That bastard Tim Boucher, has set off a flurry of Manson talk, so now I have to get some of the leftover scraps, before there’s nothing left. The Bastard! He even used my favorite Manson quote:

 Have you ever seen the coyote in the desert? Watching, tuned in, completely aware. Christ on the cross, the coyote in the desert – it’s the same thing, man. The coyote is beautiful. You learn from the coyote just like you can learn from a child. A baby is born into this world in a state of fear. Total paranoia and awareness. He sees the world with eyes not used yet. As he grows up, his parents lay all this stuff on him. They tell him, when they should be letting him tell them. Let the children lead you.

This also partly illustrates what I think is the main issue with Manson, and his ‘teaching’ if you can call it that.

I was sort of surprised to find a fair bit of argument of whether or not Charlie actually has ‘it’ or not. As in does Charlie have an authentic realization, or is he just a weird old psychotic fucker? The answer to me, is obviously, both.

To back this extravagant claim up, I have to reffer to my main man Ken Wilber. Specifically two aspects of his work: states and stages, and the pre-trans fallacy.

By states and stages, I mean that according to Wilber, it is entirely possible to have a state experience at any point in one’s evolution as a conscious being. Psychopaths can have transcendent experiences, as can highly moral postmodern liberals, for example. Afterwards, both will interpret that experience according to their stageof development ie; the framework of concepts and beliefs that they have at the time. Which will then filter how they work with that transcendental realisation.

In Charlie’s case he was beaten, abused, rejected by society, imprisoned and persecuted at every turn. So when he comes down from his godhead trips, he quite obviously thinks that he is Christ, that he is being persecuted as the godhead cast down into profane time, and becoming. And because he is that one with no other in his own mind, his criminal self interprets that as unlimited license to do as he pleases and rule ‘his’ world as he sees fit. The psychopathic narcissist can only use the tools he has, to work with the experience of unlimited awareness.Since Charlie has never had any incentive to develop his realization in any deeper way he remains exactly where he was thirty years ago.

Now the other aspect to a lot of what Manson says is the pre-trans fallacy; which in short is the tendency to mistake a preconventional or regressive state for a postconventional or transcendental one simply because both lie outside the realm of the conventional mind. This is where you get all the ranting about brutality, murder, racism, and savagery as if it were scripture. As well as his fascination with letting unformed children direct things. In Charlie’s mind anything rejected by the conventional mind is holy, simply because it falls outside the confines of the mentality that has imprisoned him.

Which leads me into what I think is the more relevant and interesting aspect of the Manson saga which Rev alludes to here.

In short I think Charlie is the scapegoat. He is the one held up as an example that anyone who steps outside the false consciousness of the consensus is a dangerous mad dog psychopath. He’s just compelling enough to draw attention, but way too scary to ever approach for the average person as if he were a serious contender for authentic discourse.

As long as Charlie remains rotting in his cell ( as he probably ought to be ), the powers that rule this society can use him as an alibi:

“satanic murder? ritual killings? racial provocation? occult inspired savagery? transcendent consciousness used to wield terrible social influence? GOOD GOD NO!

WE LOCK PEOPLE LIKE THAT UP! ”

So there Charlie sits, Christ on the cross forever and ever, the Degenerate Titan in his Tartarus.

or maybe not:

Richard Metzger: Under what circumstances can you envision the world’s population actually welcoming the political leadership of Charles Manson?
George Stimson: When they realize their lives depend on it.
RM: Do you seriously think the public would ever come to that conclusion?
GS: The way things are going I think it’s inevitable and I think it’s getting closer every day. Haven’t you noticed how quickly things happen these days?
RM: Yeah, but don’t you think things would really, really have to get out of hand for THAT to happen? Come on . . .
GS: Things are getting really out of hand.
RM: Well, I guess I can’t disagree with that! Is Charles Manson actually interested in assuming political power or would he prefer to be seen as a wise old sage who world leaders would come to for advice?
GS: I asked him last night (5/25):
CHARLES MANSON: The brotherhood of the gun rules the world. I don’t give a fuck about votes or getting elected into being a politician. And I don’t give a fuck about playing no wise holy man. All I want is order. I want order in the perspective of the numbers. And if you give me order in the numbers, fuck the personality of it. I don’t care about the personality of it. Get with the program or be destroyed. That’s all that is.”

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Charlie Don’t Surf!

  1. In Charlie’s mind anything rejected by the conventional mind is holy, simply because it falls outside the confines of the mentality that has imprisoned him.

    ————

    Hmmm… very interesting. I read Wilvber years ago, the most I remember about him is that he contrasted the new age idea of spiritual hierarchies with the postmodern concept of horizontal immanence and showed the limitations of each. I suppose the latter would be an idea of the “pre-trans” fallacy, but how do you disntinguish that from monist mysticism, is what I wonder.

    I mean, obviously the horizontal flattening of ideas and experience so that they’re all equally valuable and equally worthless is rarely thought about as a spiritual thing… people who take this view are usually strict materialists, but…

    Ratfuck, now I will have to read Wilber again. DAMNIT! That bald egghead staring at me from the cover really pisses me off too. Oh well. Thanks, I guess…!

  2. i like the scapegoat thing. you’re right about how charlie’s ‘scariness’ keeps people from assessing him. of course, i personally feel like i can assess him pretty well, and i don’t find him really that scary or impressive at all. in fact i feel like i can pretty much see right through the poor fucker. reminds me a bit of my favorite quote of machiavelli, “and then whoever sees the devil truly sees him with smaller horns and not even black.”

  3. Charlie’s real value is as an archetype, the imprisoned prophet who gains credibility from the fact that society seems to fear him so much. when in fact, he hasn’t got the skills to function on the outside anyway. If he did, he’d probably be president by now, or at least secretary of defense:

    ‘my platform is: get with the program or be destroyed’

    No. it’s quite evident that he’s supposed to be the posterboy for the dangers of stepping outside the daddy-consensus.

    two thousand years ago manson would’ve been the perfect warrior/shaman/chieftain of some marauding horde of barbarians, a shining example of initiation to his people. Now though, he just aint got the skills to cope…–>

  4. So just to throw this out there, but for some reason when I try and scroll through the website I can’t find this article, and if I click the heroes…tag I still can’t get it! I didn’t see it today. For me before Future Pivot “Not Quite Dystopia”…weird. I wonder if I missed anything else/why other people got to see the article.

  5. I can translate every word he says and turn it into ‘well’ fill in the gaps.

    For instance.
    What do you think of women?
    They are ‘well put together’ basically (born of a man and a woman, making a woman), and also physical structure.
    ‘soft and spongy’
    ‘so long as they do as they are told and keep their mouth shut’
    (which is what he does, he does as he is told, and otherwise says nothing)

    Who told you this?

    ‘If “I” were to “tell” you’ (which he is doing)
    ‘”He” (himself) would [is doing] grass [prison slang for tell] on me’

    He’s used the language ‘told’ as his empathy clue.
    He has ‘done as he was told, and ‘kept his mount shut”

    1. sorry boss. this isn’t a poetry reading, alas. I draw the line at six elliptical comments that don’t clearly address what I said. thanks for coming out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s