 |
 |
yes I have the same problem Sean, have you ever wondered what it might be like to be that person, to be both that person who is both the source of the image and yet not one with it? The peculiar situation of the huge star, known about by millions, feted, disparaged, loved, hated etc. It's a situation which is more suited to non-thinkers, those who either in their non-thinking accept it all as a given, a blessing and true, and those who in their non-thinking are able to take it with a pinch of salt and not take themselves or the situation too seriously. But for the thinker, particularly the intelligent thinker, neither of those options can apply. Two examples of the first group would be Jagger and Patrick Mc Manus cheers all On 25/10/2016 16:53, Tim Allen wrote: > This stuff about Dylan and his image/enigma..... Sean, have you ever > wondered what it might be like to be that person, to be both that > person who is both the source of the image and yet not one with it? > The peculiar situation of the huge star, known about by millions, > feted, disparaged, loved, hated etc. It's a situation which is more > suited to non-thinkers, those who either in their non-thinking accept > it all as a given, a blessing and true, and those who in their > non-thinking are able to take it with a pinch of salt and not take > themselves or the situation too seriously. But for the thinker, > particularly the intelligent thinker, neither of those options can > apply. Two examples of the first group would be Jagger and Richard > (Jagger for the first and Richard for the second) but two examples of > the second group would be John Lennon and Bob Dylan. From biographical > accounts neither of them seems to have been very pleasant. Now, as I > said before, I have no way of knowing if this is true, but what it > points to is that both of them couldn't help but constantly consider > their situation and what it meant - 'what is the nature of this > relationship between me and all those people who think they know me'? > etc. For Lennon of course his relative early death brought such > questions to an end, but for long lived Dylan the situation just went > on and on - a situation with no possibility of resolution. In an early > post re the start of all this I said something about how Dylan was > constantly playing with the role allotted him by fate, playing with > the myth made not so much by himself as by his fans, constantly > questioning both them and himself and the relationship. He does this > because he has no real choice, not if he is going to go on doing what > he likes doing, making records and writing songs and performing. To do > this means that every time he steps on the stage the conundrum plays > itself out as it must. > > So you see I take an almost opposite view to you on this. > > Cheers > > Tim > > On 25 Oct 2016, at 10:43, Sean Carey wrote: > >> Keith Richards not slow himself at economics once termed Bob Dylan >> "the prince of profit" & not far off the Marxist barometer. The >> enigma must be preserved for the elusive minstrel to keep his image >