I was asked about this, and so here is my reply. taken from the ill-fated Dreamachine project booklet (which I have still yet to see a copy of). if there is any reaction of encouragement (I respond to enthusiasm) I will post the entire contents. for your information, a disk image of the DVD itself is floating around what we laughingly refer to as "the internet," and for once, I care not one whit, as I will never see any money from this project anyway. do not ask me where it is, go and look for thy very self.




**********************************************************************
SOME OF THE WORDS THAT COME OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF GIFT HORSES
**********************************************************************


It is over 20 years since the original version of this release came into being, much has happened in the period since then, and perhaps addressing some of these manifestations would not be out of place here.

It is desirable that a misconception and misinterpretation of intent of this project be addressed from the outset, and forcefully: this is documentation of a specific part of the Dreamachine history, and not a biographical project concerning the life of Brion Gysin. Originally, some material was included that did in fact touch on this via personal anecdote unrelated to the Dreamachine. This has been removed in the present edition.  The work of historical research, the onerous task of sorting out the wheat of the truth from the chaff of the lies (of which there is a massive amount more than of the former), is not being attempted here. That task has been, and quite possibly will be attempted again, by others more qualified and with greater motivation to carry out such activities. It is our sincere wish that those embarked upon, or due to do so, such projects succeed with the greatest of possible outcomes and the greater good of all concerned.

Having said this, we move on.

Here, we are concerned with the possibilities and applications that the Dreamachine allows to enter the picture, and how they have affected and can further affect a particular current of creative endeavour.

The principal reason this edition - which we regard as definitive - has been carried out, is to allow the realisation of the core meanings of the Dreamachine experience to be separated from issues of personality and possessiveness, and at the same time, to present the Dreamachine as it was in the last plans drawn up under the auspices of Carl Lazlo for Brion Gysin himself. In this way, the object itself can be rightly associated and credited to its inventors in the way they envisaged it. This is not to say that there are no other versions possible, with different effects, configurations, implementations, uses and presentations. This is Brion Gysin's Dreamachine as it was, at a certain point in time, considered to be canonical by Gysin himself.

The experience provided by the Dreamachine is not objective. Indeed, It cannot be reproduced exactly twice in the same manner; there are simply too many variables for this to be possible at the present time. It is the contention of this project that the collective experience itself is subject to change as a whole. This is a very strong claim, and some arguments will be presented to support this notion. None of them are "proven" - they are conjecture. Informed conjecture, based on nearly 30 years experience with the Dreamachine, but conjecture nonetheless.

In addition, and what is perhaps even stronger an idea, what the Dreamachine suggests is a way of approaching a number of interlocking ideas that refute scientific examination, and indicate that the subjective judgment is more in tune with a True Science than that conventionally used as a way to examine the world for the last 300 years.

The ramifications of such ideas are large. However, we believe that still, after all these years, they have not yet been seen clearly, precisely because of the attempts to see the entire scope as limited to detection with the methods currently available. There are many examples of things which are considered to exist today that cannot be seen or experienced, and yet it is believed that they are there on the evidence of ever-changing and developing technologies. The Dreamachine's effects can be examined internally, but the last contention that will be made here is that the experiences' contents are in fact external.

All these ideas will be described and presented not only by new text material but by additions and revisions of the republished material. This will encourage comparative reading and thereby illuminate one method in action of how history evolves, as mentioned previously, while suggesting a method for use in other areas.

The original exposition touched on some of these points. However, virtually no feedback was received from anyone regarding these matters. The original request for feedback is now rescinded, and this version will remain what it is. Should the need for dialogue emerge, it is trusted that it will emerge elsewhere as and when required.

**********************************************************************

THIS IS NOT A PIPE

The urge to categorise and make sense of the experience that arrives through our sensory apparatus may be considered to be a relatively recent endeavour, that is, without the idea that purpose is involved. The ambiguity of the "is" of "existence" in one branch of the tree of languages leads to assumptions that cannot be seen to be of substance. General Semantics, of which both Gysin and Burroughs were aware, is not the only way of approaching this situation. Perhaps not coincidentally, something of the mechanisms - for they are truly mechanical - become revealed in the way computer language operates. The notion of binary calculation based on the idea of an circuit being ON or OFF, on which all computers are based, harks back to Ancient Greek ideas of the duality of nature - that something is, or is not, which leads to the idea that things can be equal or compared, and this can be used as "proof" of something else.

In many computer systems, the sign '=' does not mean 'equals to', as many people might think (and is a common source of mistakes by novice programmers) - it *assigns* a value (normally that on the right-hand side) to another value or symbol on the other. To test for the equivalence of one symbol to another, in many systems, the operator '==' is used. Thus, in this realm, something can be evaluated to "be" the "equal" to something else, just the same as something can be made "to be" something else. One look at the world, and we may observe that this has no correlation in the physical world (leaving aside the semantics of the proposition that a computer also exists in the physical world).

As we should know, our reality is built on symbols (which are themselves metaphors) which we use to represent the external world within our inner world and we live through these filters, being unable to sense reality as a total. However, the law of habituation tells us that whenever something is constant - the humming of an electrical appliance, the regular motion of a vehicle, the pressure of the clothing against the skin, we cease to notice it. It is only by *difference* that we notice. The brain is drawn to similarity, but learns by difference.

The urge to quantify by means of throwing experience, or set of experiences, which are by their nature are symbolic, into *another* set of symbols so that they may be assimilated and reduced to support arguments constructed back-to-front, will, of necessity, result eventually in 'success'. Eventually, in contradiction to the oft-quoted Hassan I Sabbah, nothing will be permitted, because everything will be true. Ironically, the "burden of proof" which is at the time of writing much more prevalent and aggressive than when this project was first realised, actually creates the idea that there are answers at the back of the book - which in turn creates the possibility of "solutions", "escape", and all the rest of it. This is perhaps surprising, when we notice that proponents of anti-authoritarian attitudes constantly use the word "freedom", when in fact the whole of the presuppositions in their language contains the end of freedom - even as they define it. This is largely because they do not see that their language controls them.

"...what was thought to be hitherto incalculable can be calculated, then there were seem to be a programme. And if there is a programme, there would seem to be a programmer... and this programmer is hiding behind the name of 'Control'..."

'Control' is not some external force, some dark janitor of the underworld who conspires to enslave the world, but a force of self-ignorance that is the natural state of those that will not examine themselves. At the moment when "this *is* this", worlds disappear.

INTO IS NOT OUT OF

Small wonder that Gysin was torn between the two worlds of being and not-being, and was so taken with "I AM THAT I AM" and its permutations, while at the same time using his initials as the main base of his calligraphic paintings. It expresses perfectly the dichotomy inherent in experience, and the Dreamachine perhaps its clearest manifestation. And yet, it is The Elusive Obvious: something that we cannot recognise because we have it as a constant running through the whole of human existence. *This* is how one disappears; *this* is how the invisible is created. As stated above, the brain is drawn to similarity, and what could be more constant and reliable than the invisible?

The Dreamachine brings the constant into the realm of difference, and the conflicts which necessarily arise because of this are hard to bear for anyone not prepared for this. One of the most consistent criticisms of what has been claimed by Gysin and associates for the device is that the effects are not as spectacular as those texts indicate. This notion is worth exploring for a moment.

"Navigare necesse es. Vivare no es necesse."

The internal world is only able to represent external experience; a map must be made in order to navigate the being through the terrain. To refer to General Semantics again, "the Map is Not the Territory". A perfect map would have to include the map itself, and so on ad infinitum. What was claimed out of historical necessity to publicise and perhaps sell and market the Dreamachine, cannot but fail when the real experience is encountered. The very attempt to describe the experience in the way it has been in the texts by Gysin and Sommerville (included elsewhere here in this publication) do what the Scientologists refer to (and expressly forbid their instructors from doing) as "pre-judging for the pre-Clear". Gysin, Burroughs, Sommerville and Balch were all involved with Scientology, and would have known this phrase, as it is one of the central tenets, met early on in any study of the "religion".

The rate of our exposure to images is increasing rapidly; even in the 1950's, television, film, photographs and other visual art were not things that were taken for granted. At the time of writing, the average Western modern city dweller is exposed to literally thousands of images in very short periods of time - more than the entire life's quota for the equivalent person living say, 200 years ago. One of the most significant differences between 50 years ago and the present day, is that the internal world has been invaded. To understand this, means to say that the media used are now personalised, in most cases. Images are largely encountered as a private experience - under the control of the person viewing them. That is the illusion, however, and it is bound up by the means the technology that "allows" them this "freedom" operates and is predicated on.

So: not only is the map already created internally, in a way that was not so in the first days of the Dreamachine, but the expectations for *all* experience are filtered though the expectations that say that an experience must amaze and delight from outside inwards, in a didactic manner. What is also highly relevant is that all images - as the term is usually and commonly understood - have, by implication, at least one kind of frame. What initially disorients and 'disappoints' is that the experience afforded by the Dreamachine cannot be said to so have such. The internal image has no frame, and this is bewildering, and outside the realms of previous experience - leading to a huge effort to find a way to categorise what has taken place in the individual. So habituated we are to doing this with whatever happens, as a result of the searching for sameness. That one cannot make an accurate representation of the Dreamachine externally either pictorially or in terms of language is the source for yet more frustration. We *need* to contain and label our experience, otherwise we do not know how to refer to it - and it is then lost (we assume). Thus, even the inventors of this device were constrained by the need to translate something that cannot be translated.

The requirement that the Dreamachine has of the self opening up as a "payment" is anathema to the entire structure of communication as it is utilised in modern communication systems. The Idea of "Open Bank" was a dim grasping for a way to describe what the Dreamachine shows, but does nothing but graze the surface of what actually lies there.

SCENIC TOURS BY APPOINTMENT

The idea of the infinitely recurring map is paralleled by the old conception of how life exists: how does an acorn know that it must grow into an oak tree? The old way of dealing with this question is to say that the acorn contains a copy of the oak tree in miniature, and follows that. We know that no such mini-tree exists within the seed; for that to be so, that tiny replica would also have to contain its own oak tree, and so on.

When we realise that when viewing the Dreamachine, we see archetypal symbols - as mentioned by many - the same question arises: where are these symbols? The standard answer is, just as it is now said that the acorn contains in its DNA the "programme" for the full-grown entity, that the symbols and experiences are a program in our (human) DNA. However, these theories were developed when the mysteries of DNA were still that: mysteries and theories.

It was predicted that many of the world's problems would vanish when the "strands were unraveled". This has proved not to have been the case, and untold failed investments by financial institutions and pharmaceutical companies bear witness to this. Unfortunately, the theories are still largely in place, revealing that the knowledge of how things are generally accepted to work persists even when evidence to refute it has long existed. DNA and RNA are linked to the sequence of amino acids in peptides, and a few more of the basic building-blocks of physical human structure. However, the manner in which these are folded up in order to give the structure of proteins is nowhere contained isomorphically within the "data" of DNA. If the genetic programme were contained in the genes, then all the cells of the body would be identical, because in general, they contain exactly the same genes. The cells of the arms and legs are identical, for example, and yet they are different shapes, to give but one comparison. Obviously there must be another reason: one of these might be formative changes as the cells develop - different changes for different ranges of cells. However, if this is so, then the "programme" cannot be contained in the genes; they extend over entire tissues and organs.

The idea that existence or experience is programmatic is misleading, because for a phenomenon to be programmatic:

"it is a necessary condition that in addition to the phenomenon itself, there exists the programme,
whose structure is isomorphic with, i.e., can be brought into a one-to-one correspondence with,
the phenomenon."

Obviously, many feel that there is a great need to have such an explanation, hence the idea of "a programmer hiding behind the name of 'Control'", and the resultant extrapolations of conspiratorial occurrences that follow from it. Theism, which is what such paranoia is, in disguise,  is not necessary here. Rather, the Dreamachine itself provides valuable clues as to the nature of what is in fact occurring - and the continued experiences over the years seem to be pointing in the direction that this is being modified in just the way that the "mysteries" of DNA operate.

NOTHING IS PERMITTED - EVERYTHING IS TRUE

When a radio or television broadcast is emitted, it is invisible unless it is received by whatever means, into an apparatus that can decode it in some fashion. Noises made by bats cannot be heard by humans, unless they use equipment that can sense these squeaks, and bring them into the range of human hearing. One cannot understand a spoken language received only by the ears if one does not know that language, or have an interpreter or teacher. In the case of a radio or a television, there are many channels. Each of these has a sequence of data which are called "shows", or even "programmes", the sequences of which are themselves programmed. One may "tune in" to a channel by adjusting the particular frequency that the receiving apparatus is set to accept, process and reproduce. When one channel is being accepted, this does not mean that the others cease to exist. Neither is it so that the channels, or their content reside *in* the receiving apparatus. Colour television transmissions were being made long before the majority of television owners had colour sets. And further, when the apparatus malfunctions, the channel's signal is not at fault; it is the direct result of a local error. In the same way, bats continue to make noises; it is not "their fault" or that "someone does not wish us to hear them", and this is true of much of our experience. We even use the metaphor "in tune", or "we're on the same wavelength", to say that someone has rapport with another, and so on.

The Dreamachine, as has been explained and noted many times, operates on a specific range of frequencies, those said to correspond to the alpha waves of the brain. As yet, there has been no explanation of where these waves originate. However, by viewing the Dreamachine, the brain is induced into "tuning in" to these frequencies - that is, accepting information carried within that band of wavelengths, and ignoring those of others. The operative word is "carried". In all transmissions and emissions, there exists the principle of the carrier wave and the modulation frequency. This gives us different "frequency bands", which are then subdivided into channels or stations or broadcasts.

The central point that concerns us here is that there is not one but *two* forces at work - without the modulation, no signal is received. In fact, the result is neither one, nor the other, but the delivery of a message of which both waves are 'ignorant', so to speak. This has profound implications, because it reveals the "third" to be *that which mediates the behaviours of the other two so that manifestation may occur*.

Researches into the working of the mammalian brain have revealed much in the last 50 years, not the least of which is confirmation that some significant earlier suppositions and inferences drawn from rat and ape brain research are also valid for that of homo sapiens. In particular, the old notion that certain parts of the brain correspond to certain faculties is by and large discounted - a notion that many people are currently unaware of, and was taken for granted 50 years ago and before. The original "accident" that provoked the discovery that electrical stimulation of the brain produced the re-living of long-forgotten memories ignored a crucial factor: that if that section of the brain were to be removed or damaged, the rest of the brain would eventually replace that facility in a very large percentage of cases. Up to 85% of rat's brains can be removed, and their motor functions will still operate, after a period of recuperation. And most startling in contrast to the previous theories, where physical regions of the brain are locations for specific items of faculties, learned behaviour will also be recovered. Therefore, memories are not located in a specific physical part of the rats' brain. The same experiments have been carried out with apes, and again, it is revealed that the brain can be severely truncated, and yet it can recover 'information' that by all previous scientific premise should be lost. With the advent of modern medical 'brain machines' - scanners of various descriptions that aid in mapping out a picture of the inside of the heads of living humans - the same has been seen to be true of them, too. The clear indication here is that the brain does not "store" "data" or "programmes". Rather, it can be likened to a sophisticated and extremely flexible receiver, capable to a remarkable degree of self-repair in a way that cannot be explained by the current model that posits that experience occurs inside the brain, its 'information' is obtained via the sensory imputs, and it is pre-programmed with "code" that enables it to *somehow* make sense of it all.

- who is hiding behind the name of Control? You are.

"...and who are you?"

And so it is with the subject of this project. The content is not in the Dreamachine, nor is it in the brains of the people viewing it. Experience is not isolated, but the tuning in to a select group of frequencies, while temporarily excluding others, or limited to them by reason of limitation of the receiver itself. Consciousness, which has never ever been close to being explained by science, is the interaction of the receiver with the channel, and the mediation of those two factors by the "third". This is the "third that walks behind you", this is "the third mind". And who is that? well, this question has been answered here already.

"How do we know what we know?" We remember things that we do not know, and we justify this by saying we had obviously forgotten. But we are forgetting to remember that we had forgotten. And didn't know that, either. Memory is not data, rather, a resonance.

There is a reason Gysin said that the Dreamachine contains all the pictures in the world. There is a reason that all the symbols are "in there". And the more people look into it, the more there will be to see of everything.

"Control" is an invention to explain away responsibility; as we are told, in dreams, there responsibility begins. The Dreamachine allows a glimpse behind the curtain, to notice, perhaps dimly, that just as in all mirrors, there is something that can only be apprehended when we stop looking for something, and allow that something to find us.

WHO READS MAY RUN

The Dreamachine is a worthwhile endeavour because it reaches further than the stretch of its originators - places they may not even have wished to apprehend. The wish is that this principle, without the requirement of  results, be applied as far as possible to as many acts that would attempt to deal with that which we call "creative" as is appropriate, for this is what brings the light down into the frequencies where we can perceive it.

A comparison may be made between a new idea and a Christmas tree. The tree is chopped down in a forest, driven to the city, sold, taken to a home, put in the best corner of the room, given lighting to make it as attractive as possible, and finally, decked with lights and other shiny, colourful decorations - the most spectacular placed at the apex - while gifts are assembled underneath at the base. The tree is dying, and it is only a matter of time before it will dry out, and the branches will become bare. The tree has a limited period before it will be thrown out, and a new one bought for the following year. The tree has many branches, and the lights are woven around them, making a continuity where there was none before. The comparison can be pushed much further, but for our purposes here, it suffices to point out that, with skill and care, a cutting taken from the tree as soon as possible can be rooted and grow into another, living tree - which will be without the decorations, but be capable of further growth.

The mechanistic metaphor that has been prevalent for roughly the last 300 years is inadequate to express how human life really is. In fact, that it is found so wanting is the basis for the construction of "thinking machines", which, we are promised, at some unspecified point in the future but not 'yet', will be able to replicate human 'intelligence' (which is not defined, but leave that aside for the moment). This will "prove" that we are *just like machines*. It is one of the contentions of this work that this metaphor, even if used ironically, is inappropriate, and destroys, as well as hypnotises in a non-therapeutic way.

We *may* behave like machines, but we are most certainly *not constructed in order to do so*.

How apt, then, that 'machine' should be welded to 'dream' here, where the latter is something we should wish to wake from, rather than allow a machine to envelop us with a 'programmed' version of something that *cannot be programmed*. The limitations in this respect are not useful except to the furtherance of enslavement to both dreams and technology, and the stagnation, decay and atrophy of real capabilities and faculties that will result may be avoided by replacing it with something else; mere negation will simply reinforce the damage process. How Cartesian dualism can coexist with the development of technology of increasing complexity and *not* create mutual destruction is not now, and quite possibly never will be, clear.

You may allow that the previous ways of thinking are inappropriate, just as most eventually are. If you can see this clearly, you will know that what is presented here may also not survive and yet, might well be seen to be appropriate. But the application, and the benefits can be applied now - and if the shoe fits, we can let the other one drop.

The task is, as always, to get closer to the experiencing of the terrain, and not keep thinking that the map is a substitute. Perhaps, like the old cliché, a man will keep on trying to calculate the directions from the map, while a woman will get out and ask someone the way.

There really is a light at the end of the tunnel.


Andrew M. McKenzie
Tallinn
May 2008

a gaggle of rubbernecking and other appendages.

took a long time, but finally:

https://belairclassiques.com/film/the-art-of-ohad-naharin-batsheva-dance-company-sadeh-21-young-ensemble-dvd-blu-ray?lang=en

not an endorsement, merely a notice.