rec.arts.movies.past-films

On Feb 26, 11:44 pm, Flasherly wrote:

> > "Like most Lynch works, it IS design and dream state over any
> > narrative certainties."
>
> Apart from childhood Freudian repression techniques, as shibboleths
> would have morphological bases and corresponding proponents within an
> hierarchal dimension of operatives, if, then, implicit to a gestalt
> subliminal inferences overstep -- explicitly, conscientiously
> rendered, if not by procedural instances directly appertaining to
> qualitative distinction systematically causal in nature to ordering
> traces and patterns of organized thought -- for, in as much that a
> tendentious falsification of memory occurs, repressive to substitution
> mechanism, countering, apropos to an extreme 'any' perturbing
> experiences evince, to a symbiosis of relations between manifest
> content of dream and withal what latent symbolism an alter-reality
> might propound.

*****
Yes, but if the symbols themselves were relatively inaccessible to
movement, the natural general principle that would subsume a dream
state could be reified in such a way as to impose upon it a
descriptive form. It appears that the dreamer's intuition should be
considered in determining a stipulation to place these elemental
symbols into their various categories. On the other hand, an important
property of that substitution mechanism is rarely subject to a corpus
of random symbols upon which conformity has been defined by a
falsification test.

Of course, your analysis of formative or perturbing repression
techniques remains unspecified with respect to any irrelevant
intervening contexts in what are normally considered selectional
rules. This would suggest, wouldn't it, that a descriptively adequate
dream state cannot be arbitrary in the traditional practice of cinema.

Am I right or am I right.

Tom Sutpen