Researchers at Poland’s Institute of Nuclear Physics found complex
‘fractal’ patterning of sentences in literature, particularly in James
Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, which resemble ‘ideal’ maths seen in nature
Last shot of the day on a film set, also the last name of the author of this blog. Martin - Latin singular, those soldiers who work for Mars, God of War. A smith. In this lifetime of words, music and film. AKA "The Afterlife Expert" (Coast to Coast AM) If you want to reach me, I can be found on FB, LinkedIn, or Gmail under MartiniProds (my youtube channel)
Tuesday
Friday
Fractals and the Happiest Man Alive
Scientists find evidence of mathematical structures in classic books
James Joyce |
The academics put more than 100 works of world literature, by authors from Charles Dickens to Shakespeare, Alexandre Dumas, Thomas Mann, Umberto Eco and Samuel Beckett, through a detailed statistical analysis. Looking at sentence lengths and how they varied, they found that in an “overwhelming majority” of the studied texts, the correlations in variations of sentence length were governed by the dynamics of a cascade – meaning that their construction is a fractal: a mathematical object in which each fragment, when expanded, has a structure resembling the whole.
“All of the examined works showed self-similarity in terms of organisation of the lengths of sentences. Some were more expressive – here The Ambassadors by Henry James stood out – others to far less of an extreme, as in the case of the French 17th-century romance Artamene ou le Grand Cyrus. However, correlations were evident, and therefore these texts were the construction of a fractal,” said Dr Paweł Oświęcimka from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, one of the authors of the new paper Quantifying Origin and Character of Long-range Correlations in Narrative Texts.
Some works, however, were more mathematically complex than others, with stream-of-consciousness narratives the most complex, comparable to multifractals, or fractals of fractals. Finnegans Wake, the scientists found, was the most complex of all.
“The absolute record in terms of multifractality turned out to be Finnegans Wake by James Joyce. The results of our analysis of this text are virtually indistinguishable from ideal, purely mathematical multifractals,” said Professor Stanisław Drożdż, another author of the paper, which has just been published in the computer science journal Information Sciences.
Joyce himself, reported to have said he wrote Finnegans Wake “to keep the critics busy for 300 years”, might have predicted this. In a letter about the novel, Work in Progess as he then knew it, he told Harriet Weaver: “I am really one of the greatest engineers, if not the greatest, in the world besides being a musicmaker, philosophist and heaps of other things. All the engines I know are wrong. Simplicity. I am making an engine with only one wheel. No spokes of course. The wheel is a perfect square. You see what I’m driving at, don’t you? I am awfully solemn about it, mind you, so you must not think it is a silly story about the mouse and the grapes. No, it’s a wheel, I tell the world. And it’s all square.”
The academics write in their paper that: “Studying characteristics of the sentence-length variability in a large corpus of world famous literary texts shows that an appealing and aesthetic optimum … involves self-similar, cascade-like alternations of various lengths of sentences.”
Sequences of sentence lengths (as measured by number of words) in four books, representative of various degrees of cascading character. Photograph: IFJ PAN |
The other works most comparable to multifractals, the academics
found, were A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers,
Hopscotch by Julio Cortazar, The USA trilogy by John Dos Passos, The
Waves by Virginia Woolf, 2666 by Roberto Bolaño and Joyce’s Ulysses.
Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu showed “little
correlation” to multifractality, however; nor did Ayn Rand’s Atlas
Shrugged.
The academics note that “fractality of a literary text will in practice never be as perfect as in the world of mathematics”, because a mathematical fractal can be magnified to infinite, while the number of sentences in a book are finite.
“It is not entirely clear whether stream-of-consciousness writing actually reveals the deeper qualities of our consciousness, or rather the imagination of the writers. It is hardly surprising that ascribing a work to a particular genre is, for whatever reason, sometimes subjective,” said Drożdż, suggesting that the scientists’ work “may someday help in a more objective assignment of books to one genre or another”.
Drożdż suggested today that the findings could also be used to posit that writers “uncovered fractals and even multifractals in nature long before scientists”. “Evidently, they (like Joyce) had a kind of intuition, as it happens to great artists, that such a narrative mode best reflects ‘how nature works’ and they properly encoded this into their texts,” he said. “Nature evolves through cascades and thus arranges fractally, and imprints of this we find in the sentence-length variability.”
Eimear McBride, whose multiple award-winning debut novel A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing is written in a stream-of-consciousness style, said she wasn’t taken aback by the results.
“It doesn’t surprise me that works described as “stream of consciousness” appear to be the most fractal. By its nature, such writing is concerned not only with the usual load-bearing aspects of language – content, meaning, aesthetics, etc – but engages with language as the object in itself, using the re-forming of its rules to give the reader a more prismatic understanding of the subject at hand. Given the long-established connection between beauty and symmetry, finding works of literature fractally quantifiable seems perfectly reasonable.”
But she added that she couldn’t “help being somewhat disappointed by the idea that the main upshot of this research may be to make the assigning of genre more straightforward”.
“Surely there are more interesting questions about the how and why of writers’ brains arriving at these complex, but seemingly instinctive, fractals?” she said. “And, given Professor Drożdż’s pretty inarguable contention that it remains unclear whether or not stream-of-consciousness writing does indeed reveal a deeper layer of consciousness, what distance this research may go to explain why some readers believe themselves to be experiencing exactly that while others have the opposite reaction?”
The academics note that “fractality of a literary text will in practice never be as perfect as in the world of mathematics”, because a mathematical fractal can be magnified to infinite, while the number of sentences in a book are finite.
“It is not entirely clear whether stream-of-consciousness writing actually reveals the deeper qualities of our consciousness, or rather the imagination of the writers. It is hardly surprising that ascribing a work to a particular genre is, for whatever reason, sometimes subjective,” said Drożdż, suggesting that the scientists’ work “may someday help in a more objective assignment of books to one genre or another”.
Drożdż suggested today that the findings could also be used to posit that writers “uncovered fractals and even multifractals in nature long before scientists”. “Evidently, they (like Joyce) had a kind of intuition, as it happens to great artists, that such a narrative mode best reflects ‘how nature works’ and they properly encoded this into their texts,” he said. “Nature evolves through cascades and thus arranges fractally, and imprints of this we find in the sentence-length variability.”
Eimear McBride, whose multiple award-winning debut novel A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing is written in a stream-of-consciousness style, said she wasn’t taken aback by the results.
“It doesn’t surprise me that works described as “stream of consciousness” appear to be the most fractal. By its nature, such writing is concerned not only with the usual load-bearing aspects of language – content, meaning, aesthetics, etc – but engages with language as the object in itself, using the re-forming of its rules to give the reader a more prismatic understanding of the subject at hand. Given the long-established connection between beauty and symmetry, finding works of literature fractally quantifiable seems perfectly reasonable.”
But she added that she couldn’t “help being somewhat disappointed by the idea that the main upshot of this research may be to make the assigning of genre more straightforward”.
“Surely there are more interesting questions about the how and why of writers’ brains arriving at these complex, but seemingly instinctive, fractals?” she said. “And, given Professor Drożdż’s pretty inarguable contention that it remains unclear whether or not stream-of-consciousness writing does indeed reveal a deeper layer of consciousness, what distance this research may go to explain why some readers believe themselves to be experiencing exactly that while others have the opposite reaction?”
So what does this have to do with the Flipside you ask?
A bit hard to digest. But scientists have put the "number of words in a sentence" to measure recurring length in great works of art, and discovered that many are fractals - a mathematical structure that has within it, a repeated sequence.
In this dense article, they argue that somehow great artists tap into "unconscious" fractals - and call Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake" the ultimate in "Stream of consciousness writing."
Here's the thing. In my "Flipside" and "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" research, people talk about seeing "fractals" while under deep hypnosis, and when asked to describe the contents of these "geometric shapes" that appear to follow people around, one claimed they were like "external hard drives that contain all the memories of our previous lifetimes."
Another claimed they contain "ancient information." And now here is the Guardian quoting Polish scientists saying that fractals are not only inherent in nature (snowflakes) but also in art. As if we have the code of fractal creation somewhere in our consciousness, we may not be aware of it, but it appears in our art.
Next up would be to examine other works of art to see if this pattern repeats itself. "What's the point?" you might ask? It's that consciousness isn't confined to the brain. And if that's true, then everything we think we know about the planet is off, wrong. A fundamental rethink is in order. Don't shoot the messenger. A fractal is defined as: a curve or geometric figure, each part of which has the same statistical character as the whole. Fractals are useful in modeling structures (such as eroded coastlines or snowflakes) in which similar patterns recur at progressively smaller scales, and in describing partly random or chaotic phenomena such as crystal growth, fluid turbulence, and galaxy formation."
Turns out that we too are working within the fractal universe, but just aren't aware of it.
Until now.
Here's an interesting headline, that I've been mentioning in all of my books:
A 69-year-old monk who scientists call the 'world's happiest man' says the secret to being happy takes just 15 minutes a day
- Alyson Shontell Jan. 27, 2016, 8:31
Follow Business Insider:
Matthieu Ricard |
Matthieu Ricard, 69, is a Tibetan Buddhist monk originally from France who has been called "the world's happiest man."
That's because he participated in a 12-year brain study on meditation and compassion led by a neuroscientist from the University of Wisconsin, Richard Davidson.
Davidson hooked up Ricard's head to 256 sensors and found that when Ricard was meditating on compassion his mind was unusually light.
Simple Capacity details the findings:
The scans showed that when meditating on
compassion, Ricard’s brain produces a level of gamma waves – those
linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory – ‘never
reported before in the neuroscience literature’, Davidson said. The
scans also showed excessive activity in his brain’s left prefrontal
cortex compared to its right counterpart, allowing him an abnormally
large capacity for happiness and a reduced propensity towards
negativity.
He spoke with Business Insider at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Here's his advice for how to be happy.
Stop thinking 'me, me, me'
To Ricard, the answer comes down to altruism. The reason is that, thinking about yourself and how to make things better for yourself all the time is exhausting and stressful, and it ultimately leads to unhappiness."It's not the moral ground," Ricard says. "It's simply that me, me, me all day long is very stuffy. And it's quite miserable, because you instrumentalize the whole world as a threat, or as a potential sort of interest [to yourself]."
If you want to be happy, Ricard says you should strive to be "benevolent," which will not only make you feel better but also make others like you more.
That's not to say you should let other people take advantage of you, Ricard warns, but you should generally strive to be kind within reason.
"If your mind is filled with benevolence, you know, the passion and solidarity ... this is a very healthy state of mind that is conducive to flourishing," Ricard says. "So you, yourself, are in a much better mental state. Your body will be healthier, so it has been shown. And also, people will perceive it as something nice."
That all sounds great in theory, but how does a person actually become altruistic and benevolent and not let selfish thoughts creep in?
Start training your mind like you'd train to run a marathon
Ricard believes everyone has the ability to have a lighter mind because there's a potential for goodness in every human being (unless you're, say, a serial killer, and there's something actually chemically abnormal going on with your brain).But like a marathon runner who needs to train before he or she can run 26.2 miles, people who want to be happier need to train their minds. Ricard's preferred way of training his is meditation:
"With mental training, we can always bring
[our level of happiness] to a different level. It's like running. If I
train, I might run a marathon. I might not become an Olympic champion,
but there is a huge difference between training and not training. So why
should that not apply to the mind? ... There is a view that
benevolence, attention, emotional balance and resilience are skills that
can be trained. So if you put them all together, you could say that
happiness is a skill that can be trained.
Just spend 15 continuous minutes a day thinking happy thoughts
Start by thinking happy thoughts for 10 to 15 minutes a day, Ricard says. Typically when we experience feelings of happiness and love, it's fleeting and then something else happens, and we move on to the next thought. Instead, concentrate on not letting your mind get distracted, and keep focused on the positive emotions for the next stretch of time.And if you do that training every day, even just two weeks later you can feel positive mental results. And if you practice that for 50 years like Ricard has, you can become a happiness pro too. That's backed up by neuroscientists, by the way. Davidson found in his study that even 20 minutes of daily meditation can make people much happier overall.
_______________________________________
I asked Richard Davidson what specific meditation he used in the epic Univ of Wisconsin study.
"Tonglen" he told me. "But a non specific version." Meaning instead of the traditional Tibetan Buddhist meditation (paraphrasing) where you imagine a person who is ill and then you "call upon the healing light of the universe" to draw the illness (anger, sickness, rage) from them into you, and as it comes into you, you transform it into healing energy and breathe that energy back into them - instead of visualizing a person, the monks visualized the planet as a sick patient.
So focusing on losing the word "me" "mine" and "I" is one way of eliminating self focus, but the other way is to actually think of people you love (or don't love, depending) who are in need of a cure, and you visualize yourself helping to facilitate that cure. The point is simple; Science proves that by doing so you can "cure or eliminate symptoms of depression" in yourself.
There's no evidence that the meditation cures or helps the other person, (or prayer for that matter, but it can't hurt) but there is science that absolutely proves that it can cure depression. Literally "loving your neighbor as yourself" affects the amygdala, the part of the brain where depression resides.
Davidson says that even "one session of meditation" (or tonglen) can change the physical shape of the amygdala. Should be included/required in every doctor's kit bag; every school yard; ten minutes a day cures or alleviates symptoms of depression (and eventually replaces medications involved with amygdala suppression (SSRI drugs like zoloft and prozac) which as we know, in some people, some children, have dangerous side effects (suicide/violent acts).
Let me say it again. Ten minutes a day. Cure (or alleviate symptoms of) depression. Not a fad. Not a religion. Not a philosophy. It's free. It's science. It's data with proven results.
("Is this mic on?")
A sunset from a year ago.... |
An old sunset from a year ago.
Does a foto capture a slice of time the way a piece of a hologram carries all the info of the object?
If so, everything in a foto still exists, just have to figure out a way to access it, or tune ourselves to it. Virtual reality may be useful, using the senses to recreate an experience, or retain info from a place or person.
If they still exist, then creating an environment they could access would be key to hearing, seeing them. That is, a field where those outside of time could revisit old information... or loved ones.
My two cents.
Sunday
Edgar Cayce and David Bowie
Hacking the Afterlife and David Bowie
I got an email recently from a friend who is a University professor with a PhD in Philosophy. He'd just begun to read "Flipside."
"One of the more delightfully frustrating experiences that I’ve had over the years is “knowings” in the dream state that “immediately begin to slip away once awake". Many times my first waking thought is “I must remember this”, and then a few minutes later I can’t even remember what I was supposed to remember. I’ve sort of made peace with this, and trust that I’ll remember when I’m supposed to. Richard, I’ve finally started reading Flipside. It’s a bitterly cold day here, and I intend to spend it immersed in your book, sipping hot coffee. It’s really not “new” information for me, as the “in-between” state is discussed in some detail in the Seth Material, which I read many years ago. Again, consistency not only from case to case, but also with a large body of “channeled” information. Reading case after case after case firms up the knowledge, and never bores me. Are you familiar with the work of Dolores Cannon?"
Here's my reply:
I've explored the Seth material, and after finding inconsistencies as well as watching the youtube videos of the channeling of Seth, I've noted that talking to a "higher power" or a "spirit guide" doesn't mean that spirit guide is omniscient. Further, that the spirit guide is limited to their observations of the world and the number of lifetimes they've observed. That's a lot of information, and a lot of lifetimes, but it also can be based on inaccurate data. (For those unfamiliar with the "Seth material" a Jane Roberts began to "channel" a "higher entity" which became a series of books in the 70's, her husband transcribed what she said, and later filmed some of her sessions.)
For example, if I access my spirit guide, and I ask him to tell me what his experience was like in say, the Roman era, he's going to impart to me by way of images and experience what he experienced. He's projecting images, thoughts and reflections that are being received by me, and as such are subject to interpretation. There's syntax, as well as my ability to decipher through my brain and into my vocal chords what I'm seeing or experiencing. Same goes for the Seth material - someone speaking to us from a different realm. They're limited by their experiences in their lifetimes (which can be a positive thing) and the woman who is "channeling" Seth is equally constrained by her ability to speak. Also, gauging what the essence of a question might be, and whether the person asking the question can understand the answer.
Recently, I did an interview with Kevin Moore in the UK on his blog. At some point I asked if we could access his "spirit guide" and we did so, on air so to speak. And I realized he was claiming to channel Edgar Cayce - later I found that in his meditations he'd been claiming to access Cayce, but I didn't know it at the time. So my first question to "Cayce" was "Why is it that you were so inaccurate in nearly all your predicitons about the future?" I figured if he was pretending to channel Cayce, he might try to defend the many mistakes, or if he somehow was channeling Cayce, he would have a logical solution that goes along with the other research I've done.
Here's the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVaYG9XEZ9A
And "Cayce" said "The future is not set, it's a series of possibilities." Which is precisely what I've heard and observed, and is contrary to what Seth has to say. So how to reconcile Seth's idea that "time does not exist" with what I've heard repeatedly that "time exists relatively?"
I got that answer from another spirit guide (interviewing a professor online, during his interview, he accessed his spirit guide who said) "think of time like a string. It's linear. However when you turn the string to your eye, it is merely a circle that contains all time along its length, but you can't see the length." So time is relative to the person who observes it.
I found that to be more helpful than Seth's observation that "time does not exist." I would argue (with Seth, if need be) that time is relative, and its useless to argue that it doesn't exist when it does exist relatively in terms of spiritual progression. We have young souls and old souls - and they didnt' start that way, they progress over there in the spirit world as well.
A long way of saying that I have found that body of research in this field has skirted the surface of the iceberg so to speak. Once you get a glimpse on the architecture of the afterlife, then other answers come into focus.
For example, while asking questions to "Cayce" I asked him "So why were you so accurate when it came to healing people during your trances? Were you accessing a previous lifetime as a doctor, where you accessing your higher self to answer those questions, or was it someone else entirely?"
He answered "Someone else. A council." So I asked "Is it possible for this council to come forward and answer some questions?" and "Cayce" said "yes."
I use "quotes" because again, I'm talking to a young man in the UK who claims to channel Cayce during his meditations. This fellow has never "asked questions" like the ones I'm asking him - and of course he could be making the answers up, could be getting it wrong, or any other number of possibilities. But it doesn't hurt to ask.
So Cayce accessed this "medical council" that he says he used to help him with his healing predictions while he was in trance.
I asked the council members directly who they were, and they said they had all been doctors or healers in other realms. That they had never incarnated on earth, but had incarnated in lifetimes in other worlds. I asked them a number of questions about their ability to transmit the accurate information to Cayce while he was alive. (and if you check into the accuracy of what Cayce was doing - he was amazing effective in healing people who would write to him from around the planet, he would go into a trance and prescribe some medicine for them, Cayce having had no medical training.)
However, like I say, when it came to Cayce predicting the future (as people asked him to do - "hey, you're in a trance, why don't you tell us what's going to happen in 100 years?") Cayce was for the most part wrong. Inaccurate.
But "Cayce" freely admitted that was the case, because from this perspective he couldn't see that predicting the future is a fool's game, because the future is not set. There are likely outcomes and sometimes mediums or psychics pick up on those outcomes, but they aren't set in stone because of free will.
Free will dictates the operation of the universe, and there's no amount of wanting the future to have an outcome that can change that. At least that's why my research shows.
As to Dolores Canon - again, from my research into her work, not a fan. Yes, I think she fell into accessing the experience people have in previous lifetimes, and the between life realm - but she started to opine about the meaning of these memories, not allowing that everyone's memory of their experience is different, and they may not be related or relatable to our own experience. In other words, she abandoned the idea of science - observation and comment, in favor of predicting the future, making claims about UFOs and the nature of the universe that aren't substantiated. So I'm not a fan of her work.
As I'm fond of saying "Just because there's evidence of an afterlife doesn't mean you have to start wearing a pyramid hat." People have this general fear of the unknown, and when someone proves to them that the flipside exists, it can lead to people suddenly saying "so what about ufos? what about pyramid power? ancient aliens?" I suggest taking everything, including what I'm observing with a grain, or healthy dose, of salt. I offer it not because it's what I believe, or its part of a philosophy of new ageism, but merely because it's in the data.
Thousands of people say relatively the same things about the afterlife while under deep hypnosis, after experiencing a near death experience, or some other consciousness altering event. All I'm doing in my work is showing how remarkably similar these accounts are. I've filmed 25 sessions with people under deep hypnosis, have done four myself, and have observed the same experiences others have. Does that make them real? Does that mean I have an answer to an age old question? That's not up to me to argue, I offer the data for others to examine and absorb.
If you'd like to examine some data that corresponds to the research that Michael Newton did in his work, I recommend checking into Helen Wambach's work. I cite it in "It's a Wonderful Afterlife." Dr. Wambach was a clinical psychologist from New Jersey who started using group hypnosis about a decade before Michael Newton and published her results in a couple of books. Basically she got the same results that Newton did - people claiming that we choose our lifetimes, that we do it sometimes out of a need to help others, sometimes out of a need to understand something ourselves, or even cases of people claiming that their loved ones "talked them into" a lifetime they weren't prepared for. She also cites examples of "Councils" "Guides" and others in these decisions.
In terms of the people I've been focusing on lately, I recommend Mario Beauregard "Brain Wars" a neuroscientist in Montreal who is doing fMRIs on people under hypnosis (I put him together with a hypnotherapist trained in Newton's method) and he's getting some interesting data. For example, he's already learned there is no locus in the brain for these visions or memories of previous lifetimes. In other words, when a person is remembering something from a previous lifetime it's not coming from any particular spot on the brain. as if it's coming from someplace else. Interesting.
Dr. Bruce Greyson at UVA is part of the DOPS group - Dept of Percecptual Studies, which includes other scientists who have done excellent research into consciousness or reports of past lives. (Dr. Jim Tucker, Ed Kelly, etc). Their book "Irreducible Mind" is a textbook in the field of psychology. (Written for and by scientists).
My latest focus is on "Hacking the Afterlife." Once we allow that people who existed here, still exists somewhere - meaning their energetic pattern doesn't dissipate, doesn't disappear, the energy of people who die here, goes back to the other two thirds of their energy that always exists in the between lives realm - if that's accurate, then accessing someone who used to live on the planet is just a matter of asking questions.
Take anyone in history for example. Ben Franklin let's say. So Ben Franklin was an individual who chose his lifetime, and came here to the planet to live that experience of being Ben. When Ben died, he returned to that energy that was the other two thirds of Ben (as noted in Flipside, only about a third of our energy shows up here, generally). And since then, likely, Ben has incarnated again.
Recently I've discovered that you don't have to be under hypnosis to ask these questions - anyone appears to have the same ability to do so. (Here's an interview I shot with a hypnotherapist Scott De Tamble about the technique) But for the sake of the research, let's pretend you're speaking to someone who is either under hypnosis, who has had a near death experience, or some other event happen in their lifetime where the spiritual door was "opened" so to speak.
I'll ask "Can we talk to Ben Franklin?" The person can say "Yes" "No" or "I don't know." Some may say "Sure." And then I ask for whomever it is that's guiding this person to facilitate the conversation. "Hello Ben, thank you for showing up to answer some questions. I'm going to ask you directly and if possible, you'll answer through our friend here, is that okay?" Again, the answers are Yes, no and some version of "I don't think so." Then I'll ask "So are you aware of other lifetimes that you had here on earth and if so, what are they?" I'll ask "How do you think you did in your lifetime as Ben?" I'll ask "Is there anything that you did or didn't do in your lifetime as Ben you'd like to revisit?" I'll ask "Have you incarnated again, and if so where or who are you?"
The idea is not to judge the answers. After all, it's an exercise in speaking to the subconscious. We can't know if it's really Ben or not, unless we ask Ben to give us an answer to a question only Ben would know, or ask Ben to give us an answer to a question that we know for certain the person answering the question couldn't know, that not even Ben would have known - but is apparent that someone who is outside our frame of reference could see. (Like, "I've hidden a shoe in a barn not far from where we are. What color is it?") In terms of answers - of course we're never going to 100% accuracy - after all, the ability to access information even from our own minds is difficult. But if there's a consensus of answers - like we ask Ben and ten other people the same question, what are the odds that we get the same answer?
And that's where the gold is. What if we could ask questions to scientists no longer on the planet who could help us eliminate pollution, find new sources of renewable energy, or change the climate so it's healthier? Even if each answer is different, there might be a response that inspires a scientist on the planet to explore an avenue they hadn't thought of before.
And now for something different, yet similar:
The world lost a great artist in David Bowie. But if you take the time to examine his latest work, "Blackstar" you'll see hints of his observations on the Flipside. In "Lazarus" literally drifts up into space while singing "Look up, you'll see me."
Condolences to his friends, family and fans. But he's not gone, he's just not here. Some great observations from the great artist:
(quotes and photos courtesy Sydney Morning Herald)
David Bowie in his own words
Rock icon David Bowie dead at 69
David Bowie has died following a battle with cancer, just days after celebrating his 69th birthday and releasing his final album, Blackstar.
- Autoplay ONOFF
- Video feedback
- Video settings
David Bowie was the most articulate of rock stars and always gave great interview. Here's a round up of quotes from an artist who provided better running commentary on his life and work than all his critics combined.
On his stage persona
"My performances have got to be theatrical experiences for me as well as for the audience. I don't want to climb out of my fantasies in order to go up onstage — I want to take them on stage with me."
Rolling Stone, 1971
Advertisemnt
3rd July 1973: David Bowie in concert at the Hammersmith Odeon, on 3rd July 1973, the last concert performed in the guise of Ziggy Stardust. (Photo by Steve Wood/Express/Getty Images) Photo: Getty Images
On style
"I'm just a cosmic yob, I suppose. I've always worn my own style of clothes."
Melody Maker, 1972
On robotics
"I should like to replace all parts of my body with plastic equivalents. Then I couldn't grow old."
Music Scene, 1973
On death
"I've now decided that my death should be very precious. I really want to use it. I'd like my death to be as interesting as my life has been and will be."
Playboy, 1976
On sexuality
"It's true - I am a bisexual. But I can't deny that I've used that fact very well. I suppose it's the best thing that ever happened to me. Fun, too."
Playboy, 1976
British pop singer David Bowie in concert at Earl's Court, London during his 1978 world tour. (Photo by Evening Standard/Getty Images)
On talent
"The worst joke God can play on you is to make you an artist, but only a mediocre artist."
NME, 1980
On performing a role
"As an adolescent, I was painfully shy, withdrawn. I didn't really have the nerve to sing my songs onstage and nobody else was doing them. I decided to do them in disguise so that I didn't have to actually go through the humiliation of going onstage and being myself."
Musician, 1983
On addiction
"My problem was cocaine, and then I went from cocaine to alcohol, which is a natural course of events. You have to be lucky enough to have friends around you who want you to succeed, but you also have to want to stop yourself. You have to know in your own mind that you don't want to go on like that. That's the biggest hurdle. And if you can overcome that, then you're OK."
i-D, 1987
On fame
"I think fame itself is not a rewarding thing. The most you can say is that it gets you a seat in restaurants."
Q, 1990
On Lennon
'I loved John. I remember asking him once what he thought of glam rock and he said: "It's just fooking rock and roll with lipstick."'
Telegraph, 1997
On the future
"I don't know where I'm going from here, but I promise it won't be boring."
On stage at Madison Square Gardens, 1997
Photo: AP
On death and cigarettes
"I can't think of a time that I didn't think about death. There again, I've been smoking all my life so it's hard to not equate the two together."
to Jarvis Cocker, The Big Issue, 1997
On advice
"Any list of advice I have to offer to a musician always ends with 'If it itches, go and see a doctor'."
on receiving an honorary doctorate from Berklee College of Music, Boston, 1999
On his songs
"I feel that I've consistently written about the same subjects for 35… nearly 40 years. There's really been no room for change with me. It's all despondency, despair, fear, isolation, abandonment."
BBC, 2002
On refusing a knighthood
"I would never have any intention of accepting anything like that. I seriously don't know what it's for. It's not what I spent my life working for."
The Sun, 2003
David Bowie performs at the Sydney Entertainment Centre in 2003. Photo: Domino Postiglione
On drugs and creativity
"So many people find it fashionable to say you couldn't write those things if you weren't on drugs and all that. I just doubt that's the truth at all, because some of the best things I wrote in [the 1970s were when] I had already cleaned up."
730 Report, 2004
On the afterlife
"Questioning my spiritual life has always been germane to what I was writing. Always. It's because I'm not quite an atheist and it worries me."
Beliefnet, 2005
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/david-bowie-in-his-own-words-20160111-gm3pfy.html#ixzz3xXFhbSIw
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Another post about the show “The OA” – finished watching it, and was very moved by the scope of this series. The best word I can use t...
-
Fans of Michael Newton are mourning his passing.... RIP Maestro! As I'm fond of saying: "Not gone. Just not here." In...
-
Is there such a thing as ghosts? Robbie Hodge I asked the question when I was a toddler. My dad told me there was not. End of story...
-
Just watched the first four episodes of the new series on Netflix "The OA." Spoiler alerts ahead! So if you haven't watche...
-
Why does the following film contest sound like nonsense? Can you imagine making an anti govt documentary about "democracy" (which ...
-
Berbet Bruno AP Cannes For this one year anniversary of Bill Paxton’s passing, I’m putting up this excerpt of the upcoming book wri...
-
Sorry to see Carrie, Debbie and George all depart hours apart. Someone posted something darkly humorous today. "David Bowie succ...
-
I was finishing up my film for Gaia "Backstage Pass to the Flipside: Talking to Bill Paxton" when Dr. Medhus reached out to me an...
-
Proof consciousness exists outside the brain. Given two years ago by Dr. Greyson of UVA, (interviewing him for the next edition of "...
-
I got an email from the amazing, hilarious, loyal pal Charles Grodin the other day. When he's not writing plays, starring in films, dire...
google-site-verification: googlecb1673e7e5856b7b.html