower to be the king of the Olympians, in that
mythology, but he didn’t wanna be, because he could see that everybody else was
glued to this single reality, and he wasn’t. He was passing through buildings,
and cars, and planes, and whatever they had back then, he would just go through
it and around it and he would look at everybody hypnotized by the, you know, the reality and he would say: “Man! Wake
up! Don’t you see?” and if necessary he would resort to stealing things from people – go into their houses at night: “OK, so
he put the TV here, let me move it over here – this is gonna be good, you know.
And then let’s go into the kitchen cabinet, and let’s take all of the cereal,
and put it underneath with all the, you know, the cleaners and the crap, right?
And then, let’s see, what else, let’s take his wife’s clothes and put ‘em in his closet, and his clothes and put ‘em
in his wife’s . . . yeah, right!” And that guy wakes up the next morning and he
gets up and he goes: “Wha- wha- What happened!” You know? “What happened to the
reality that’s been painted for me, that I’ve accepted? Everything is
different! Were the clothes . . . honey, did you change the clothes?” “No, you
must have done it: I didn’t do anything.” “What happened, where is this, why is
this, why is the cereal under the sink, with the Clorox? Are you now putting
Clorox in my cereal?” Imagination, creative power. This is what consciousness
is about. And part of the so-called, you know, paranormal – that word – it really means “imagination and
creative power.” So that imagination produces
reality. [00:30:44. The passage at the end introduced by "This is what the trickster god . . ." begins at 00:35:27].
This is incredibly powerful stuff. This is exactly the message (I believe) of "the hidden god." That message, you recall, portrayed in countless ancient myths of the world, is that when we plunge into incarnation, we are given a "drink of forgetfulness," causing us to forget our divine nature (and what is a divine nature, if not a "reality-producing" nature?), and the message of all the myths (from the hunt by Isis for the chopped-up pieces of Osiris, to the parable of the prodigal son, eating among the swine and forgetful of who he really is) is this: "Wake up!" (or, in the words inscribed upon the stones at Delphi: "Know thyself!").
It is a message that we are prone to forgetting, even after we have learned it once -- we may have remembered at one point that we could be an artist, transcending boundaries and creating new realities, and then somehow forgotten it and settled down inside the boundaries of someone's artificial construct again, and accepted our circumscribed little identity inside of it. That's why we need the trickster god to come "upset the apple cart" and show us that those "realities" are actually nothing more than a bunch of conventions that everyone is giving power to by their acceptance of them, but that once such acceptance is withdrawn, the conventions will melt away into the insubstantiality they always were to begin with.
The trickster-god in mythology is like the "clown" in the plays of Shakespeare (whoever he was, or whoever she was, or whoever they were . . . if the plays of Shakespeare are the products of someone or "someones" other than the Bard of Avon). The clown (or fool) is allowed to say things to those in power (including and especially the king) that no one else dares to say -- and the king welcomes it -- in fact needs it. The clown shows that the entire structure, which certainly seems to have a "reality" of its own (and a reality that is enforced by real steel bayonets and the real threat of death for those who try to resist it), is nothing more than a great big social construct, a fabrication given its power by the very acquiescence of everyone who subscribes to it. It is a power that is derived, for the most part, from words themselves -- and the clown characters of Shakespeare are past masters at playing with words, punning upon the ambiguous meanings of words, taking words too literally or otherwise twisting their meaning around to subvert their original intention, and otherwise showing that the whole thing is a great big artificial reality to which the clown refuses to subscribe and in which the clown refuses to settle down like everybody else.
In other words, the clown is trying to wake us up from our doltish acceptance of the artificial structures that limit us -- that may, in fact, have been "realities" that were spun for us by wielders of "mind control," as Jon Rappoport indicates in the quotations above. A delightful modern movie in which a "clown" character illustrates the concept of "mind control" is (appropriately enough), entitled The Court Jester.
What's more, virtually every ancient myth-system around the world has a trickster-god, and (as Jon Rappoport indicates in his discussion of Hermes quoted above), that trickster-god is an extremely important god: in many ways, the most important of all of them (think, for example, of the fact that the tradition of Hermetism or Hermeticism and Hermetic wisdom have an origin attributed to Hermes, or more specifically to Hermes Trismegistus: Hermes recognized as the Greek god who is identified with Thoth of ancient Egypt).
In Norse myth, for example, the god associated with Hermes is in fact the most powerful of all the gods: Odin himself. "Odin's day" (or "Wotan's day") is our Wednesday, which is the day of Mercury (or Hermes) in the Latin languages (for example, it is Miercoles in Spanish). Odin is a boundary-crossing god: he famously (shamanically) transcends the boundaries of the physical body by hanging himself on the World-Tree of Yggdrasil for nine days and nine nights, until he has a vision and "sees" the twigs on the ground turn themselves into runes (remember that Thoth, the Egyptian god associated with Hermes and hence with Odin, was the god of writing and of scribes and the giver of the gift of writing to humanity also). Odin passes through the boundaries to retrieve knowledge from the "other side" -- he brings into being "new realities." He is also constantly depicted in Norse myth as having to break his word and having it trouble him very deeply.
Not only that, but Odin is blood-brother to a sort of evil twin, the real trickster-god of Norse myth: Loki. If one were asked which Norse god was the counterpart of the trickster-god Hermes, the most obvious answer would seem to be Loki, not Odin. But the Norse myths tell us that Odin and Loki each opened a vein in their arms, and Odin let his blood and the blood of Loki flow together: hence, in a very real sense, Odin and Loki are actually both two sides of the same god.
Loki, like Hermes, is a distinctly hermaphroditic god: we are told that of all the gods, his shape-shifting abilities are such that he can even take on the form of female creatures (Loki once famously turned himself into a mare in order to distract the work-horse of a threatening jotun -- and then when Loki became pregnant by that jotun's stallion, Loki became the dam of Odin's marvelous eight-legged steed, Sleipnir). So, Loki is a "boundary-crossing" god as well. In fact, Loki (like Odin) is constantly breaking his word, although unlike Odin he never seems to feel any remorse about it.
It is also interesting to note that, while Hermes is often portrayed as a slender, beardless youth (such as in the famous Seated Hermes statue shown above, which was discovered in the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum in Italy, a town like Pompeii on the slopes of Vesuvius, and which was horribly buried under fiery volcanic ash on that fateful day in AD 79), he is also portrayed in earlier art such as the Greek red-figure cup shown below as a bearded man with a wide-brimmed hat. Odin also famously wears such a hat in Norse mythology as well. In the scene below, Hermes is the one holding a caduceus staff -- the one topped with the twinned serpents intertwined into a figure that almost looks like a "figure eight."
image: Attic red-figure cup thought to date to the period 480 BC - 470 BC. Wikimedia commons (link).
Other trickster-gods in mythology are no less central and no less important. Among the tribes of North America, the most-important god is often Coyote, a famous trickster. When it is not Coyote, the trickster-god is often Raven. Significantly, these trickster-gods of the Native American myth-systems are the ones described as creating the world: in other words, they are creators of realities. But then, in the myths that follow the creation series, they are also the subverters of realities: the one who, by his actions, seems to say to the rest of the gods and to humanity, "Don't take this reality that you say I've created too seriously! Don't fall into the trap of imprisoning yourself inside of its artificial boundaries! You're supposed to take my example and then go forth and do likewise for yourselves!"
Among the Polynesians, including the Hawaiians and the Maori of New Zealand (Aotearoa), the central god is Maui, and he too is a trickster god. Once again, in both Hawaii
and in Aotearoa
, Maui is the one who creates the islands themselves, fishing them up out of the deep with his magical prepotent fishhook. But, once again, he is also a trickster, and as such he can be seen to be trying to wake everyone up to the same message that Hermes wants to convey, or Loki, or Coyote, or Jon Rappoport! In Maori mythology, too, Maui is more specifically also a shamanic god: frequently turning himself into birds, an attribute of shamans around the world, and an especially common transformation used by both Odin and Loki
in the Norse mythologies.
Interestingly enough, all of the constellations which most likely find their mythical personification in the trickster-gods of the various world mythologies (such as Loki, Coyote, Raven, Maui, and the rest) seem to be located in a particularly significant portion of the sky (and boundary-line in the annual zodiac wheel).
The double-hemisphere "full sky star chart" shown below is not as helpful as it perhaps could be, in that it "curves" the constellations near its edges to replicate the curve one would find on an actual globe or celestial sphere (click here
for an enlargement, but without my added constellation labels), but in it one can see that near the constellation Virgo there is a prominent "Coyote" constellation (that is to say, Lupus the Wolf constellation is my informed opinion as to the origin of the trickster-god Coyote) and not far from that Corvus the Crow (that is to say, my informed opinion as to the probable stellar origin of the trickster-god Raven; to see Corvus a bit better and to get some help in locating him in the night sky, see this previous post
Note that I have already established (to my own satisfaction, at least) the identification of Loki with the constellation Boötes -- see the arguments put forward in this previous post
. The myth that most firmly establishes Loki as the embodiment in myth of Boötes is, in my opinion, his antics that bring a smile to the lips of Skadi (who is clearly playing the role of Virgo, as that post demonstrates: the stars of Virgo having a famously coy smile and one which appears in many other world star-myths, including the myth of Amaterasu in Japan and of Sarai/Sarah in the Old Testament). However, the identification is strengthened (I would even venture to say, proven
) by the myths of the theft by Loki of the necklace of the goddess Freya and of the theft by Loki of the hair of the goddess Sif, both of which are next to the constellation Boötes and also, of course, to Virgo (whom each of these goddesses is portraying in her turn). These theft-myths are discussed in this previous post: "Brisingamen, the necklace of Freya
Maui too can be identified with Boötes, for he has as his consort Hina, who is almost certainly Virgo. Thus, we can see that a great many of the most-important tricksters of the world's mythology (including Loki, Maui, Coyote, and Raven) are located in one very specific part of the sky.
Why would this particular part of the sky furnish the trickster-gods of the world's star-myths?
I would argue that the answer lies in the fact that these constellations are all very near to Virgo and to the crossing-line of the fall equinox (the equinox that lies, in the ancient system, at the juncture point between the sign of Virgo and the sign of Libra):
This would be the point marked by the red "X" on the right-hand side of the above zodiac wheel, which (for observers in the northern hemisphere) is the equinox at which the days begin to be shorter than the nights, the equinox which marks the point of descent into the nether regions -- on the way to the very Pit of Hell
at the winter solstice at the bottom of the wheel.
I would argue that the reason all of these "trickster-gods" are clustered around this part of the sky is that this juncture was mythologically portrayed as the very "crossing point" or "boundary" at which the soul (metaphorically speaking) plunges into incarnation (the ancient myth-systems allegorized this point on the wheel as the point of descent from the realm of the spiritual into the realm of the material and the incarnate -- see the discussions here
for more on that concept).
This boundary is critical to the trickster-god, because it is at this juncture (in the mythological system of using the majestic motions of the sky as a sort of Montessori teaching-aid
to convey profound and abstract truths) that consciousness is robed in a physical body (made up, as Jon Rappoport so memorably told us, of "particles, particles, particles, particles, particles, particles"). It is thus at this very point (and during the incarnate life which follows the point of incarnation, when we toil through the "underworld" of this human existence in a body) that we are most vulnerable to being tricked into believing that the structures themselves are real and insurmountable! (By the way, as an important aside, I do not believe that boundaries are inherently bad
or evil: boundaries can actually enhance creativity, as discussed in this previous post
. The boundaries on a tennis court, for example, give the structure that enables the players to display their skills and their "artistry." When boundaries are agreed-upon as a positive enhancement of human liberty and creativity and freedom, then they can serve a very positive purpose. But, when artificial boundaries are created to limit human freedom, and when these artificial limiting boundaries take on an air of "reality" and insurmountability, then they are harmful).
But they are not ultimately real, and they are not ultimately insurmountable! This is the universal message of the trickster-god (who will go to great lengths to try to convey this message to us, subverting the apparently rigid "order" of the universe in whatever way he needs to in order to get his point through our thick skulls).
Mainly, he will get this point across using jokes, ridicule, the ridiculous -- just like the clowns of Shakespeare are wont to do.
And here we see another important reason why the trickster-god comes from this particular point in the zodiac wheel (the point of incarnation): because incarnation itself, in many ways, is something of a gigantic joke that is played upon us! As Jon Rappoport so powerfully put it in the portion of his talk cited first above, "what we're really looking at is a roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies."
That's funny! That's a situation that is just fraught with all kinds of potential comedy.
And, although he was addressing the roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies that happened to be physically there and listening to his talk at the moment, he could have just as easily said: "what we're really looking at is a world full of non-material beings inhabiting bodies."
And to return for just a moment to the symbology of Hermes discussed briefly above, we see that Hermes of course is the bearer of the caduceus, that staff up which run the intertwined serpents, which has become the symbol of medicine (the treatment of the human body). If he, like the other trickster-gods, is associated with the point of incarnation (the point where all the non-material beings get their bodies to inhabit for a time), then the caduceus (symbol of the profession that treats those inhabited bodies) would be the perfect symbol for Hermes.
But that's not all, because of course it has been pointed out since the era of the modern model for the DNA molecule that the double-helix structure of this information-carrying self-replicating molecule resembles nothing in the world of symbol so much as it resembles the caduceus of Hermes. We could almost say that the wand carried by Hermes represents the DNA by which the trickster-god reminds us of our incarnate state -- and at the same time reminds us that this body (this product of DNA) is not all that we are, that even though it does limit us in certain ways it does not ultimately define us -- and that we can and must transcend those limits, and that in fact we will.
What a message!
(And, of course, Hermes is after all the divine messenger).
Jon Rappoport has done humanity a tremendous service by framing this message so powerfully, and by bringing to bear every metaphor and every theatrical technique he can muster to convey this message to our hypnotized minds. It is a message that we all need to be reminded of, again and again (the ancient mythographers knew this, and told us we have amnesia, in no uncertain terms). If you have access to the video stream from the Secret Space Program conference, I would suggest you watch his talk several times, once every few days or every week, so that you remember it and so that it can penetrate our natural "defense mechanisms" that want to push this message out of sight and out of mind. If his talk is put up on any public video forums, I would suggest you do the same thing -- watch it again and again, at regular intervals.
I can personally say that his message has greatly sharpened my own understanding of the concept I am trying to articulate as the holographic and the shamanic (or "shamanic-holographic"). The fact that he has done it using the trickster-god reinforces my conviction that the ancient sacred scriptures of the world were a legacy to humanity to promote "consciousness," the awareness that the universe is in a very real sense "holographic" and made up of vibrations, and that we can and must transcend those boundaries (the "shamanic"). The ancient sacred scriptures were meant to point the way to human freedom.
But somewhere along the way they were subverted by people who knew their message, and how to use their knowledge of the shamanic and the holographic to create artificial constructs for others, artificial realities, that did the exact opposite of what the scriptures were originally intended to do. To enslave rather than to liberate. The fact that Jon Rappoport sees the deliberate creation of an enslaving artificial reality as the root of the problems we face today reinforces the conclusions that I have also reached, conclusions which involve history going back at least to the early Roman Empire and the creation of the Flavian dynasty. And, if those conclusions about history are correct, we should expect different analysts to arrive at them from all kinds of different avenues of investigation.
Thank you, Jon Rappoport, for your courageous pursuit of the truth for decades as an investigative reporter, for your ongoing investigations and articles, and for your clarity in articulating the message we all need to hear: that imagination creates reality, and that the antidote and solution to those who want to use their imagination to enslave is this -- for people, en masse, to become artists:
But if people, en masse, began to say: “Oh! Oh – I see: you
guys are artists, right? You’re
artists, and you’ve got your own museum and your own theater, and you’re making
reality because you think that’s what
I want! You think you can sell me
your infomercial about the cosmos! I get it! No thanks. Not interested.”
“Why? Ultimately, because I’m making up my own. Yeah, I’m
making up my own. I don’t need yours. Yeah, it’s pretty impressive – I’d like
to take the tour, I’ll give you a buck, whatever, you know . . . does lunch
come with that? You have a ticket I can have? You know? But as far as enrolling? And becoming a . . .? Nahhh. Because, come into my
studio – you see what I’m painting here? Come into my office – you see what I’m
building here? Come into my . . . whatever, my pasture, you see what I’m
creating here? Come into my world – you see what I’m creating here? This is far
more interesting to me than what you’re making for everybody.”