 |
 |
>may be able to enter into thought and >behavior modes that look like psychotic symptoms, but that alone wouldn't >qualify him/her--it's the ability to enter that state and come back again >to the everyday that's important. Ah, I agree with you, Mark, about this, that it's the ability to enter thought and behavior modes that "look like" psychotic symptoms, as Dickinson wrote "much madness is diviner sense to a discerning eye" or Shakespeare's compact of lover/madman/poet and "come back again to the everyday." One of the characteristics too, it seems to me, is that it is somewhat contained, in other words, these 'thought and behavior modes' that look like psychotic symptoms occur in particular occasions, which are themselves limited in time, bound by certain assumptions and the various participants, the 'anonymonity' of the masque, festivals of 'letting all the dogs out', the bounding by time (festival for only a day or a week) which pressures, having some use, in part, to 'purge' or 'let out' or 'bring in' various realities that were there anyway here within the community. It's more complicated, of course, as you know, since it's not necessarily a shaman, many of these events have some dark figure that 'sanctions' or initiates them, its unallowable disclosures provoking the disclosures of others. But it seems to me that such a liminal state can be most useful to one's art, allowing the mimicry and rapid moving through various conventions, burning through various tired tropes and voices, allowing the marginal and despised into different positions in one's work, etc. but even there as you say it's the coming back to the everyday or simultaneously not having left it, it'd be different if one weren't or weren't capable of washing the clothes! best, Rebecca ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:14:28 -0500 >From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: poets and shamans >To: [log in to unmask] > >To diagnose someone as psychotic one has to document a group of symptoms, >most of which would not be considered in themselves inappropriate in all >circumstances. Joan of Arc heard the voices and saw the visions that were >expected of visionaries in her culture. The same could be said of Crazy >Horse. Neither suffered from psychosis, which when it's active is a serious >problem for the sufferer. > >It's nonetheless true that some cultures value loose associations, a >prerequisite for visions and also for most kinds of art making, more than >others, and members with loose associations tend to positions of power and >respect in those cultures. The shaman may be able to enter into thought and >behavior modes that look like psychotic symptoms, but that alone wouldn't >qualify him/her--it's the ability to enter that state and come back again >to the everyday that's important. > >Which is to say that Artaud would have suffered from his illness in any >culture. > >Mark > > >>I've been reading Artaud's The Peyote Dance recently, a collection of his >>writings about his encounters with Indian mysticism. I don't think it can >>have any anthropological status at all, Artaud's observations being so >>inflected through a very tormented Christianity and then later repudiated by >>him anyway - but as a record of a poetic liminal state that can only be seen >>as psychotic in Western society, it's a pretty fascinating and rather sad >>document. >> >>Best >> >>A >> >> >> >>Alison Croggon >> >>Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com >>Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au >>Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com