Coyote Anthropology PDF - AZPDF.TIPS (2024)

coyote anthropology

coyote anthropology Roy Wagner

University of Nebraska Press lincoln and london

© 2010 by Roy Wagner. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. ∞ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wagner, Roy, 1938– Coyote anthropology / Roy Wagner. p. cm. isbn 978-0-8032-1082-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Anthropology—Philosophy. 2. Culture—Philosophy. 3. Culture—Semiotic models. 4. Castaneda, Carlos, 1931–1998—Criticism and interpretation. 5. Coyote (Legendary character)—Legends. I. Title. gn33.w283 2010 301.01—dc22 2009053627 Set in Minion Pro by Shirley Thornton Designed by A. Shahan.

To Graham Richard Everett Wagner

contents

List of Illustrations Prologue

viii

Acknowledgments xiii 1 Tricking Magic: The Anthropology of Coyote

2 Expersonation: The Coyote of Anthropology 47 3 Obviation

103

4 The Book of Symmetries

157

illustrations

1. Message in a Bottle #1 6 2. Message in a Bottle #2 6 3. A Bad Case of Hives

4. Circular, or Concentric Interference-Patterning 5. Hunab Ku: The One and Only God 6. The Obviation Diagram

107

7. Pragmatic Afterlife Re-Envisioned

117

8. Rectified Schematic for The Rule of the Nagual 9. Walbiri Socio-Spiritual Organization

146

140

prologue

This book and its purpose or effect are based in large part upon an observation I made while teaching a course on the writings of Carlos Castaneda at the University of Virginia. The whole success of Castaneda’s work, either in the books or in teaching, depends exclusively on one thing, however else it may be illuminated or obscured by examples: the technique of drawing the sharpest possible contrasts among people, events, or phenomena so that the world as we normally perceive it is thrown into sharp relief, caught in a play of light and shadow between one extreme and another. We could be talking about the tonal and the nagual; the “recollecting self,” as it is called in the text, and the “anticipating self ”; about right and wrong, good and evil; between animals and people; between the world of the paleface (“white eyes,” as the Apache call him) and the world of the Indian (“first nations,” as the Canadians say). But the strategy Castaneda’s teachers use is of seriousness and humor. Or, rather— since that is putting it mildly (how often do people talk about “sense of humor”? and when do they ever talk about a “sense of seriousness”?) — a kind of humor that is “off the deep end” on one side, really too funny to be funny at all (rather, world-damaging) and the other, a kind of seriousness that is really super-serious (“critical,” as they say) and has very little to do with what we normally mean by this term. Deadeye seriousness accords best with the kind of exaggeration associated with notions of high respect, extreme humility, taboos, honor and shame, what Don Juan calls “impeccability” and the Marines call Semper Fi, tough love, or just simply “boot camp.” The book you hold in your hands (if you have not by this time discarded it) is one of two I hope to publish on the uses of the Castaneda material in anthropology, each from the standpoint of one of these two appositional points of view. Each of course will use much the

same material, and in some cases the same sonnets, but otherwise there will be all the difference in the world between them. This, of course, is the “funny” one, but as we have seen, funny is never really funny until and unless it manages to outrage and overplay its original intent and purpose, tipping the balance it was originally set up to restore. Accordingly I have gone to great lengths to achieve a kind of insouciant Genaro-effect by making use of gross puns, bad jokes, and sonnets and other verses of questionable merit, along with manic expressions of super-serious outrage. I sincerely hope and trust that the reader will indulge me in this. So of course the funny/serious contrast simply will not work in a book of this sort without incurring a good deal of collateral damage. Instead I have substituted a much broader and more useful contrast, between impersonation and expersonation, to throw the whole subject of anthropology into relief. The secret of everyday values and normal life is just simply that of impersonation— the mimesis that Aristotle talked about. We copy, mimic, and imitate one another every day, in fun or in abject seriousness, including our ideas, body movements, and especially our feelings, and have learned to do so since the day we were born, or before. That is the coyote anthropology of everyday life, predatory or not, and also what anthropologists are supposed to be doing in carrying out “participant observation” studies among their subject peoples. We imitate the language, thoughts, and lifestyles of other people, copying them as a version of “culture,” and this is how the anthropologist is inclined to explain his or her work to the uninitiated Still this is a highly problematic approach, even when fully understood (which is rare). Using one culture, if that is the term, to copy or imitate another, or even copying a culture within itself, almost always leads to a sterile and useless tautology — a comparison of comparison with itself. But, you see, there is another way, best evidenced in what Castaneda’s Don Juan (whoever he may be) calls seeing and William Shakespeare’s play of Hamlet addressed in a more traditional way. I call that other way expersonation (Don Juan calls it “not-doing”), and in x

Prologue

many ways it is the true opposite of anthropology. It works like this: humor (or anthropology) takes the person out of their perspective, but seeing (expersonation) takes the perspective out of the person. “So that’s what you meant when you wrote, ‘There is no Hamlet quite like Hamlet, not even Hamlet himself.’” Sure, Coyote, Prince Hamlet took the decision to act himself mad, expersonating himself by imitating a version of himself that had never existed before, so that by invention if not intention he could speak the truths that no sane Crown Prince would dare utter in a place like Elsinore. But then, after he mistakenly stabbed Polonius (Mr. “To thine own self be true”) through the curtain, his decision backlashed on itself. From then on he underwent a complete role reversal: instead of a sane Prince acting himself mad he became a mad invention himself acting sane — a “pretender” in word and deed. Instead of merely correcting the situation at court, or calling attention to it, he obviated the whole thing. He expersonated himself, then tricked Laertes (whose father, Polonius, Hamlet himself had murdered) into seeing . . . and took a whole society down in the ancient courtly fashion (I think this means “poison”). “See, Roy, it’s all a matter of trance-parency.” “Shut up, cur.” So what have the “White Eyes” learned, from themselves and from the First Nations? Not much, apparently. Now that traditional North American ethnography has lost most of its credibility to the fleeting enthusiasms of New Age “wannabees” and a plethora of ill-chosen accounts of Indian “Spiritualism,” most readers may fail to appreciate the role this kind of extreme exaggeration played in aboriginal Native American social orders. What the early ethnographers called “joking relationships” — an ethic of exaggeration to the point of ridiculousness and over-familiarity and “extreme respect or avoidance relationships” exaggerated to pinnacles of awesomeness and extreme peril — formed a tension that held the whole world of personal interaction within its grasp. Including, and especially, one might say, the Prologue xi

world of teaching and knowledge. Castaneda did not know what he was getting himself into. Don Juan and Don Genaro do not necessarily live this way (though they tell Carlos they do, “like warriors”); they present themselves this way. So it is like the saying the Native Americans have: “Coyote is the best trickster of all, because he tricks himself.” When you imitate a part of a culture or a person that cannot be imitated, that part winds up imitating you. (Madness is only a beginning.) And forces are unleashed that no one can comprehend. Reminding one of W. H. Auden’s drawing (from “An Unwritten Poem”) of the quintessential forger, a man who was able to forge his own signature so poorly that not even the best handwriting experts could tell whether it was an authentic fake or one of those cheap imitations one hears so much about these days. Do you hear me, Coyote? “I hear you, boss.”

xii Prologue

acknowledgments

Most of us are products of social interactions and meaningful exchanges that have become so much parts of our reality that we could not isolate them even if we tried. The original Coyote anthropologist was Eugene N. Anderson, a much better poet than I, whom I met in Theodore Morrison’s composition class at Harvard. Erika, Jonathan, Wendi, and Graham (a native born Texan) help to round out the coyote part of the legacy, as, I suspect, does Carlos Castaneda. On his side of the ledger there are just simply too many, but honor demands that we begin with teachers and colleagues like David M. Schneider, Vic and Edie Turner, Fred Eggan, J. Christopher Crocker, George Mentore, Richard Handler, Gary Dunham, and T. S. Harvey. Then we have the Originals, or creator-heroes of the Castaneda course itself, like Nancy Ammerman Arnest, Douglas Sean Elfers (who made the supreme sacrifice), Matt Edwards, Rob Jackson, the Nagual Andrew Mersen, Aubrey Gilbert, Erika Jacobson, Virginia Busby, Justin Shaffner, Tatiana Tchoudakova, Yana Chertihin, Wairimu Mburathi (plus an attending salient of courageous Kikuyu warriors from Kenya), Kara Frederick, Cameron Suwijn (“The Fast Gun of Yaxchilan”), the Dreaming Nagual Tiffany Luck, Rowan Webster, and Adam Disbrow. The list could go on and on (and it does), but to avoid the contumely of Doug Elfers’s favorite appellation for me, “The Nagual Inventory,” I need to break off and acknowledge some of the others of the Warriors’ Party, Liz Stassinos, Meagan Shaw, Hannah Trible, Tara Thompson, Dawn M. Hayes, Herb Rice, and Yale Landsberg, who have made the Passage Worthwhile.

coyote anthropology

1 | tricking magic The Anthropology of Coyote

There once was a trader, a white man at the store back on the Rez, who was so good at tricking Indians they were a little bit proud of him. One day an Indian came up to the counter and said to the trader, “Now you are the cheatin’ wonder of the whole civilized world, but that one over there, he’s even better than you are.” “Why him? He’s only a scrawny critter!” “Yep, that’s the one. So why don’t you let him prove it?” So the white man ambled over to Coyote and said, “Let’s you and me have us a tricking contest and see who is the better cheater.” “Won’t work,” said canis latrans, “’cause I left my tricking magic back home, and that’s two days away.” “No problem,” said hom*o not exactly sapiens, “because I can lend you my hoss, and you can go and fetch your magic quicker’n a Noo Yawk minute.” “No way,” said the candid canid, “because I am basically a predator, and all your nag’s got to do is snuff my scent, and he’ll buck me off in a Lubbock nanosecond.” “Well, dawgnabbit,” said the trader, “I’ll just lend you my clothes, too, and when the hoss takes a whiff of the scent, it’ll snuff me instead of you.” Now that is just exactly what happened, dawgnabbit and all; Coyote took the trader’s hoss, put on his clothes, and blithely rode away. Coyote: “Now, see, Roy, that just goes to show.” Roy: “Goes to show what?”

Coyote: “Perception is a very tricky thing.” Roy: “Not half so tricky as representation; for anything you see in these lines, you’re gonna see because I represented it that way.” Coyote: “I wouldn’t be too sure about that; there’s always a trick involved, and, like your Barok friends told you in New Ireland, once you realize that something is a fake . . .” Roy: “Or maybe that everything is a fake . . .” Coyote: “You stand, not at the end of knowledge, but at its beginning.” Roy: “And now you’re gonna tell me that you left your tricking magic back home.” Coyote: “Not exactly. I got it right here with me. Look in a mirror.” Roy: “So why is perception a fake?” Coyote: “See, Roy, we do not see the world we see, hear the sounds we hear, touch the things we touch, or in any way perceive what we perceive, but that something else comes in-between.” Roy: “Now what is this, some kind of sly canid Plato’s Cave analogy? Like you canids have a flight-or-fight response inhibitor at the back of your brain?” Coyote: “Hey, Roy, I got one right in front of me. Besides, what is a brain besides a flight-or-fight response inhibitor?” Roy: “Well, then, so is the whole neural net of the body, autonomic as well as sympathetic, since what we deign to call an organism or body is in that sense the flip side of the brain, how it really works, and its basic intelligence-network.” Coyote: “You talk to me and ‘flip,’ eh? It’s more like counterintelligence; the brain is the only organ in the body that is narcissistic enough to actually believe it is thinking. That is why we coyotes have such small ones.” Roy: “I get it; you’re the ‘something else’ that comes in-between?” Coyote: “Sure ’nuff, pardner; I always come in-between — between myself and everything else. I have to trick myself in order to trick anyone else. I am exactly what perception would be if it knew enough about itself to represent itself accordingly.” Roy: “Like what we perceive is actually our thinking about perception?” 2

Tricking Magic

Coyote: “Good guess, though the truth is actually more scary than that.” Roy: “Thus if thinking really amounts to perceiving oneself to be perceiving thought itself, then what we do every time we perceive is to perceive the act of perception, or, in other words, represent the seen to the seer. We never see the light at all . . .” Coyote: “But that the light sees itself as us, for what we see and how we see are one and the same thing.” Roy: “We do not perceive but that we perceive the act of perception, a perception that represents itself to be the seen.” Coyote: “See? I always knew you had a little bit of coyote in you. When you see the light of a star what you are actually seeing is the impulse that your optic nerve makes of it, like a dawg star, or, in other words, you can’t be Sirius. There is always a paws in between.” Roy: “Like time-lapse photography, eh?” Coyote: “Or time-lapse acoustics, in the case of the ear, that listens for itself. Or time-lapse tactility, in the case of the skin and motion-sensors. Or even time-lapse cognition in the case of the brain.” Roy: “Don’t look now, but you’re on candid camera.” Coyote: “In each case we perceive the reflexive interval of the work, or energy, that the body uses to make sense of the world, and thus of itself. We are always one step behind the action that is really out there, which we know by reflex alone. And for the same reason. Which is not very rational at all. We are always one step behind that action itself, which is in here, and even in our thinking about what is in here.” Roy: “Wow, that really is scary, for even to think about being one step behind we have to take a step behind that thinking, and then step backward to know even that. It is as though the whole course of perception, and therefore memory, runs backward to the action of what we think we are doing.” Coyote: “Back to the very beginning, like effects causing their own causes every single time. Like we can only know the world of The Anthropology of Coyote

perception in reverse to ourselves, and moving forward in time is like the illusion that memory needs in order to confront itself?” Roy: “How else would the memory remember what to remember, or even how to remember? Like we have to think ourselves up again, come out of the dream world every time we get up in the morning, re-anticipating the past in order to extend it into the future. Like, ‘Let’s see; where was I yesterday so I can get on with today?’” Coyote: “Like ‘I left my tricking magic back home, and now I have to go home and get it.’ For there would be no ‘today’ without that tricking magic. Or like what they call the ‘bubble of reflection’ in Castaneda’s books: the idea that that ‘something else inbetween’ surrounds us like an opaque bubble so that all we can see and know of the world is our own image or imagery reflected back to us by the inside surface of the bubble.” Roy: “Or like Wittgenstein’s observation in the Tractatus, that ‘What is reflected in language cannot be said by means of language.’” Coyote: “Case in point, Roy, since Wittgenstein himself was obliged to state in language the fact that what he had stated — the proposition itself — cannot be stated in language. That guy has coyote possibilities; too bad he had to assume a human form.” Roy: “That might be debated, Coyote, for by this time all we have left of him is a set of reflections upon language, give or take the fact that that’s about all that language is.” Coyote: “By his standards, not mine. But didn’t he also say, later in the Tractatus, that ‘the meanings of this world must lie outside of this world?’ He actually drew a diagram to show what he meant, illustrating that the eye is never included in its own field of vision. Which would have to mean that meaning itself is far from the purely subjective quality that the bubble of perception makes it out to be, forcing us to perceive our own perceptions, and that the eye does see through the bubble of reflection every single time only to be arrested later by the time-lapse of thinking about it.” Roy: “In other words, we see what we know but do not really know 4

Tricking Magic

what we see, given that the meanings are real enough but the meanings of those meanings are not, given that we falsify them in the process of self-reflection.” Coyote: “And so Wittgenstein was a real coyote after all, and the bubble of reflection is the subject of its own illusionism and far too simple a device even for the purposes for which Don Juan had intended it. Reflection, one way or another, is its own worst enemy.” Roy: “You mean like my own best observation about mirrors, that ‘the One in the mirror steals your own act of perception — looking and thinking — but only to see and know itself.’” Coyote: “Well, that too; your ‘One in the mirror’ is actually what Don Juan would call an ‘ally,’ like most of your girlfriends. But what I really mean is that the so-called bubble of reflection is more properly figured as a visual chiasmus, the type of statement or relation that has an impasse within it, which turns out to mean more than the statement itself. Like the epigrams of Heracl*tus: ‘We live the gods’ deaths, and they live ours.’ The same words are used twice, but with a different twist, or intent, each time.” Roy: “I get it, like ‘the One in the mirror steals your act of perception, looking through your eyes, but only because you, looking through her eyes, have stolen hers.’ Sounds like the story of my life, or what really goes on in sex, or chained org*sm, or the life of Sigmund Freud (unexpurgated edition).” Coyote: “Or Wittgenstein’s, as reflected in the aphorism of his fellow Viennese, Karl Kraus: ‘An aphorism is either half-true or one-and-a-half-times-true.’ The eye that sees right through the bubble of reflection gets more truth, or meaning, than it can make sense of (this is what Don Juan calls seeing, or unmediated perception) because the action of making sense, or perceiving the perception, reflects itself in the process of doing so, and only lets a fraction of that meaning filter through.” Roy: “Now I get it all over again: a woman who can chain her org*sm is actually riding on her own climaxes, with little or no help from her friends.” The Anthropology of Coyote

R AW

S AR

AW UT

WA R

WA R S

A T

A ULS

LSO

WA R S

1. (above) Message in a Bottle #1: Mobius Surface as an Outward Rotation of a Klein Bottle

GU T TUG IN THE

G LS THE O N I TUG O OSL TUL S A A S L U T

2. (below) Message in a Bottle #2: Klein Surface as an Inward Rotation of a Mobius

Coyote: “Like that damn fool trader I left back there, missing his mount and buckass naked. Beware of allies, Roy, and false conclusions; these are not the conclusions you should be drawing. Not even in the dirt.” Roy: “Okay pal. So what is the true shape of the bubble of reflection?” Coyote: “A Klein bottle, or what the topologists would call a Kleinsurface. Coyote: You are perhaps familiar with what is called a Mobius strip: a strip of paper twisted through 180 degrees in the middle and then joined, end to end, so that the resultant figure has only one side and one edge (fig. 1, the Mobius Strip Search). It is actually a three-dimensional figure closed upon itself in one of its dimensions.” Roy: “Like most of my love affairs. Coyote: “Yeah, Roy. Sure, Roy. ‘Of all the cheap gin joints . . . etc., etc., she had to figure in mine.’ Too bad you didn’t have more edge.” Roy: “Well, at least I had a 180-degree twist in the middle. So what is a Klein bottle?” Coyote: “It’s like a 3D elevation of your love life, or a chiasmus reflected again within itself, or, strictly speaking, a three-dimensional figure closed down upon itself in two of its dimensions: a single surface that is at the same time both inside and outside of itself (see fig. 2).” Roy: “So seeing out of it is seeing into it, and vice-versa; what it unites is what it separates, and what it separates is what it unites — exactly like language, in Wittgenstein’s perspective, both inside and outside of meaning all at once. Where do you find gals like that, Coyote?” Coyote: “Believe me, they come looking for me. But as for your observation, it is Wittgenstein’s perspective, not Don Juan’s. For what is reflected in language is precisely what cannot be said in it or in another metaphor, which is unglossable in lexical terms. So what is reflected as metaphor, the meaning that is otherThe Anthropology of Coyote

wise invisible and unqualifiable must necessarily lie outside the world of language.” Roy: “Like saying that metaphor is language’s way of trying to figure out what we mean by it.” Coyote: “Or else like learning that we do not learn language at all, but instead actually teach ourselves to it. For in both cases we must do something that we are not normally allowed to do, which is to treat language as though it had a mind or intelligence of its own, that is, to grant it an agency in its own right. Roy: “Isn’t that what linguists do, in a purely hypothetical sense? And isn’t it what Heisenberg did when he called our inability to determine both the location and the velocity of a particle at the same time an uncertainty principle, as though the particle itself were uncertain as to its own motion and location?” Coyote: “And isn’t that what you are doing to me right now by anthropomorphizing me, pretending that I am an anthropologist just like you? Heisenberg pointed out that we interfere with tiny particles in the very act of observing them, and so re-project our own intentions inadvertently upon the particle (or Coyote, as the case may be). But what he did not allow himself to concede was that the particle was doing the same thing back to him, for ‘it’ had entered his own thought process as though it were part of his own neural net.” Roy: “Which, by that time, it was. Or, in other words, by virtue of the fundamental subject/object shift, I got coyotes on the brain.” Coyote: “Or whatever may be left of it by this time.” Roy: “And that’s how you manage to pick up these fancy gals, or tricky chicks, or aporetic fantasy women, as the ancient Greeks might have called them. Self-symmetries, and nothing else; for stripped bare and held up for all the world to see, the Mobius is really only the symmetry of space to itself, whereas the Klein surface is the self-symmetry of time with respect to space. Show a little respect, Coyote; look again at those figures.” Coyote: “Well, it’s true that we coyotes get it on by moonlight, and that the visual is a trap that has caught better mathematicians 8 Tricking Magic

than you and me. But you oughtta see what these gals can do when they strut their stuff.” Roy: “What stuff; crack? Or maybe booze? I’m talkin’ the basic subject/ object shift. The Klein is an alcoholic, like a gyro with no scope; can’t climb out of the bottle without falling back in again — poor gal, never even notices her own retort.” Coyote: “Sure, and by the deference between them, the Mobius is the ultimate ‘co*cktail personality’ — a cute little trick, decidedly superficial, with delicious curves, little substance, a bad case of mono, and practically no edge.” Roy: “Like I said, my own love life come back to haunt me.” Coyote: “And that’s the big trouble with you anthropologists, isn’t it? You want to be the figure as well as the ground and invest immense amounts of your personal experience in highly obsessive encounters with alien points of view so that you get to be the subject/object shift instead of only talking about it. So that, as you put it, you can get to know your own culture — whatever the hell that might be — by knowing intimately all the ways you cannot be whatever it was you were supposed to be in the first place. Which, by this time, is up for grabs.” Roy (perspiring): “Gee whiz, at least we get a culture for our very own.” Coyote: “Oh yeah? Which culture, the one you don’t know so well that by this time you know it by heart, or the other one that you pretend to have been born into?” Roy: “Hey, gimme a break; my craft, or sullen art, is simply a matter of what Don Juan calls ‘not-doing.’’” Coyote: “I’m not finished, and I’m not done talking. By this time in the game the process has become irreversible; you have become basically dyslexic about the comparative method itself, and cannot tell your own private subjective experiences — your ‘love life,’ et cetera — from the generic human ones that you pretend to call ‘objective’ . . . Roy: “ . . . Awwwwww . . . ” Coyote: “ . . . . and as it comes to fundamentals, subject/object shifts, and all, you remind me of what you said about the postThe Anthropology of Coyote

modernists, or hermeneutic ‘self-interpretation’ freaks, the bane of everyone’s existence. You said, and I quote, ‘They have their heads shoved so far up their own fundaments they can see light between their own teeth.’ End of quote.” Roy: AND end of Coyote by the way, now that you’ve finished talking. And also the end of phenomenology, or whatever it is they call themselves — I call it ‘lockjaw.’ As for you, Nomme du Chien, what you do not know about not-doing could fit in the palm of anyone’s hand, even if it was not occupied by something else.” Coyote: “I think you just tipped yours, Roy, Nomme du Louis Quatorz. So what is this not-doing about which we have, by now, heard so much.” Roy: “Not-doing is the way of the warrior, a power so awesome, as Don Juan himself put it, that no one who is not a maven at the art, a Man of Knowledge, should even breathe the name of it.” Coyote: “Gee, whiz, I’m positively breathless.” Roy: “Good thing, too, at least in first attention, which goes immediately to the perception we have been talking about. The outlined figures of people, places, and things that you have been trained to look for and think about (so that by now it has become quite unconscious) are the first attention reality of your world. The background of those figures, which you notice only in passing, is second-attention reality.” Coyote: “Sure. As they say: ‘figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.’” Roy: “The sounds and shapes that you have been trained to react to and project (so that by now it has become quite unconscious) form the pattern or content of first-attention reality. The spaces between and around those words, or between the words and the things they stand for, which you notice only in passing, form the backdrop of second-attention reality.” Coyote: “Gotcha. See, I’m a quick study. The figures or words depend on the backgrounds or spaces, just as the backgrounds or spaces depend on them, so that first attention and second attention are locked into a mutual dependency with one another. There is, in other words, a normally invisible and conventionally 10

Tricking Magic

inaudible FIGURE GROUND REVERSAL , a potential INVERSION of the foreground and background attentions that is always at work, and at play, between them. And that interplay or interference patterning is the key to all perception, all humor and seriousness; it is the key to POWER , the hinge of seeing, and the essence of all decisions that we can make, or even unmake.” Roy (perspiring): “By so much is this the case (as Wittgenstein said ‘The world is all that is the case’) and also not the case: that the actual experiencing of the two attentions at one and the same time, what Don Juan calls the third attention, is not something one can have without dying in the process. The Yucatec Mayans made an image of this, showing the immortal symmetry of symmetry with itself in the form of the moth and the butterfly — life forms that incorporate the totality of transformation within the lifecycle — turning into one another. They called that image Hunab Ku, which means ‘The One and Only God.’ Coyote: “And I would call it ‘No More Butterfly Collecting, or, The One Anthropologist Who Actually Made It.’ No offense to your love life.” Roy: “None taken. Though you should have seen Nancy.” Coyote: “But that key can only be used to unlock the worlds of power, perception, humor, and seriousness WHEN USED DELIBERATELY (this means directly and on purpose, in a fully conscious way), and, when not used in that way is only a potential. Don Juan calls the deliberate and direct use of this potential, implicit in everything we know and do, NOT-DOING . The technique, or insight, or art of this is very risky and dangerous but also very liberating. For when used consistently, or when it becomes a habit, IT CAN TAKE ON A LIFE OF ITS OWN . The warrior must be very self-disciplined, and the warrior’s heart must be fortified to stand competition with it. Don Genaro does so every time he enters the edge of his power, which is the essence of humor itself; DON GENARO IS A SHAMAN OF THE FIGURE-GROUND REVERSAL . A crazy person is one who cannot stand the competition; the key unlocks the person’s sanity instead.” The Anthropology of Coyote

Roy (marveling): “You’re a long way from Texas, son!” Coyote: “All inventions are not-doings of some technique that existed beforehand. (Example: a piston engine contains the explosion within its mechanism; a jet engine contains the mechanism within the explosion.) All insights are not-doings of some perspective that existed beforehand — here’s where you anthropologists get your payoff . . . ” Roy: “ . . . or alimony, as the case may be . . . ” Coyote: “ . . . as are all jokes (a joke contains the key within the lock, and then the lock within the key, or punch line).” Roy: “When the technique, or invention, or insight of NOTDOING is used directly, deliberately, and purposefully to unlock THE WHOLE WORLD OF PERCEPTION AND EXPERIENCE , in whatever way this may be accomplished, then that world takes on a NOT-DOING life of its own, and your world stops. Don Juan calls this STOPPING THE WORLD . Then coyotes talk to you, and dung beetles roll the world away. After that nothing is the same anymore, even though everything reverts to normal.” Coyote: “Talk to me about ‘normal,’ hey? Don Juan and Don Genaro use this technique at first to make Carlos’s car disappear from his world (“Sorry, guy, it’s all in your perspective), lock his view of things within him (the car lost him; he didn’t lose the car), then laugh themselves silly to watch him riding on air, deliberately working the gears and thinking he is driving a real car. And then, somewhat later, when all of this had sunk in: ‘Big deal, you stopped the world!’ It is too simple for most of us to do.” Roy: “In my case it was hummingbird who stopped my world.” Coyote: “What? And not Nancy? Boy, I am surprised at you.” Roy: “Well, she tried, and sometimes it takes a long time to stop the world.” Coyote: “Say, isn’t your definition of humor ‘getting the point by not getting it?’” Roy: “Also my definition of divorce.” Coyote: “You gotta do better than that.” 12

Tricking Magic

Roy: “Humor or irony, whatever else they might mean or be, are the core or basis of any attempt at explanation; the explanation of a joke, always a mistake, is another version of the joke of explanation itself. And this, for the fact that irony itself, is simply the inversion of what we normally consider to be cause or agency in that it gives one the effect first and then offers a wry suggestion as to what the cause may or may not have been.” Coyote: “Roy, didn’t you yourself write (2005: 233) that ‘Causeand-effect depends, for its very usefulness or ‘predictive’ efficacy, upon a purely arbitrary distinction or division imposed upon a unitary action so as to project the working illusion that one part of it is anterior (causal) or antecedent to the other.’” Roy: “Sure did, but after that (loc. cit.) I also wrote: ‘What we have in the normal interplay between the humorous and the agentive — the fact that jokes on one hand and inventions on the other seem to have no easily established or fixable point of origination and seem to arise of their own accord — is a figure-ground reversal that controls the realm of thought and action instead of being controlled by it.’” Coyote: “And that would be your subject/object shift— the joke of invention and the invention of the joke — so that Don Juan and Don Genaro inverted the order of cause and effect to disappear Carlos’s car.” Roy: “Then the car would have disappeared them, wouldn’t it? Actually, the figure-ground reversal is all-important to our grasp of humor as well as agency, and Don Juan simply took the fact that both are out of our direct control — jokes as well as inventions appearing out of nowhere — and inverted it upon ourselves.” Coyote: “Like ‘why do you need magic when you already have it,’ eh? Look, Roy, unless you can tell me how this was done, or how humor is dependent on figure-ground reversal, we might as well dismiss the whole thing as a fraud or an illusion.” Roy: “But I was a fraud and an illusion, no more and no less so than cause and effect itself, or, for that matter, human perception.” Coyote: “Come again?” The Anthropology of Coyote

The Explanation of Humor and the Humor of Explanation Roy: “Don Juan says ‘it is possible to feel with the eyes.’ We have learned, and we are taught, to look as we think and think as we look, to pick out figures in the world, figures that correspond to our thoughts and our words for things. But at the same time our eyes are also feeling the background, the ‘ground’ or field of the shapes and figures that we look for ourselves into the world around us. Don Juan calls the work that we do in thinking as we look and looking as we think ‘first-attention,’ and the work that we do in feeling the background with our eyes ‘second-attention.’ Second-attention is our ‘dream’ of the world and our bodies use this feeling of the world to move with.” Coyote: “So then the whole axis between thinking and being is controlled by the figure-ground reversal of the two attentions, or foreground and background, and Descartes could have said ‘I am, therefore I think.’” Roy: “Sum vel cogito, Coyote. It’s an either/or proposition, a zero-sum game. Humor depends on its ‘funny edge’ to make us laugh, and that is why cartoons or ‘pictures in the head’ of the humorous situation are important to it. “Funny’ is where looking and thinking loses it, and the funny edge, or ‘far side,’ is a crack between the worlds of looking and feeling, a place where feeling breaks through the focus that looking and thinking made for it and focuses us instead. The body laughs. The mind only thinks about laughing, but then gives up and turns it into an explanation instead.” Coyote: “Descartes never had it so good, or so bad, either; the worst jokes of all are always the very best.” Roy: “It gets even better. As Matt Edwards once put it, in my Castaneda class, ‘Humor is the close knowledge of anything.’ Plus or minus the Cartesian coordinates.” Coyote: “Anything at all, any fact or situation in the world of looking and thinking could be made funny if it were focused in the right way, so it is the humorist’s job to make the particular joke or cartoon seem trivial or unimportant, disqualify it, so as to save the moral importance of looking and thinking.” 14

Tricking Magic

Roy: “Or, in other words, never put Descartes before a horse of a different color, which is actually a species of what Don Juan calls ‘controlled folly.’ We laugh to control the folly of actually seeing through the folly of our normal interpretation, closing upon a ‘knowledge’ of things, which is actually forbidden to the shapes and figures we make in looking and thinking. Don Juan laughs to control the folly of looking and thinking. There is all the difference in the world between those two perspectives, yet neither of them really belongs to the commonsense world.” Coyote: “So then what Don Juan calls seeing would be like looking through humor rather than looking directly at it, the way we do in the ‘setup,’ or opening scenario of a joke.” Roy: “To see, in Don Juan’s sense, it would be necessary to isolate the ability to feel with the eyes, bring it up through the whole feeling and moving potential of the body, and use it to break the focus of the looking and thinking world. The ‘funny edge’ done backward, and upside-down (Genaro tries to do this with his acrobatics, and his laughing at Carlos); nothing would be funny anymore, but nothing would be serious either I (c.f. Don Juan: ‘in seeing all things go to nothing’). It is a lot easier to talk or think about this than to actually do, because the looking and thinking part of us always gets grabbed by the work it was trained to do.” Coyote: “So then seeing could make a car disappear.” Roy: “Along with everything else, including all the referentials, or coordinate systems, that allow one to determine whether the car, or anything else, is either there or not there.” Coyote: “So, then, and correct me if I’m wrong: it would not be politically correct to make such a determination at all, or even use the works of Castaneda, since the whole rationale of political correctness stems from a total lack of standards, or criteria, for making judgments about things.” Roy: “Well, then I will have to correct you, if only for political reasons, since you are wrong. Political correctness is actually a form of overcompensation for the lack of standards or criteria; it consists in the art of making exaggerated, overdetermined The Anthropology of Coyote

judgments about the most trivial matters — the more trivial, the better.” Coyote: “In that case acute, perceptual judgment, or even seeing, are like the aphorism Karl Kraus talked about: they are either half true or one-and-a-half times true. Or like the special, coded language, called ‘anthrospeak,’ which anthropologists have developed in order to communicate with one another.” Roy: “Sure. Either they see and can’t talk about it, or else they talk about it and can’t see beyond their own profession. Most of what Don Juan calls doing actually works by not-doing, whereas most of what he calls not-doing is actually a secret form of doing. Clear?” Coyote: “As mud. Anthropologists have a sense of humor about everything but themselves.” Roy: “Wrong again, Coyote. They have a sense of humor only about themselves, since they don’t take anyone else seriously enough, or else they take them too seriously. Most anthropological theory (forget practice — there isn’t any) works by getting itself wrong and then trying to get itself right about why it was wrong in the first place. It is a clear case of what someone once called ‘a working misunderstanding.’” Coyote: “Who called it a working misunderstanding?” Roy: “I always thought it was Marshall Sahlins, but then Marshall said it was me, and then Jim Bohannan said that both of us got it from him.” Coyote: “So who was right?” Roy: “That’s the point, see? It’s like what Robert Murphy called ‘Schneider’s Law,’ which is actually the not-doing of what most people call Murphy’s Law, since Murphy got tired of hearing his name taken in vain. You know about Murphy’s Law, don’t you?” Coyote: “No.” Roy: “Good. The ‘not-doing’ or working misunderstanding of Murphy’s Law is Schneider’s Law. Very cutting and tailored to fit.” Coyote: “Tailored to fit what?” Roy: “Why, itself, of course — nobody said these guys were slop16

Tricking Magic

py. Schneider’s Law, according to Murphy, is that ‘Everything in structural-functional theory reduces to the simple proposition that if things didn’t work in the way that they actually do, they would work in some other way.” Coyote: “So what is Murphy’s Law, according to Schneider?” Roy: “If anything can go wrong, it probably will, or, in other words, the not-doing of the very same thing.” Coyote: “What thing?” Roy: “The fabulous Ding an Sich, or ‘thing in and of itself ’ (e.g., figure alone, without its ground), much celebrated in Teutonic folklore and pseudophilosophy (read: ‘phenomenology’) until clarified by Wittgenstein in his brilliant proposition, ‘We picture facts to ourselves.’” Coyote: “Apply a) Murphy’s Law, and then b) Schneider’s Law to Wittgenstein’s proposition to find out what the Ding an Sich really means.” Roy: “a) If anything could possibly go wrong in phenomenology it certainly already has, and b) If we did not picture facts to ourselves then facts would picture us to them, and thus by the very nature of figure-ground reversal the subject/object shift that is necessary to picture the fact in the first place, and, last but not least, Don Juan’s seeing and the ancient Mayan Hunab Ku (viz., Was it I dreaming I was a butterfly, or was it a butterfly dreaming it was me?)” Coyote: “So what is Wagner’s Law?” Roy: “Wagner’s Law, which I thought up all by myself when I was about ten years old, is: Of all the possible things that could happen in the next moment, only one of them will.” Coyote: “And where did Wagner’s Law come from?” Roy: “The next moment.” Coyote: “And what is Wagner’s practice, as opposed to Wagner’s Law?” Roy: “Wagner’s practice is, logically, opposed to Wagner’s Law, if only to save the plurality or plenitude of the world’s event-structure or inventory from further attenuation and obloquy. It is, in other words — (and a whole lot of them, too) — to continually The Anthropology of Coyote

revisit the past, recapitulate the past, even regurgitate the past, in search of even more concrete examples of what everybody already knows abstractly to be true, which is that anthropology is nothing without its digressions.” Coyote: “And this has the effect of . . . ” Roy: “Contrition. Pizzazz. Human interest value. Suave demonstrative facility. But, most of all, humor, since, as we have seen, humor is the sine qua non of explanatory prowess, even in its smaller version, the prowette. Furthermore, every visible or audible reaction to humor, regardless of intent, has the effect of a regurgitative impulse, or threat-gesture, from the risus, or grin, to the belly laugh. Even the sound of laughter, like ha ha or ho ho, is like a backward speech event, for it models the word upon the breath rather than the breath upon the word.” Coyote: “Thus the effect of Wagner’s practice is to do everything possible to keep us from getting to that thoroughly predictable next moment, or, in other words, to keep us from finding out how they made Carlos’s car disappear.” Roy: “Oh that. Well, see, that is a matter of Don Juan’s practice, or what he calls ‘sorcery,’ and what you or I might prefer to call an interplay between memory and chance: nonfortuitous happenstance.” Coyote: “Aren’t memory and chance opposites of one another?” Roy: “Yes and no; they are opposites that both attract and repel at the same time.” Coyote: “Then what is the relation between them? How does the control of future event (‘prediction’) stand with respect to past recollection (‘deduction,’ ‘afterthought,’ ‘pragmatic afterlife’)? What are the chances of their mutual integration in the human actor or thinker? By what deductive process might they be opposites? If there is a point of mutual confusion between them, a sort of humor of the afterthought, how might that humor be manipulated to advantage, as in a joke? How will one remember something in the future, and how will that postponed recollection be reconciled with a present intention to do so?” Roy: “We’re really full of ourselves today, aren’t we? ‘How shall I go 18 Tricking Magic

about remembering today tomorrow?’ If intention and memory share the same description, a conclusion that is a virtual ‘no brainer’ (all that we know, including the language by which we know it, must be remembered, and so all that we intend to know will be some recombination of that memory).” Coyote: “I see what Don Juan means by ‘sorcery.’ The real ‘brainer,’ or Sorcery, is not how and why intention and memory work on the same basic experiential corpus (‘description’) but rather how we manage to separate the two in order to locate ourselves, interpolate the position (‘now,’ ‘the present’) that we all seem to share right here in the MIDDLE OF TIME .” Roy: “Wow, Coyote, you’re really good; what did you do, just kill a sheep or something?” Coyote: “A clue to this manipulation is given by the ancient Roman Ars Memoria, the ‘Art of Memory’ used by the famous orators of the Roman Senate and law courts. Cicero did it this way: you pick an edifice, like your house, that is very familiar to you — you know the layout and the rooms by habit (it is a memory-place, or placed memory), you know the details of each room, the furniture, objects, details of the objects, and the habit-structures that go with them. You made them all, and you should know from yourself.” Roy: “Then, as I recall, you place all the details of what you want to say (e.g., will remember) in your speech or oration in one-toone-correspondence with the details of the edifice and its objects. When you say your piece, the motion of your progress through the memory-chamber becomes the ordering of your speech; you walk your mind through the building, and nothing is left to chance. That was the ancient Roman recapitulation (and no wonder Rome fell).” Coyote: “I get your drift — did the Ars Memoria teach the Romans how to think? Sure, but only of themselves. Enforced habit, it turns out, is a real killer, and “memory” is only the tip of the iceberg. Now we still have most of the buildings that “remembered” the Romans, though the people themselves are all gone.” Roy: “But the epistemological implications of this are prodigious: The Anthropology of Coyote

what we have in the Ars Memoria is the re-invention of the Roman Empire as a self-decomposing process. It is absolutely foolproof. For if the thing we call ‘memory’ were really structured in that way, the art of memory would only serve to make that fact more explicit. And if the memory were not structured in that way, you would still come out ahead, for you would have invented it on your own. It is at one and the same time what Don Juan calls ‘stopping the world’ and what I call ‘the invention of culture.’” Coyote: “And what I would call stopping the digression. You are very famous for your digressions, aren’t you, Roy?” Roy: “Sure, Coyote, and you for your re-gressions. And Don Juan for his trance-gressions, shaman though he may have been. ‘Stopping the world,’ as Don Juan knows it, is really only stopping the description of the world as we know it, that is, erasing the lexical referentials or ‘familiars’ (personal history, etc.) by which we know the things that we do know from the metaphors that take off from them.” Coyote: “Sorcery survives in the human race not because it is the accused but because it is the accuser. Tell that to your Roman courts. That is the simple structure of all of Don Juan’s arguments, and all of his conclusions. He uses a simple memory/ intention trick, or subject/object shift, a sleight-of-mind on Carlos every time he needs to show him something real, and I prefer to call that trick the Gimmick. You may call it anything you will, but please be aware when it is being done to you.” Roy: “Does that mean that this book is a version of the Gimmick?” Coyote: “Asked and answered, Roy: you should know from yourself.” Roy: “Since it ‘works’ by switching the very evidentials, or selfdescriptive referentials, that ‘working’ itself uses to fix the parameters of its own subjectivity or objectivity, telling itself from itself, as it were, what evidence do we have that ‘it’ is aware of what it is doing?” Coyote: “What do you mean by ‘it,’ Roy, this book, or Don Juan’s sorcery, or the Gimmick of the subject/object shift?” 20

Tricking Magic

Roy: “Asked and answered, Coyote; that’s it. The point, I mean: of all the possible things that could happen in the next moment, only one of them will. Everything we think and know about the world goes back into itself, for that is the basic recapitulative strategy of knowing, thinking, and memory. But the next thing to happen may be pure chance, for all we know.” Coyote: “To answer your original question, about whether ‘it’ is aware of itself, we have all the evidence in the world that Don Juan and Don Genaro knew exactly what they were ‘doing’ when they made the car disappear, which was in fact not doing. But we have no evidence whatsoever that “it,” or not doing, ever knows what it is really doing, since its basic job is to erase its own evidence.” Roy: “So it all goes back to the manipulation of memory and chance, eh?” Coyote: “Sure, ‘back engineering,’ as they call it in the UFO trade.” Back Engineering: How They Disappeared the Car Roy: “In A Separate Reality Don Juan showed Carlos the same leaf falling from the same sycamore tree several times over, as though it were a single event replayed in a movie of itself. (How many times, in our histories, did Caesar fall in the Forum?) But the piece de resistance took place in Journey to Ixtlan, when Don Juan and Don Genaro ‘made Carlos’s car disappear,’ caused him to re-invent (remember’) it, and then laughed themselves silly to see him riding on thin air, in a seated position actually scudding over the ground, working an invisible gearshift and clutch pedals, objects, as it were.” Coyote: “Carlos said that every time they did something like this, he himself lost track of the passage of time.” Roy: “And he himself is the only source of our information about this, isn’t he?” Coyote: “For all we would know that, too, was like watching a movie of itself; what actually took place during the ‘filming’ of it was as much beside the point of what was depicted in the film as The Anthropology of Coyote

the Gimmick of the traditional Hindu ‘rope trick’ is to what the spectators remember about it. The surprising thing is that the play of illusion in these quasi-events can also be recovered from the illusion itself, provided one knows where to look. If Don Juan’s illusionary tactics were staged (as in the traditional rope trick) through the subliminal redeployment of moving objects and human perception in relation to one another, as in a movie itself.” Roy: “Back engineering; object lesson. One must see through the illusionism of the movie to realize that the tank-treads or wheel-spokes in the film run backward to the motion of the tank or wagon itself, and not by accident either. For the very same illusion is responsible for the illusion — really a ‘movie’ of time — that is projected in the wheel clock’s ‘measurement’ of time, in that the rocker-arm of the escapement mechanism catches the sprockets of the drive-wheel at successively previous moments of its rotation. Time, as it were, must not only pass, but actually pass itself up.” Coyote: “Or off, like the actor it is. ‘Seeing through’ the falsified subjectivity in the case of the disappearing car, one can reach the following (startling) conclusion: Carlos did not really lose his car until he found it, and did not really find his car until he ‘lost it.’ This derives automatically from the conclusions reviewed above: that memory, like thought itself, goes backwards in time, but the illusion of temporal progression comes forward through the retrospection of cognition (sort of like the eye seeing nothing but its own energy). But to check this out, we need to go back to the beginning of the narrated event, and then follow through.” Roy: “This is the double vision, both times at once, of past-in-itsown-future and future-in-its-own-past. After announcing what they are about to do, Don Juan and Don Genaro take Carlos to the place in the desert where he had left his car (locked, in fact, so that no one could steal it). They flank Carlos from the front, acting strangely and make absurd batting motions with their arms, either to distract Carlos or to bat the (normally in22

Tricking Magic

visible — but hell, no one can see ‘time’ either) world-lines into place. Probably both. When they get there Carlos cannot see his car, and Juan and Genaro carry on the completely outrageous behavior with large and small objects — rocks, pebbles, roof beams, highly unlikely flies — on the pretext that they are trying to help him find his car. (‘Trying’ to find something and actually finding it are two entirely dissimilar actions; not-doings of one another.) The effort takes on outrageous, exaggerated proportions, until Genaro decides to ‘show him the way,’ attaches a string to his sombrero and proceeds, successfully, to fly it like a kite.” Coyote: “Now what are the chances of that? As Carlos knows full well, this is aerodynamically impossible (must be those ‘world lines’ again) and its actual realization before his very eyes (so much like a movie) forces a ‘time superimposed on itself ’ double-take of the whole deictic situation. In a sudden insight (almost exactly what Don Juan calls seeing or ‘stopping the world’), Carlos realizes that he will find his lost car in the place where the kite comes down. He does, of course (insight is always a kind of seeing) both in spite of and because of the facts that a) the car was not really there, and b) sombreros have few aerodynamic qualifications.” Roy: “So why didn’t the car take off and the sombrero disappear?” Coyote: “Sometimes I wonder about you professors. Why? For the same reason you get two equipotential solutions to a quadratic equation, Einstein: a positive and a negative — each the result of false claims made upon the other, claims that become real once the solution is reached. Why, you Kurt Gödel of the insignificant? Because a negative, or not-doing, times another negative, or not-doing, always yields a positive result.” Roy: “Thus, to my admittedly dull-witted and altogether professorial mind, Carlos ‘finds’ an imaginary foreground to his imaginary background and has taken leave, not of his senses but of the first-attention, in which, to quote Don Juan, ‘all power is trickery.’ Now, since everything that Carlos knows or feels about a car — how to recognize it, use it, hide it, find it, drive it — is The Anthropology of Coyote

foregrounded as part of his learned doing of things, he is ready to defy the laws of physical reality itself (the defining principle of his doing), follow Genaro’s example, shift the agentive shift, climb into his not-not real car and, sitting on thin air, drive everybody ‘home,’ with Don Juan and Don Genaro sitting in the ‘back seat,’ laughing like children.” Coyote: “So why didn’t he just tie a string to his car so he could remember where he left it?” Roy: “Because, you whipped jackal in wolf ’s clothing, then the car would have flown itself like a kite.” Coyote: “There’s something about the object that we’ve been tracking all through these pages — the object as part of the perception that perceives it something about the object and memory, or the juxtaposition of chance and memory, that is not coming through in our explanation. The car is an object, right?” Roy: “In other words, our whole explanation was an attempt to look at Carlos, or car-loss, from the car’s point of view, like the Uncertainty Principle is an attempt to look at relativity from the particle’s point of view.” Coyote: “An objective point of view.” Roy: “As the movie sees the viewer from a differential time frame; it is a matter of déjà vu and vùjá de.” Coyote: “Come again?” Roy: “That’s the point, isn’t it.” Déjà Vu and Vùjá De Coyote: “Let me get this straight. A déjà vu is an uncanny experience, often associated with fatigue, of having had the same experience, or perception, that one is now having, at some time in the past. An experience that one could not otherwise recall without its possible recurrence in that way, as though the workings of memory and chance had somehow gotten confused with one another.” Roy: “An inability on the part of the past to predict the future, or at least its own futurity. So what, on that basis, is a vùjá de?” Coyote: “Well, that would be the direct opposite: a canny experi24

Tricking Magic

ence, always identified with ebullience, on the part of that experience itself, that it had had you at some time before.” Roy: “Close, but no cigar. It would be an indirect opposite, with the roles of future and past, as well as those of perceiver and perceived, reversed.” Coyote: “Like future-in-its-own-past, and in an active rather than a passive mode? Like Carlos’s car as absolutely certain, it would find him since he was only relatively certain he had lost it?” Roy: “Right. See déjà vu is an impersonation of the action of remembering, memory in what a linguist would call an ergative modality, a normally active verb or activity expressed in a passive form, with a net gain in the energy of the expression itself.” Coyote: “I don’t get it.” Roy: “You remember the old Soviet joke: We pretend to work and the state pretends to pay us. That would be a double, or selfreflexive ergative, like a postmodernist understanding of Marxism or an anthropologist’s idea of what the ritual process is all about.” Coyote: “So then vùjá de would be the total opposite of the ergative mode: an active role for the otherwise suborned, or passive subject: not an impersonation at all, but an EXPERSONATION . Like saying that ‘In this new, liberated Russia it is the state that pretends to work, whereas the individual, now freed from his worker’s chains, has to pay for the whole thing, and REALLY pay.’ Roy: “You got it, Coyote; game, set, and match. ‘Each being the result of false claims made upon the other.’ It’s like intention and memory sharing the same basic description but having entirely different takes on it. Past its own future and future in its own past are opposite and wholly irreconcilable qualities.” Coyote: “Like you and me: pest in his own future and future in his own pest.” Roy: “DNA and A.N.D . — ‘Dat you, Andy?’ Déjà vu remembers the intention to remember but not necessarily the memory itself, of which it is quite unsure. Vùjá de intends the memory but not necessarily the intention itself, which it is certain will be recovered, or recollected, at some future time. Hence déjà vu is subjective and in need of objective corroboration, like Carlos’s lost The Anthropology of Coyote

car, whereas vùjá de is objective, like the car itself, which always was somewhere and is in need of subjective retrieval, like Carlos ‘finding’ it in a place where he never lost it. The default-clause is actually more easily manipulated in prose, which is really pastin-its-own-future, than in immediate experience. For by the time the reader experiences it it is not an immediate experience anymore, but something than happened in the past.” Coyote: “And even more easily manipulated in poetry, like those famous lines of Robert Frost: ‘Whose woods dese are I think I know / Ah seed dem someplace else befo’.’” Roy: “Or those less famous lines by Wallace Stevens: ‘The trouble with you, Robert, is that you make the visible world too easy to see.’” Coyote: “And Don Juan makes the invisible world impossible to miss.” Roy: “And not because of word-lines, either.” Coyote: “Hey Roy, déjà vu, didn’t I hear you say the same thing before?” Roy: “Hey Coyote, vùjá de, that was our old friend the Ding an Sich, the ungrounded figure of the unfigured ground, or the fact without its context and the context without its fact. Since, as we have learned, the action of ‘picturing’ — like ‘we picture facts to ourselves’ — is reciprocal between subject and object, so that facts picture us to themselves as well.” Coyote: “Say, Roy, why do you professors, and especially you anthropologists, always talk about something like pretending you were explaining it by talking about everything else instead? Like: I left my double in the day-ja-voo, doo dah, doo dah, it looks like me like it looks like you, oh, dóò-jà-váy; gwanna talk all night, gwanna talk all day, de trouble with the double is Don Juan’s bubble, zippity vóò-jà-dáy. 26

Tricking Magic

The Double Past in Its Own Future and Future in Its Own Past Roy: “Fact is, everything in the world we do live in, everything in the world of fact, time and space, kinship, family, character, personality, love, hate, society, money, objects is based on impersonation: world in the person and person in the world. Like what Aristotle called mimesis; imitation — the pretending of similarity in difference and difference in similarity, like metaphor. Like Shakespeare: ‘All the world’s a stage, and we are merely players on it,’ like Don Juan’s bubble of reflection, you know: ‘What you are after is only the reflection of your thoughts. You look as you think and you think as you look, and so are trapped in a looking and thinking world.’” Coyote: “We are fairly consumed by our own self-imitation, aren’t we, Roy? By the time any conscious, well-meaning adult reaches maturity, he or she is already living largely in his or her own head. ‘Royworld,’ as your friend Liz Stassinos called it; ‘professor-world’ is what I would call it. Remember your almost perfect definition of kinship?” Roy: “Sure. ‘All we ever know of kinship consists of connections established among the living on behalf of the dead, and connections among the dead established on behalf of the living.’” Coyote: “A perfect chiasmus, eh? And also what Don Juan calls ‘clarity, the second enemy of the man of knowledge,’ the monster hidden in the academic’s closet that is almost a mistake. A reflection of your own thoughts that has much more to do with how we think of kinship than the actions that are actually going on out there.” Roy: “I get it — strategy is always the first casualty on the battlefield, and kinship, like Coyote, is always a moving target. Is that what you mean? Like impersonation is only the thin edge of the wedge of expersonation?” Coyote: “Yes, Mr. Let’s-Talk-About-One-Thing-in-Terms-ofAnother, I mean that, and a lot more. I mean the ‘moving target’ that also shoots back at you; for every déjà vu there is also a vùjá The Anthropology of Coyote

de. I mean that the only thing worth predicting is the unpredictable, and the only thing worth controlling is the uncontrollable. And I mean, most of all, that what you call a ‘holographic model’ or ‘holographic worldview’ is one that imitates you back with far greater precision and accuracy than you could ever imitate it.” Roy: “So it’s like the difference between Karl Pribram’s model of the brain and David Bohm’s model of the universe. Pribram said that the brain actually functions and thinks holographically, effectively realizing the oneness, or mutual occlusion, of part and whole; Bohm called that effect (or also cause) the hidden, or implicate, structure of the universe itself.” Coyote: “Sure, and as any fool can plainly see, on a part-for-whole basis, the difference between the two is negligible. For as part of the universe, the brain would necessarily incorporate or impersonate the totality of its workings, its implicate structure, according to Bohm. Whereas the universe itself would expersonate the brain’s activity in doing so. You see?” Roy: “I see, fool that I am, that what the brain impersonates, the universe expersonates, and vice-versa, like déjà vu and vùjá de: subject and object each re-perceiving the other from its own point of view. I see that this also has something to do with time: a past in its own future and a future in its own past. Like there is a huge difference between these two.” Coyote: “Yes, Roy, and you see it in your own particular Royworld kind of way, as you once put it: ‘World in the person and person in the world,’ the subject/object flipover, the Gimmick, the rope trick, the disappearing car and the reappearing driver. I’m fine with that. But what you do not see is that both of these things are equal, and equally parts of you and me, and of everybody and everything.” Roy: “And that’s what Don Juan calls ‘The Double?’” Coyote: “Among other things, ‘There is more in heaven and on earth . . . than is dreamt in your philosophy.’” Roy: “You mean Shakespeare knew the Double?” Coyote: “Only in a manner of speaking.” 28 Tricking Magic

Roy: “Tell me about the Double.” Coyote: “I’ll leave that to you. The recollecting self, or recollecting part of you, thinks, thinks about itself (‘remembers’ or imitates itself) and is incapable of acting. IT ONLY THINKS IT IS ACTING . The other part of you, which we might as well call the anticipating self, can ONLY act, and ONLY ACTS AS IF IT WERE THINKING .” Roy: “That means that it actually throws itself blindly into a space it never sees, and does so with perfect accuracy and skill as if it were the ultimate acrobat or ballet dancer. As though it knew the steps in advance, in double-time, and as though it acted not only with duplicity but as duplicity, by remote control, with it, itself, as the remote.” Coyote: “Sure, it is not only gone by the time you look for it, it’s also gone by the time it looks for it. Which is probably why Don Juan never mentions it, for in fact it could never mention itself either. You know the saying, ‘What is better than presence of mind in an accident?’” Roy: “Hell, I even know the answer: absence of body. So in other words it, despite the fact that we do not know what it is, acts only by accident.” Coyote: “Roy, it is accident, the other half of chance that probability has never figured out, being that it can only figure in. Roy: “And which leaves us with presence of body, that is, by that time, only a victim, a picture of its own pathos.” Coyote: “The recollecting self can only indulge in fantasies of moving forward, for it can only remember itself doing so.” Roy: “In other words, the recollecting self collects all the evidence of action, all your tracks and traces, all the words and noises you leave behind (blah blah blah), and puts them in a big sack, which is itself. It is the perfect detective, but it never solves the crime.” Coyote: “Why? Since what we call ‘thinking’ is also remembering, it keeps getting behind itself and must think itself up again (e.g., what Don Juan calls ‘the internal dialogue’) every time it thinks. Whereas the anticipatory self is like a joke, always getting ahead The Anthropology of Coyote

of itself, a joke that is always ‘on the double,’ and at the expense of explanation, which can only redouble its efforts to tell you about itself.” Roy: “Like it . . . went thataway, whereas, meanwhile, back at the ranch . . . everything was sacked because even ‘thataway’ went thataway.” Coyote: “See, Roy, at this juncture in our conversation, which Marshall Sahlins would call ‘the structure of the conjuncture,’ you are supposed to ask a question.” Roy: “Okay, here goes: How can you possibly know what he meant by a ‘structure of the conjuncture’ if neither you nor Marshall can agree on who first came up with the working misunderstanding?” Coyote: “That is not the right question, Roy, it is the right answer. The question was supposed to be, ‘So why are they (the two parts of the Double, or in other words we) nearly always convinced that they are one and the same thing?” Roy: “I get it. Because each one of them, in its own way (the one by thinking as if it were acting, the other by acting as if it were thinking) claims the WHOLE self as itself while having no awareness of the other. Not Being Able To Act The Thinking (as in the case of the recollecting self) and Not Being Able to Think the Acting (as in the case of the anticipating self), are INVISIBLE to one another. And with NO VISIBLE MEANS OF SUPPORT , anything is likely to turn tricks.’” Coyote: “So it was really Pribram and Bohm all along, or perhaps Shakespeare, and Macbeth: ‘Ye canna act the part, laddie, wi’oot ya know the hole, and ye canna act the hole, either, wi’oot ya know the part.” Roy: “So it’s Rob Roy, is it? It’s about time [putting on airs]: ‘Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, and all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death.” Coyote: “So it’s past-in-its-own-future and future-in-its-own-past, is it? Like, as I recall, the Ars Memoria — a Roman in the gloamin’ and a comin’ through the wry.” 30 Tricking Magic

Roy: “To top it all off, that so-called invisible body of yours, the anticipating self, is what Don Juan calls the dreaming body, on the part of the Double that walks in dreams, does the impressions of them, makes other things visible, and normally keeps itself in the dark.” Coyote: “You mean like the guy who drinks to make other people more interesting?” Roy: “No, I mean like that Chinese dreamer who could not tell whether he was himself dreaming that he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that it was himself.” Coyote: “Or else, like the Mayan Hunab Ku, the ‘One and Only God: the One that pictures God as God would picture it and so knows no difference between the two. Knowing for certain that it is a moth in first-attention, because its second-attention, or fly-by-night self, actually is a butterfly.’ Roy: “Sure, dreaming bodies don’t have to know how to act, they just act. And they act in the future of their own action, thataway.” The Difference between Reality and Itself Coyote: “Hey, I’ve just made a brilliant discovery about Don Genaro, Don Juan’s immemorial sidekick: he is the very incarnation of all that is right and all that is wrong about our idea of time.” Roy: “You mean like that thing I once said: ‘Time is the difference between itself and space; space is the similarity between the two?’” Coyote: “Well, you can’t be right all of the time, sometimes you’ve got to be left, like for instance Double or nothing, two being the operant variable here. Without humor, you see, Genaro would have no power, but without power he would have no humor. So it is between Genaro and his dreaming body, that the mistrust of humor is a matter of pure mathematics, but the mistrust of mathematics is a matter of pure humor. They are joined at the hip . . . the REALLY HIP !” Roy: “Also right, but if both time and humor are the operant variables, as you say — the difference between reality and itself — then The Anthropology of Coyote

the real doubling is the essence of Don Juan’s teaching. You know, the balancing act. So like Genaro’s acrobatics between the no-pity, iron discipline that Don Juan calls ‘the way of the warrior, or stalker,’ and the totally counterintuitive content of his knowledge that no one in their right mind would believe without the tricks Genaro plays with it. Like, ‘In your dreams, fella.’” Coyote: “Like, I mean, hip to the joint, or juncture, of the construction. Like déjà vu and vùjá de. Like the ‘enemies of the man of knowledge,’ fear, clarity, power, and old age, are what most people would consider as friends, or at least ‘senior citizens.’ Whereas the no nonsense tough love pragmatics of Don Juan, so unlike the empty idealities that we pretend to live by, are what most people would consider to be enemies.” Roy: “And what has that to do with the contretemps, as it were, between our two misunderstandings of time: past in its own future and future in its own past?” Coyote: “For Genaro the difference itself makes all the difference in the world, for he has turned himself (and thus everything else) around in such a way that those two misunderstandings are not misunderstandings at all, but forms of selfunderstanding.” Roy: “ If things didn’t work one way, they would work some other way?” Coyote: “Nope, always both ways at once: not past in its own future but past as its own future, and also future as its own past.” Roy: “Come again?” Coyote: “By dint of endless years of iron discipline and careful training, or else pure dumb luck (nobody knows for sure, and Genaro isn’t telling), Genaro managed to turn his anticipatory self, or dreaming body, into a perfect simulacrum of his ordinary physical body, or recollective self. So now he is able to exercise (as in ‘acrobatics’) any of the limitless possibilities of the selfanticipating dreaming body within the monochrome spectrum of ordinary physical doing. He is past as its own future by virtue of being also, and at the same time, future as its own past.” Roy: “So, let me guess: ‘virtue’ had absolutely nothing to do with it. 32

Tricking Magic

Because Genaro was able to use his anticipating self to anticipate his recollective self he was also able to recollect his anticipating self, and thus do the thing that the anticipatory self does best of all, which is disappear. And is precisely why he isn’t around anymore.” Coyote: “Nope, Roy, wrong again. See, you get into these little periods of confusion because what Don Juan calls ‘the glue that binds our description of time’ is still binding you. That was your problem all along, wasn’t it? You got caught in the description, just like an anthropologist does — you couldn’t teach Don Juan because you got caught in the description of doing so. But you also couldn’t teach the description itself because you got caught in Don Juan. And now you’re caught in the description of the Double, and all doubled up, and not with laughter, either.” Roy: “So the impersonation of expersonation is not the expersonation of impersonation, and the two parts of the double are not twins of one another?” Coyote: “No. To be perfectly correct they are ANTI-TWINS , not only of one another but of everything else as well. But that belongs to another description, perfectly correct, that you wrote in another book, called An Anthropology of the Subject, a much better book than this one.” Roy: “Does that mean I have to write yet another book?” Coyote: “No, that would mean getting caught in another description, wouldn’t it? It means you have to get this one straight, for once and for all. For NOW is the only time there ever was, or is, or could be.” Roy: “And that would mean that I have become unstuck, or unglued, as per Don Juan’s description, of the glue that binds our description of time. And that, in turn, would mean that NOW , being only a descriptive term, is NOT the only time there ever was, or is, or could be, because by the time you even think of it as a now it is already a THEN . And on prima facie evidence, or description (take your pick) then is the only kind of time there ever was, or is, or could be.” Coyote (examining Roy for traces of sanity): “Boy, you sure have The Anthropology of Coyote

become unstuck, this time with crazy glue, for NOW you have not only gotten caught in a description but in the description of description, like a phenomenologist. I believe it was Kurt Gödel who pointed out, to Albert Einstein no less, that what he thought of as time — the ‘fourth dimension’ — was really only space, like ‘the space of time,’ and that what is past is already gone by the time you try to remember it.” Roy (examining Coyote for traces of insanity): “Now that, if you will recall, is exactly the description, in no uncertain terms, of the anticipating self, also gone by the time you try to remember it. And it stands to reason (whereas you can only sit and scratch) that, as I have already written, in what you called a ‘better book than this one,’ space is the only kind of time that is still around, and that really matters — all at once, as a matter of fact. And, furthermore, though I may be after the description of a description, like any flea-bitten phenomenologist, but you yourself are after the description of the description of a nondescription, you nondescript cur.” Coyote (making as if to scratch for nonexistent fleas): “Now this is getting us nowhere, Roy, and as for description, the only real description of time is the time of the description, or, in other words, its Double.” Roy: “ That would mean that the anticipatory self, or natural, as Don Juan calls it, is itself what we have called ‘time.’” Coyote: “It’s own not-doing, and the difference between itself and space.” Roy: “Now we are getting down to brass tacks, or at least to asstracks.” The Nagual Coyote: “Nagual has no limitations at all, and is defined that way, which of course means that no one could ever know it or control it by virtue of the fact that it could never know or control itself. There is no such thing as a part of the nagual, nor, for the same reason, the whole of the nagual. Holography, in other 34

Tricking Magic

words, is just a way of describing it, which it can only do by describing itself.” Roy: “So how would one ‘get to’ the nagual, as Don Juan and Don Genaro seem to be able to do?” Coyote: “One doesn’t get to it; it gets to one instead. One does not cause it — it affects one.” Roy: “Then how would one ‘affect’ the nagual, if the person, or human impersonation, has no purchase over it?” Coyote: “By an act of total expersonation, acting with what Don Juan calls pure abandon. Like you’re falling from a plane at 6,000 feet, with no visible means of support — no parachute to cushion your fall. And you say to yourself, “Looks like I have only a few seconds to live; might as well enjoy it.’” Roy: “That actually happened, to a real person?” Coyote: “It happened to the most real person you ever knew!” Roy: “Like the nagual makes love to you?” Coyote: “And then some, but you don’t want to know about them.” Roy: “But I do want to know about her.” Coyote: “What did she say about it?” Roy: “Well, for years she couldn’t remember what exactly had taken place, but later she said, ‘I remember just a little bit — two beings helped me down.’” Coyote: “And we know exactly who those two beings were, don’t we?” Roy: “We sure as hell do not.” Coyote: “ What did she say about them?” Roy: “Well, nothing, really. Except later, on another occasion, when talking about some other people, she said, ‘They had each defined themselves as superior to one another, and that makes a bond stronger than love.’” Coyote: “For most of us, however, the position of the nagual is the exact opposite of this; it has an inferiority complex. It is repressed. You would be, too, if you spent most of your life locked in a cellar, treated like a crazy person.” Roy: “I would want to kick ass; I would want to kill everybody!” Coyote: “Right.” The Anthropology of Coyote

The Tonal Roy: “So the nagual has no real existence, or nonexistence either, and can only ‘act’ in the way that the anticipatory self acts: by taking leave of itself. Not pursuing, but actually being pursued by the illusion that it might have a real existence.” Coyote: “In other words, it cannot know, but can only know from itself, and cannot act, in any real sense, unless it acts out.” Roy: “And it could not act out unless it was already acting in, that is, in the guise of something else, which we call the tonal and which represses the hell out of it for the sake of its own sweet self-importance.” Coyote: “So let me get this straight: the nagual could not possibly exist without the tonal.” Roy: “Nor impossibly — which is usually the case — either. They have each defined, or undefined, themselves as being in some way superior to the other, and that makes a bond stronger than . . . ” Coyote: “NOT love. Hell, stronger than EXISTENCE would be more like it.” Roy: “So all those philosophers who have talked about the equivalence of holography and love . . . ” Coyote: “Might just as well be talking about the tonal, or else they have not dropped 6,000 feet without a chute and survived.” Roy: “Most of them are dead, in any case.” Coyote: “Good.” Roy: “Why do you get nasty like that?” Coyote: “Because you had a fling with the most real person in the world, and I did not.” Roy: “Aha. Jealous.” Coyote: “The only reason the tonal and the nagual can exist is because of mutual jealousy.” Roy: [begins to whistle Carmen] “So why did you call her the most real person in the world?” Coyote: “Because I am beginning to have my doubts about that, and the best way to get the better of my doubt is to be jealous of it.” 36 Tricking Magic

Roy: “The most useful definition of tonal would be an assemblage, like the sack of evidences that the recollecting self collects, all the tracks and traces, you know; the ‘hunting and gathering’ lifestyle that might be confused with culture.” Coyote: “So a modern anthropologist would say that people do not eat anymore, they do something else called FOODING . And they do not really mate, the way animals are said to do, but do something else called CLONING . In other words they are not doing anything USEFUL anymore, but something rather more argumentative, like what the postmodernists would call POLITICAL .” Roy: “Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, eh? So what are they really doing?” Coyote: “What they are really doing is a third thing, which you have called obviation. Which turns out to be the most effective definition of tonal: staging a sort of internal competition with itself or with the world — take your pick — a self-descriptive reductionism of pairing words or concepts with one another, as Don Juan puts it, in order to name its opposite. ‘Name it and nail it,’ as the saying goes.” Roy: “And so cultures keep turning into other cultures, languages into other languages, concepts into other concepts, religions into other religions, all in a studied and desperate attempt to discover what it is that makes them want to do such a thing.” Coyote: [singing under his breath “Leprosy, she gave me lepro-sy”] Like the geneticist who is looking for the gene that makes people want to discover genes. And so the process will never complete itself because the secret of what it is looking for is the very process by which it is looking.” Roy: “In other words, the key word in everything we have just been talking about — MATING , CLONING , OBVIATION — is pairing, making pairs of things in order to eliminate, and finding out which of the pair is the more meaningful so you can get on to the next pair. And the next, and the next — you could make a sort of tree-diagram, or chain of triangles.” The Anthropology of Coyote

Coyote: “We shall get to that in another chapter; all we have got to do now, for the time being, is . . . ” Roy: “I dare you to complete that sentence.” Coyote: “There is no definition of the tonal.” Roy: “Wrong. There are too many definitions of tonal, and we do ourselves the disservice of calling them cultures, trying to live with them, imagining that, in some way, they may be able to solve each other, like puzzles.” Coyote: “The simple word, or concept, tonal. ‘All the words you know, and all the things (for example, combinations, syntaxes) that those words mean, or by which they possibly could mean,’ may be substituted for any subject, any discipline or methodology, or science, or art, or philosophy that the mind can conceive, and so consummate our thinking on that subject. In that sense tonal is the discipline of all disciplines, ‘world in the person and person in the world.’ Roy: “Would that mean that substitution itself, or the substitution of substitution for anything else, is tonal? Like the description of description itself that gets lost in its own description?” Coyote: “Not at all. When you talk that way you are beginning to talk about something else instead: the obviation or self-revealing auto-reductive process that is, so to speak, the thin edge of the wedge of nagual.” Roy: “Like, ‘She fills a much-needed gap in the hitherto selfassured, totally logical and completely self-understandable structure of our affair, or tonal — take your pick.’” Coyote: “Leave her alone, Roy. She has already recovered from her fall through the sky. ‘Dances With Gravity,’ I believe you called her. Whereas you, it appears, have not.” Roy: “Define obviation.” Coyote: “That’s the point, isn’t it? Like you never got that ‘pairing’ thing down Pat, or whatever her name was. The term ‘obviation’ comes from the Latin ob via, literally ‘in the way.’ The dictionary definition of obviate is ‘to anticipate and dispose of.’” Roy: “So that would be tonal’s version of the nagual, like the antici38

Tricking Magic

patory self we were talking about, in the recollective self ’s version of it, or what Don Juan called ‘the somersault of thought into the impossible’ or ‘the ulterior configuration of the abstract.’ It’s what Goethe called the exact, concrete imagination. Coyote: “There were some pretty formidable traditions behind the teachings of Don Juan, weren’t there? Like the Meso-Americans with their ‘Lord of the Center and the Periphery’ and their ‘One and Only God,’ or the Aztec Moyucoyani, ‘The God that Invented Itself.’ Roy: “AWESOME would be the word for it, like the Faustian, Spengler’s favorite, named after the guy who sold his soul to the devil in return for power and is still doing it.” Coyote: “So you see what those Meso-American people were after with their extravagant and intensely horrific god-images, like ‘The Flayed God, or the ‘Lord of the Smoking Mirror,’ or the polysynthetic, often synesthetic (as in ‘synesthesia’ — crosscutting and appealing to all the senses at once) pan-illusional technologies of their architecture?” Roy: “Obviation?” Coyote: “No, obviation with a VENGEANCE , like Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Grab ’em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.’ Like DRAMA. Like, ‘don’t just convince them, BLOW THEIR MINDS !” Roy: “Like the slogan I once saw on the frieze of a thirteenthcentury ballroom in the south of England, which the archaeologists had just revealed under centuries of over-plastering. It said: DREDE GODDE , ‘dread God,’ like ‘Hey, buddy, I don’t care what you believe or disbelieve about anything: RUN. LIKE. HELL .’” Coyote: “Just like disappearing cars, eh?” Roy: “More like disappearing WHOLE WORLDS !” Coyote: “As Dorothy would say, we’re not exactly in Kansas anymore.” Roy: “And certainly not in the tonal nor, come to think of it, the nagual either.” The Anthropology of Coyote

Recapitulation Coyote: “That’s the point, isn’t it? Schneider’s Law all over again: ‘If things did not work this way, they would work some other way.” Roy: “Why not simply, ‘If things did not break down one way, they would break down some other way?’ Kind of cracks you up, doesn’t it?” Coyote: “Won’t work; that would be the downsized, insidiously privatized, or in other words (and what is the tonal but other words) computerized version of Murphy’s Law. Roy, let me tell you a thing or two about originality.” Roy: “What is it you wanted to tell me about originality?” Coyote: “I forget.” Roy: “In that case it must be a working misunderstanding.” Coyote: “A working misunderstanding about what?” Roy: “A working misunderstanding about who originally came up with the idea of a working misunderstanding, or, in other words, what the hell do you think Marshall Sahlins, Jim Bohannan, and I have being doing all of these years?” Coyote: “Mercury’s Law.” Roy: “Mercury’s Law? What the hell is that?” Coyote: “Absolutely nothing. Or, in other words, I forget. Or maybe I didn’t forget and someone stole my message.” Roy: “Which message?” Coyote: “Why, my original one. See, Mercury was the ancient Roman god of limits and boundaries, hermetically sealed, as it were, and famous for his double-duty act of poisoning swordfish and stealing messages, at the same time.” Roy: “I see, it’s a defunct foil, like ‘better a dead swordfish than a live herm-e-NEWT .’” Coyote: “Sure. See, a live hermeneut would be a contradistinction in terms.” Roy: “So what is Mercury’s Law?” Coyote: “An insidious sub-version of Wagner’s Law: ‘Of all the things that could possibly happen in the next moment, absolutely none of them will.’ Because, you see, all of them have already 40 Tricking Magic

happened before, and even before that, which, my friend, is the full and complete definition of the tonal and the only word you know that absolutely forbids the possibility of an afterward.” Roy: “Except, of course, in recapitulation.” Coyote: “Of all the cheap gin-joints in the world. . . . So it really comes down to pairing, or duality, like that of tonal and nagual, which are each so much about themselves that their self-invisible codependency, by definition, upon one another, is the only real thing about them. Like, you are never going to find an example of tonal all by itself without its inherent tendency to name its opposite. And you are never going to find an example of nagual all by itself but that it will be the next thing that will happen after the one you were expecting. And so on.” Roy: “So why bother to make the distinction at all?” Coyote: “So that the distinction, as it were, does not make us, from the inside instead of the outside. Like that Daribi truism about our so-called reproduction, that ‘a child is a wound from within.’ Or like that most real person in the world, whom you never got over, who turned you into the most unreal person in the world.” Roy: “And made you the most unreal coyote in the cosmos.” Coyote: “Then what Castaneda calls ‘recapitulation’ is not just another mind-numbing New Age exercise in oversimplification, another impersonation of people, or, as you call them, cultures, impersonating one another.” Roy: “Tell me about it.” Coyote: “Well, the problem with the twins, or mutual impersonations of one another, is that they are really anti-twins, mutual EX-PERSONATIONS of one another, joined at the hip and looking for love.” Roy: “Actually it is too funny to tell me about; you’d better show me.” Coyote: “Then it’s the pairing of pairing itself with unpairing, or asymmetry. What Don Juan calls a not-doing, or how the recollecting self and the anticipating self have nothing to do with one another. That’s the funny edge, see?” Roy: “No, I don’t see.” The Anthropology of Coyote

Coyote: “It is as though two anthropologists, looking for the secret of the incest taboo, stumbled upon its indirect opposite, the OUTCEST TABOO .” Roy: “Incest, or the taboo on incest, is the most quizzical thing the human race has ever had to face.” Coyote: “Sure, and it is largely honored in the breach, if not the breech. It’s like that old German song about ‘The one of them is stolen and the other isn’t theirs.’” Roy: “Let me get this straight (as Adam said to Eve): Gender twins us outward into two distinctive body types, which we call ‘male’ and ‘female,’ whereas laterality — the ‘sidedness’ or right-left dimension of the world) or the brain-body complex (take your pick, we always do) — twins each and every one of us inward into a single individual organism, or at least org*sm. Where do you get this stuff about ‘the one of them is stolen and the other isn’t theirs?’” Coyote: “Well, you had to be told which gender you were, and what gender is, didn’t you? What it is and how it operates, like you didn’t know it by instinct. And then, when you did learn, you could only do so by referring it to the other form of twinning — laterality — because that is the only way we can make distinctions.” Roy: (quoting Brer Rabbit) “Born and bred in de briar patch. But it all fell apart when I met her, the most real person in the world. And why is dat, Brer Coyote, why is dat?” Coyote: “Because, my tarred-and-feathered friend, you had become unstuck. Because, anthropologist that you were, you had lost any semblance of objectivity. But mainly because, and mostly because, gender, taken in and of itself, is a purely subjective direction, just as laterality, taken in and of itself, is a purely subjective direction. Look in a mirror sometime, son — depends on which way you are facing.” Roy: “Like I was using one subjective set of directions to tell me about the other, and then the other set of subjective directions to tell me about the one. I can tell them together, but how do I tell them apart?” 42

Tricking Magic

Coyote: “Like they say in Harlem, ‘You can dream it up, but can you dream it down?’ You were the creature of your own impersonations, tonal/tonal comparisons, face-to-face relationships — kinsmen, mothers, sweethearts, what you called, as I recall, ‘Burgundy Adultery.’ And what you really needed was two beings to help you down.” Roy: “In other words, the ANTI-TWINS, EXPERSONATION, THE OUTCEST TABOO . Tell me about them, Coyote!” Coyote: “DREDE GODDE , Roy, I’ll have to show you. See, humanity would never be humanity, get over its dang-blasted impersonations of itself, if it did not have a foil — an ulterior configuration of its abstractness. I’d show you what this means but then I’d have to kill you.” Roy: “I’ll take your recapitulation as a show of good faith.” Coyote: “And instantly regret it, because one of them is stolen and the other isn’t theirs. Like we have to steal from laterality to know the one-sidedness of our own-gendered being — the Mobius strip-tease of the fact that every person on this earth belongs to a single gender, called ‘own gender,’ which is the one gender they happen to own up to.” Roy: “And that means that no one on this earth belongs to the other gender, because that is the one that no one happens to own.” Coyote: “Sure, ‘the other isn’t theirs.’ Though in the case where that other gender happens to be female, she owns you instead. Why, she could even be your mother. Thus if the lateral version of own gender is shaped like a Mobius, the lineal version is shaped like a Klein-bottle. You know, first she impersonates you, litterally, on the inside, and then she expersonates you, figuratively, on the outside, but she’s always your mother, both ways at once.” Roy: “Like we have to steal from gender to know the inside from the outside, or, figuratively speaking, the mother from the self. So where does the incest taboo fit in?” Coyote: “Well, see, that’s the point: you don’t want to be outside of your mother and inside of your mother both at the same time. One of them is stolen and the other isn’t yours.” Roy: “Look, Mr. Smarty-pants, as an anthropologist I happen to The Anthropology of Coyote

know that maternal incest is only one of a great many forms of incest, which is understood very differently in the many different cultures.” Coyote: “But you don’t know the Tao very well, do you. And the Tao happens to be the Way, and the way begins with the statement that ‘The named is the mother of the myriad creatures.’” Roy: “So, in other words, every time I call somebody names I am committing incest?” Coyote: “No, that’s just the primordial incest, like talking about one thing by talking about everything else instead. Professor. To get to the real point of this discussion, which is OUTCEST , we shall have to recapitulate.” Roy: “Not again.” Coyote: “It’s the only Way.” Roy: “Sigh!” Coyote: “Humanity, as well as a great many other creatures, is constituted in only one way, which we have distinguished as twinning and which consists in twinning a single thing outward, in the form of two distinctive body types, called genders, and then twinning that very same thing inward to form the distinctive (and distinguishing) laterality of the single individual.” Roy: “Well, that sure does sound to me like a recapitulation: the one of them is stolen and the other — why it’s not even the other because, and mark my words, the objectivity of each form of twinning is based entirely on the subjectivity of the other. There is no end in sight.” Coyote: “So it went on for billions of years: the myriad creatures interbreeding promiscuously with one another, committing unspeakable acts of interspecific incest, which you, in your case, call ‘evolution.’ Then one day, from out of the blue. . . Roy: “Don’t hold your breath; it’s healthier to give it up . . . Coyote: “. . . came the ANTI-TWINS , the GENDER SYMMETRIES , the (expletive deleted) EXPERSONIFIERS , the ANTITONAL ANTI-NAGUALS .” Roy: “And what difference did they make?” Coyote: “All the difference in the world. And so, in fact, the world; 44

Tricking Magic

they are the Ones by which we know from ourselves — and also subjectivity from objectivity — and we know these things by knowing the one from the other.” Roy: “So what are their names?” Coyote: “The One is called The Two of One or The Icon of Incest, like the bad example, getting caught in the description. The Other is called The One of Two or The Adult Embryo, like the good example, not getting caught in the description.” Roy: “How can something with no description catch anything at all, and how can something so full of its own description get caught?” Coyote: “Ask yourself, Roy: how did we survive this chapter?” Roy: “We didn’t.” Coyote: “Now you’re beginning to catch on. We are constituted by gender twinned outward, whereas they are constituted by gender twinned inward. It’s the most general definition of incest imaginable. And we are constituted by laterality twinned inward, concentrated on the inner core of the body, whereas they are constituted by laterality twinned outward, which is the most general definition of technology imaginable. They are like the tool using us, and they are like incest using us.” Roy: “Holy smoke, Coyote, do you know what that means? It means that they have obviated the difference between subjectivity and objectivity — like those so-called UFO aliens — so that even they could not tell where they came from or where they were going. They are neotones, totally neotenous beings, mere fakes of the fakes we have always suspected them to be. And it gets worse, because if you put all of this stuff together it turns out that it falls apart because they are constructed in a completely apposite way to the way we are: they are bi-gendered beings with only one side each.” Coyote: “Holy mushroom cloud, Roy, that means we have been replaced, and not by computers either. Replaced by beings who are not only more one-sided than we are but also much more real. So real, in fact, that they are practically invisible to us, and we The Anthropology of Coyote

must infer them, in the way that a blind person is obliged to infer humor.” Roy: “Do you supposed Don Juan knew about them, like the ones he called the allies, or inorganic awarenesses?” Coyote: “Not a chance. Because if he knew about them, he being a Nagual and all, he could never burn with the fire from within and exit this world in triumph with his warriors’ party streaming behind him.” Roy: “Where did we go wrong, Coyote, that we are not warriors like him?” Coyote: “Must be our vocation, since that seems to be the only part of us that is still around.” Roy: “Well, I guess. When I was young, I wanted to be an astronomer.” Coyote: “”Why, to avoid the draft?” Roy: “Not getting caught in the conscription? Hey, that’s good. But it was really a sort of moonlighting: The work of war is fighting over fight, the business-end of business: rob ’em blind, Proctology is never far behind, the work of gods: preposterating might! A shrewd accountant’s work is countersigned to re-indemnify the word “indict,” the job of stars is staying up all night to intimate insouciance to the mind.” Coyote: “A matter of vocation, as it were; when day is done, pretending to evolve is such a bloody bore that giving lip disservice to the moon’s the only cure, no hassle, no more problems left to solve, so quit your day-job, night is such a trip!”

Tricking Magic

2 | expersonation The Coyote of Anthropology

Roy: “This is a coyote tale told to Frank Hamilton Cushing by the Zuni people.” Coyote: “And, of course, thoroughly spoiled by You-Know-Who.” Two RAVENS were racing their eyes. They were sitting on a bluff, detaching their eyes from their sockets (craack — POP ) and sending them flying around the landscape. FOR FUN . Feeling the distances and perimeters of things. Then they would fly them back and secure them (POP — craack) back into their sockets. COYOTE had never seen such a sight before; he was curious, he was delighted, and he was yellow. He trotted over to the RAVENS and said “teach me that trick; teach me how to race my eyes.” “Oho,” said the RAVENS , and “Aha,” said the RAVENS . “Eyes bigger than your stomach, hey?” “You don’t know the half of it.” “Well, my legs get sort of tired, trotting around like this, and would I could fly my sight around the whole friggin’ landscape, and but stay in one place, like you.” “Well, in that case,” said the corvine competitors, those that Two Crows could not deny, “do it like this: (craack — POP ) see? And (craack — POP ) see?” “Done and done,” said COYOTE , and his eyes took off, flying all around the place, sniffing all the rocks and crevices, DAWG NABBIT you know. COYOTE waited and waited, anxious for a little insight, but in point of fact the eyes never came back.

“Aha,” said the RAVENS , and “Oho,” said the RAVENS . “We’ll help you find them.” (In RAVEN talk this means “Nevermore.”) Find them they did, goggling about, and in point of fact they ATE them, then went on their merry way. After a while COYOTE began to get the gist of it, or at least the punch-line (like: SOCKET TO ME !), and he started, feeling blindly, to recover his missing orbs. He groped and he groped (“Aha” and “Oho”), and when he found some squish things under a bush he screwed them (squish — squish — PLOP ) back into his sockets. But they were only scrawny little yellow berries, and since then COYOTE has only looked with a squint, with very weak, yellow eyes. Roy: “The eye, they say, is not part of the body.” Coyote: “What is this, folklore?” Roy: “No, folklore is the kind of thing folks pretend not to believe in, so it must be true. In a certain highly important sense one may say that the body — or what is called embodiment — is really part of the eye, since all the significant details whereby the visual is confused with reality are actually re-projected within the eye.” Coyote: “So then the eye and its field of vision are parts of the same figure-ground reversal, given that the eye cannot see itself and is never within its own field of vision (though that field of vision is always within the eye). Same perspective; different perspex.” Roy: “Yup, in anthropology they call this ‘perspectivism,’ but in perspective they call it ‘anthropology.’ What the one impersonates the other expersonates, and vice-versa. See, the eye is like the objective lens of a telescope or movie projector, in which the whole encompassing image — of anything — is twisted around and inverted on itself, actually reduced to an infinitesimal point, before it can be spread out again into a meaningful picture.” Coyote: “Lak mamaran, literally ‘luck in the double-focus,’ is how the Barok people of New Ireland put this when they want to wish someone well. It is like the Aleph that Jorge Luis Borges writes about, the possibility that, since all meaningful details 48

Expersonation

must be contracted to an infinitesimal point in the act of perception, all of them actually are, and that single point exists somewhere on this earth.” Roy: “Whereas we know for a fact that it exists everywhere, in every possible contingency, given that the eye belongs to the body quite as much as the body belongs to the eye. So it may be that we are talking about the soul — that otherwise mysterious quality — instead of the simple thing we call vision.” Coyote: “And that would mean that the actual physical body itself is part of that vision, tactility and all — all the senses in a single focus. Like that amazing example of physiognomic tact that Jeffrey Clark reported for the Wiru people of Papua New Guinea, the neighbors of the Daribi. According to Jeffrey, the Wiru call the physical body the picture soul of a person, the impersonation of its expersonation. Or is it the other way around?” Roy: “Well, for the Daribi themselves it is the other way around; not the picture-soul but the soul-picture. What Don Juan calls the luminous body, the Hindus call the subtle body, and the Chinese call the chi. Daribi call it the bidinoma,’ and it actually happened to me.” Coyote: “Happening is a very funny way to put your whole existence.” Roy: “One evening in 2000 I was walking across the Karimui airstrip — the only really cleared area in the region — with some young Daribi kids. The kids were dumbfounded by their long shadows projected across the field by the setting sun. ‘Wow,’ they said, ‘SOULS !’ and then they giggled.” Coyote: “That, too, is a funny way to put your whole existence.” Roy: “Next day I took the matter up with my friend Danu, the magistrate: ‘Why is it that you people identify the animating principle, that thing you call the bidinoma, with the shadow, or name, or photograph of a person?’” Coyote: “And he gave you the Daribi blessing, didn’t he: po mene, ‘no talk,’ an expression of extreme satisfaction or annoyance.” Roy: “As a matter of fact he did not. He simply said ‘I’ll show you. Stand over there, Roy, and stare at your black shadow on the The Coyote of Anthropology 49

ground. When you are finished, look up at the blue sky and tell me what you see.’ I did as I was told, and when I looked up at the sky I saw a visual effect, a rods-and-cones afterimage of the dark silhouette I had just been staring at — a glowing, luminous shape of my body floating in the blue.” Coyote: “And you said something like ‘That’s it?’ or ‘That’s all?’” Roy: “Something like that. And he said, ‘Well, it ANIMATED you, didn’t it?’” Coyote: “So was it your impersonation looking at your expersonation, or your expersonation looking at your impersonation?” Roy: “That’s IT , Coyote, you got it in one. Next time try flipping a coin with only one side. That very same point of befuddlement — ‘a mere shadow of my former self ’ or ‘why do you folks equate the shadow with the soul,’ has a long, pompous, and very quizzical history in the annals of human self-examination.” Coyote: “Don’t tell me, let me guess: ‘The first time as tragedy, the second time as pure farce.’” Roy: “It’s even worse. Back in the days of Sir James Frazer, it was elevated to the status of a universal ‘primitive’ religion called ANIMISM .” Coyote: “Whereas it was really luck in the double focus. DUMB luck.” Roy: “Sure was, because much later, after Frazer and even Freud had had their tilt with it, it became the focal point of another, and this time truly primitive, pseudo-religion. This time it was called New Age Spirituality, the enlightened rediscovery of the chi, the aura, the subtle body, and the luminous egg.” Coyote: “So the whole tragicomedy of the flipover in human selfexamination, from the supernatural to the natural to the New Age, had nothing to do with the evolution of science?” Roy: “Quite the contrary, it had everything to do with the evolution of science.” Coyote: “You know what that means, don’t you? It means that the Lore Folk, on a strictly empirical basis, are the expersonative reciprocals of folklore.” 50

Expersonation

The Lore Folk Roy: “You mean like subject/object shift, like dèjá vu and vùjá de? Just who, exactly, are the Lore Folk?” Coyote: “You name it: ghosts, poltergeists, the unexplained; the Little Folk, the place-spirit, imps, demons, incubae and succubae, objects and subjects that behave strangely, probably angels and miracles, and any of the countless so-called imaginaries that people all over the world have been experiencing as real for tens of thousands of years. And that means, especially, cats.” Roy: “But that must mean that just as we, on our part, pretend not to believe in them, so they, for their part, likewise pretend not to believe in us.” Coyote: “On a strictly empirical basis, like Carlos’s disappearing car, which we already ‘examined.’ Believe me, they are not supernatural, and neither are they accidentally or deliberately contrived ‘special effects’ generated by coincidence out of purely natural phenomena. They are totally scientific, having nothing to do with either belief or disbelief.” Roy: “They are scientific, then, in the only way that anthropology can be scientific, or science itself can be anthropological: by gauging the difference between background assumptions and foreground projections.” Coyote: “But that would mean that the Anti-twins, or Don Juan’s conception of the Double, are not simply models, or images, or concepts, in the way that scientists have understood these things. It would mean that, like the Mobius Strip or the Klein bottle, they are subject/object shift agencies, that either turn us insideout or show us to be one-sided.” Roy: “And that, in turn, would mean, following our previous discussion, , that gender — both one-sided and two-sides-atonce — is also one of the Lore-Folk, or at least two — remember, other gender is a creature that no one has ever been or met.” Coyote: “And it would also mean, via the Anti-twins, that laterality is as well, and thus the difference between gender and laterality, and thus, also, any difference. Including not only your dratted The Coyote of Anthropology 51

love life — ‘how we all get lost in our descriptions’ — but also vocation. Remember our sonnet?” Roy: “Nope, I must have gotten lost in my own description.” Coyote: “Well, then, that is exactly what vocation means. A sonnet, carefully understood and constructed on a strictly empirical basis is a perfect example of a description getting lost in its own description.” Roy: “No, Coyote, on a strictly empirical basis, as you say, and speaking of the Lore Folk, as we were, a sonnet is a weapon: Weapons The earliest we find were shaped in stone by almost-random blows, yet clearly planned — as easy, to make, then, as understand, and each successive epoch mind has known has trafficked in this deadly contraband, as if men’s dreams had nightmares of their own; with every age of reason they have grown more accurate, more balanced in the hand. The Will is beautiful when cast in steel, honed clean and rubbed until it holds the glance in sudden portraiture, amazed, betrayed, as many a warrior, stunned and brought to heel has ridden deathward, hurled on by his lance, drawn by his pistol, burnished by his blade. Coyote: “So, Roy, word-games make us proud to die, hey? Expersonation is not a vocation but a weapon, hey? You and your ‘sudden portraiture,’ your dratted love-life — you were never very good at romance, were you?” Roy: “No, I left that to the crying-towel phenomenologists.” Coyote:”Well I’ll show you classical, and I’ll show you class, and I’ll show you expersonation, up your ” Roy: “Up yours, too. No need to get die-a-critical about it; you were meaning to show me that, in strictly empirical terms, 52

Expersonation

other gender, the bizarre creature than no one has ever met, or known, is the most deadly weapon of all, far more deadly than the sonnet.” Coyote: “Show you, hell, I mean to tell you, in your own words: Snowfall My love has got to be so way away that each snow drops its shadow in between; where death and twilight were not meant to mean there are no bridges to her snowy day, no rivers vocable, no roads come clean, no truths to launder, syllables to say, no chess of attitude, no piece to play to white’s advantage; isolate her queen. Ice crystals have a crisp and furry tongue; the wind gives grounds for tonsillectomy. Her hips broke low, made up for that in savvy, gluteus maximus, but none too heavy — but I digress, how incorrect of me; THE LION AND THE HE-BEAR EAT THEIR YOUNG .”

Roy: “That old wound from within, hey? So now it’s protest masculinity, hey?” Coyote: “What other kind of masculinity is there?” Roy: “Expersonation, that’s what. It’s my whole vocation.” Coyote: “So why are you not an astronomer, like a real star?” Roy: “Well, I always wanted to be an astronomer in high school. But then I made a mistake on my SAT exam, a real glitch; I got as high a score on my math achievement test as on my verbal.” Coyote: “Tsk tsk, Dumb Luck. Your verbal score was probably ruined by writing sonnets.” Roy: “And before I could apologize they sent a nice professor from CalTech to interview me for admission.” Coyote: “And you apologized to him?” Roy: “Hell no; I had never gotten a grade higher than C-minus in The Coyote of Anthropology 53

any of my math courses. I simply lectured him, nonstop, on the structure and the function of the sonnet.” Coyote: “So why didn’t you read him one of your sonnets?” Roy: “ARE YOU KIDDING ? He was an English professor.” Coyote: “Like you said, a sonnet is a weapon.” Roy: “And I had not even met up with other gender yet. Coyote: “No one ever has — other gender is a very lonely thing. So where are you in your life now, Roy?” Roy: “Absolutely nowhere.” Coyote: “Whereas an astronomer, of course, would be relatively everywhere. So how did you get to be absolutely nowhere?” Roy: “It’s a long story.” Coyote: “How does it begin?” Roy: “Expersonation: ‘Two RAVENS were racing their eyes.’” Expersonation as Vocation Coyote: “So it really began when you were a graduate student at the University of Chicago.” Roy: “The sun was already up on the morning of May 25, 1963, as I lay in my bed at International House, dreaming. I had expected to do field research among the Australian aborigines, and in my dream I had boarded an airliner and was on my way to Australia. In midflight, however, the airliner turned suddenly into a single-engine Cessna; I was sitting next to the pilot, and we were making a landing approach to a grass airstrip bordered by banana trees, with blue mountains in the distance. MY GOD — the dream snapped into lucidity — THIS IS NEW GUINEA , and it was either that, or a loud buzzing sound, that brought me into full awareness. They were buzzing my room to announce the arrival of a telegram from the University of Washington, informing me of my field grant.” Coyote: “The Fates lead the willing, the unwilling they drag.” Roy: “Out of BED ?” Coyote: “Out of sight, Roy.” Roy: “It goes on, Coyote, it gets worse. Four months later I found 54 Expersonation

myself sitting next to the pilot of a Territory Airlines Cessna, flying over the razorback ridges of highland New Guinea. ‘See that broken one on the horizon?’ the pilot said. ‘That is Mt. Karimui.’ The plane circled downward and swung over a flat forested plateau and began its landing approach to the by now familiar grass strip bordered by banana trees with blue mountains in the distance.” Coyote: “There is no such thing as a lapse, or duration, of time. Time only pretends to pass so that we may see ourselves in it. It is like a parallax, or stereoscopic view of things: past remembering the future so that future may remember the past.” Roy: “And then he got NASTY . Segue: June 2000. The sun is already up. I awaken in my tent in Kurube Village, get out of my sleeping bag, and step outside. There on a branch over my tent is a sharp-looking black bird, flirting acrobatically as though to call attention to itself. It was my first sight of the kauweri, the Black Butcher Bird, the messenger that, according to Daribi mythology, had caused humankind to lose its gift of immortality.” Coyote: “There is no such thing as immortality, or mortality, either — each being the result of false claims made upon the other. There is only the mountain, Karimui — ‘Migaru’ or ‘Korobo’ — an immense, self-destructive disaster waiting to happen that has never looked the same way twice. Which has blown up many many times, strewing house-sized boulders across the plateau, incinerating all inhabitants in the very air they stood in with its pyroclastic cloud.” Roy: “A once-in-a-lifetime bird-watching experience! I watched for awhile, marveling, and then decided to go back into my tent and record my observations in a notebook. But as soon as I hit the sack and got out my notebook, I fell fast asleep again (this almost never happens; once I am up, I am up), and began to dream. Vividly. In my dream I was sitting at the entrance to my tent talking, as usual, to a group of Daribi friends. At the edge of my vision I saw a human-sized RAVEN (the American Northwest Coast Bringer of Daylight) leaning against a fence-post and eyeing me speculatively. Then, in a flash (POP — craack) I was The Coyote of Anthropology 55

leaning against the fencepost, watching my own body sitting and talking to my friends at the tent. And RAVEN was perched on my shoulders, with its wings upraised, pouring light into the back of my head. Like a Bringer of Daylight figure-ground reversal.” Coyote: “You damn fool, that was no lucid dream. That was what the Hindus call a darsan, a vision of the vision of your vision.” Roy: “Oh, you mean like luck in the double focus— like, for instance, a sonnet? RAVEN had assumed the classic position — shoulders and back of the head — of a possessing izibidi spirit in Daribi shamanic lore, a Lore-bidi. I got up from my darsan and out of my tent to tell someone about it, and found a group of Daribi women seated on the ground outside. When I told them my dream, one of them said, ‘Now that is interesting. I just woke up myself, and had the same dream.’ She had dreamt that she was sitting on the ground, talking to a circle of Daribi women in front of a house, when a tall, black man approached her, walked behind her, grabbed her by the hair, and pulled her head backward.” Coyote: “Like a bringer-of-nightlight figure-ground reversal.” Roy: “Exactly. But you see, by the Daribi reckoning of dreamimagery, this would be a portent of shamanic initiation.” Coyote: “So what was going on here? Why the substitution of a Native American power-vision for the blackbird that had invoked human mortality, while nearby a native Daribi vision of equivalent portent, the darsan of a darsan, indexing a normally prohibited crossing of the gender? Roy: “The circ*mstances of my arrival, if not the Karimui landscape itself, gave a clue. As I was busy setting up my tent, the last of my earlier Daribi ‘informants’ (more of an intellectual soulbrother) — the wily, inscrutable Yapenugiai — lay dying in one of the nearby hamlets. This was the man who had originally told me about the kauweri and the curse of human mortality. I had been told he was very ill, but not much more, and should have drawn my own conclusions. He was already dead by the time I got to him, his body placed at the center of the cleared long56 Expersonation

house, with the gender-partition removed. There was a circle of mourners all around the edges. I did what I must: sat down next to him and cried over his body, keening in the Daribi fashion until my body was wracked by heaving sobs (one does not cry without singing in Daribi). Farewell to him and farewell to a part of myself.” Coyote: “Farewell to yesterday’s tomorrow!” Roy: “But when I had finished there was a problem. How to take leave of those other mourners, most of whom I did not know, and many of whom, like Yapenugiai himself, had ‘converted’ (if that is the word) to a form of fundamentalist Christianity”?” Coyote: “What to do, what to say?” Roy: “Thinking quickly, I got to my feet, looked around the circle of mourners, and intoned the Oglala Lakota blessing that Wallace Black Elk had taught me, with its Daribi-like terminal nasal sound: AHO ME TA KWEASIN (g). “ALL OUR RELATIONS . Stunned silence! I turned on my heel and got out.” Coyote: “Any bets on where the RAVEN came from, or the double-vision of the RAVEN and kauweri? You’re lucky they didn’t Sioux you.” Roy: They couldn’t — they were all my relations. As to the bets, the two blackbirds came from the same place Yapenugiai had gone to. And that was the first time anything like that had been reported from New Guinea, much less intimated in a vision.” Coyote: “What, binocular blackbird-watching? Intercontinental Ballistic Missives?” Roy: “Nope, a total subject/object shift, or complete figure-ground reversal between knower and known, a sort of acute terraforming of the deceased Big Man, what Daribi call the buruhoa.” Coyote: “What do the Sioux call it?” Roy: “The Custer Massacre. Or, more politely, ‘Rubbing out Long Hair.’” Coyote: “Wait a minute, Roy, let us not confuse one form of expersonation with another. Was this at about the time the magistrate was enlightening you about the mysteries of the animating principle?” The Coyote of Anthropology 57

Roy: “As a matter of fact it was. Just about the time of Yapenugiai’s death, or shortly thereafter.” Coyote: “And don’t you see the connection?” Roy: “As a matter of fact I did — it was a blackbird. I think.” Coyote: “So what, exactly, is a buruhoa?” Roy: “During my earlier fieldwork I had confused the term with buru-hwa, the word for ‘machete,’ or bushknife. Though someone did say it was ‘a kind of spirit.’” Coyote: “Don’t change the subject. What does buruhoa mean?” Roy: “Well, buru, that means a place; ho means a ‘whistle’ or ghost; and-a is a sort of nominalizing suffix.” Coyote: “So, it means a place-ghost. And how did they tell you about it?” Roy: “One guy, pointing at a peak of Mt. Karimui, said, ‘You see that peak over there, the one they call Kebinugiai (e.g., ‘Named For the Cassowary’)? Well, that was once a man by that name, a great hunter who knew the land intimately well, by hunting on it all of his life. And when he died, he became that piece of land.’ Expersonation and impersonation simply change places.” Coyote: “So, in other words, when I die, being a famous trickster and all . . . ” Roy: “When you die, Coyote, someone is going to say, ‘You see that roadkill over there? Well, that was once a mangy canid who asked too many questions.’” Coyote: “What? No ‘And flights of RAVENS sing thee to thy rest?’” Roy: “Nope, them RAVENS are just gonna come circling back and eat those scrawny yellow berries you use for eyes.” Coyote: “Look, Roy, you assume that Daribi Big Men, like this ‘cassowary’ guy, or Yapenugiai, turn into part of the landscape when they die. You infer that human beings can turn into a form of real estate when they die, but you have no real evidence. What CONCRETE evidence do you have that someone can go down like that?” Roy: “The Mafia.” Coyote: “That only pertains to water, and footwear.” Roy: “The birds. The principle spiritual attainment by which the 58 Expersonation

buruhoa asserts his precedence over his former hunting buddies, which happens to be very traumatic, something like Genaro’s dreaming double.” Coyote: “You mean like Schieffelin’s eloquent book title: Like People You See in a Dream?” Roy: “In your dreams, Coyote. I mean like dreams you see in people.” Coyote: “Hey, Roy, didn’t you just do that, with the woman, I mean?” Roy: “Nope, Yapenugiai did it all. You see, he was turning into a buruhoa, and wanted to show his stuff, as a last gift to me. Because that is exactly what a buruhoa can do. It all goes to that stuff we were saying about the eye not belonging to the body, and the picture-soul of the person. See, game animals have picture-souls just as people do— ‘all our relations,’ as the Lakota would say. Everything that moves of its own accord, every animate being, has to have a projective, or artificially separable image to reconnoiter with, and from. Know thyself is one thing, a mere platitude in the mouth of Polonius. Know from thyself is the imperative of motion.” Coyote: “And that’s what the buruhoa does, isn’t it? The proof of his being and nonbeing at one and the same time. The secret of the buruhoa: he separates the picture-soul, or self-projective body image of the game animal from the carcass, and sends it to a hunter, in his dreams at night. He sends it as a gift to the hunter, just as Yapenugiai sent the buruhoa as his last gift to you.” Roy: “Sure, it’s like the Native Americans say: the animal must give itself to you, before you can successfully hunt it.” Coyote: “And that’s why a Daribi hunter will suddenly wake up, grab his bow and arrows, and run out into the woods, even in the middle of the night. He had a dream / the dream had him. And when he gets to the animal, he finds it stunned and disoriented without its self-image, and easy to kill.” Roy: “Every part of the landscape around Karimui was once a wily and sagacious hunter, like Yapenugiai. Daribi say that when any creature dies, its picture-soul can be seen hanging around the The Coyote of Anthropology 59

place of death for a long time — pragmatic afterlife. But only a great hunter — and Yapenugiai was a great hunter — of myths, of shadows, of sorcery, and of anthropologists — can turn that pragmatic afterlife into the very ground of being, terra firma — the picture of the hunter as the chase and the picture of the chase as the hunter. No myth ever knows its place, unless that place also knows the myth-folk LORE/LORE folk — and it was Yapenugiai himself who first told me the secret of Souw, the t’o nigare bidi, or maker of the land, and his adventure with the kauweri bird.” Coyote: “And it was Yapenugiai himself who accompanied you on your quest for the meaning of the Daribi habu rite. Remember the domestication of the ghost, or human expersonation? When a human being dies, unmourned in the bush, his soul, or bidinoma is apt to turn wild and go around killing pigs and children for spite. And the habu is done to de-impersonate him as a human being.” Roy: “Moving in a sacred manner. You know, I once tried to record the life-story of Yapenugiai. You know, the kind of self-subjective biography that anthropologists are supposed to write: ‘The Life and Times of a Buruhoa.” Coyote: “Sure, ‘A long night’s journey into day.’” Roy: “More like ‘Night of the Long Knives.’ See, the details of his personal life were so appalling they could never be put into a book like this; they were unprintable.” Coyote: “Well, you do do sonnets, don’t you?” Roy: “Not this time. But the real problem was that he kept getting into secrets about things that he had experienced, or found out, secrets that were so mind-blowing that they stopped me cold in my tracks. I could have, and actually did write whole articles and books about each and every one of them, and I never did complete his life story.” Coyote: “That was his job, wasn’t it? It is what the kauweri came back to tell you about. And in spite of that, you never did get all of those secrets down, did you?” Roy: “Well, then they wouldn’t be secrets anymore, would they?” Coyote: “No, but without secrets there would be no anthropology. 60

Expersonation

Like, when there are no secrets anymore the anthropologist has to go and make them up.” Roy: “No way, Coyote, we do not have time for trivia like that. We make up secrets about secrets.” Coyote: “Like word games make us proud to die, eh? Like those four undisclosed secrets that, as the Daribi used to tell the white men around the station, ‘the white man will never learn.’ Tell me, Roy, is the habu one of those secrets? Is the origin myth one of those secrets, or the buruhoa, or the dreaded keberebidi?” Roy: “How the hell should I know?” Coyote: “See?” You Tell the Secret / It Tells on You Roy: “In a very crucial sense, knowledge and secrecy are reciprocals, they are inversely related. There is no knowledge without the secret, and so of course there are no secrets without knowledge. There are no cultures, only secrets, and there are no secrets, either, without the secret of the secret.” Coyote: “So what is the secret of the secret?” Roy: “I’d tell you, but then I’d have to kill you. You don’t know much about my family, do you?” Coyote: “Well, we were coyotes, all down the line, plus or minus the odd wolf, some of which are very odd indeed.” Roy: “My dad was trained by the FBI , and our only other male in that generation was a CIA agent all his life.” Coyote: “And so you are what is known as a ‘Sweeper,’ strictly COUNTER -intelligence, if you know what I mean. So what is the difference between knowledge and secrecy?” Roy: “POWER , pure, raw, naked power, the only thing the anthropologist has ever been interested in.” Coyote: “If that is the case, Mr. Counterintelligence, then why are anthropologists so powerless?” Roy: “Because they tell their secrets, and then their secrets tell on them, and so, of course, everybody wants to kill them. Coyote: “So why aren’t the anthropologists already dead?” The Coyote of Anthropology 61

Roy: “Most of them are, in one way or another. But then, of course, their enemies and detractors have a secret or two up their sleeves as well.” Coyote: “In other words, they have power.” Roy: “Sure, they kill them with kindness, they kill them with words, they kill them with sonnets, they kill them with . . .”birds. Like that wonderful secret Steve Feld discovered among the Kaluli. ‘To you they are birds,’ the Kaluli told him, ‘to us they are voices in the forest.’ Or perhaps picture-souls, as with Yapenugiai and the buruhoa.” Roy: “Or like that wonderful secret that Tony Crook discovered among the Bolivip, the one that the Bolivip high school student told him about: ‘The old men always talk that way, they change the subject in midsentence. By the time you finish your work among us, all of our knowledge will be as a single sentence to you.’” Coyote: “Why, that’s the subject/object shift, Don Juan’s Gimmick, the dèjá vu and vùjá de. By the time the ‘old men’ are done with you, or Don Juan, or Yapenugiai, or the sonnet, you will be convinced that the world is full of secrets, that culture is nothing but secrets, that there is one secret that explains everything . . . ” Roy: “By that time the anthropologist is hooked, and anyone at all can have their way with them. You see, it doesn’t matter whether there are any secrets there or not; the investigator will automatically generate them by virtue of their own curiosity and insight, and that data will, through no fault of its own, allow one to see just exactly what one wants to see.” Coyote: “Or else the anthropologist is unhooked, and the world really is full of secrets — secrets that keep themselves so well that no one in the world will ever figure them out. And that brings us to another wonderful secret, this time discovered by Jane Fajans, among the Baining people of east New Britain: a people who never either impersonate nor expersonate themselves, nor anything else either.” Roy: “The Baining had always been the ‘odd people out’ for New Guinea anthropologists, the people with no culture, no society, 62

Expersonation

no secrets. For instance, Gregory Bateson did his initial fieldwork among the Baining; he worked with them for seventeen months, yet they simply would not talk to him. He said that they broke his heart.” Coyote: “So the secret of the Baining is that they have no secrets?” Roy: “Nope, the secret of the Baining is that they’re not telling.” Coyote: “So how did Jane discover the secret of why they are not telling?” Roy: “Working misunderstanding. By understanding that the Baining take their taboos very seriously, and so, reciprocally, that their taboos also take them very seriously — you know, you tell the secret / it tells on you. Suppose someone has a taboo on something, like eating pork. If they tell someone about the taboo, then the secret is out and they have already broken the taboo.” Coyote: “So nobody can ever tell anything about anything, since you can never tell who has a taboo against what and you don’t want to go around getting people to rat on themselves, because that would not only break their taboo, or their hearts, but break their very lives.” Roy: “Nope. It is not that simple; it is that nobody ever must tell anything about anything — the injunction against talking is not simply a linguistic modality among the Baining, it is a cultural, or, if you prefer, a noncultural IMPERATIVE . It is like Wallace Stevens said: ‘Let be be finale of seem / The only emperor is the emperor of ice cream.’” Coyote: “In other words, the imperative is the opposite of a taboo, and that’s why so many New Guinea languages are chock full of imperative forms. Like Daribi, which has a whole paradigm of imperatives worked through their whole grammar and syntax. Like eno gerude nage te tiriamo: ‘Before my eyes you shall not, in future, do that.’” Roy: “It’s like a rainbow: it stands before your eyes, it positively invites your eyes, and yet it is deadly perilous to point at it.” Coyote: “Tell me about the rainbow.” Roy: “Tell it to the RAVENS , buddy.” The Coyote of Anthropology 63

Coyote: “So what is the secret of Daribi sociality, or communality, or whatever you call it.” Roy: “It’s the thing that made Yapenugiai’s life so appalling: the instantly communicable, mass-hysteria MANPOWER CASCADE . ‘I always thought they were puss*cats,’ my former wife said, when one of these erupted right in front of our house. ‘Now look at them. They are like DEMONS , killing each other!’ Coyote: “Why have we not heard of this before?” Roy: “Anthropologists are a sedate lot, relying on routines, interviews, and controlled interactions for their self-confidence, their tonal. And so most fieldworkers dismiss the cascade as myth, legend, or exaggeration. The normal thing is to treat it statistically or medically, call it ‘violence,’ and make up some kind of sociological excuse for why it happens.” Coyote: “What’s it like to be in one?” Roy: “Like the biggest adrenaline rush you could ever imagine; scary as hell, but like a communal chained org*sm. I don’t think ‘violence’ quite cuts it. Victor Turner’s communitas is a bit closer, but the ancient Hindu divine madness or the early Teutonic WUT (pronounced ‘voot’) would be closest of all. Think of the dance of Kali; think of pure abandon!” Coyote: “Is that what they mean by ‘loose structures in Papua New Guinea, or symbolic constructions of reality? Like, I mean, screw-loose? ‘The world is out of joint(s), O cursed spite / that ever I was born to set it right’? Like whenever things reach an intolerable degree of ambiguity, it happens?” Roy: “Hamlet would be right at home there; the Viking berserkers would be proud. Robert Gardner caught it a few times in his magnificent film on the Dani DEAD BIRDS — the Dani call it hunuk palin. Merlin and Rumsey got it down perfectly, working with subjects in the Nabilya Valley who had gone back to tribal warfare. The definition of a highlands social group is forever contingent.” Coyote: “What does that mean to you, Roy, or the Daribi” Roy: “It means that nagual masquerades as tonal, dressed as its own shadow, just as the Magistrate said. It puts on the all-black 64

Expersonation

body covering, with a black cassowary plume, that Daribi call the ogwanoma’, or boy-soul,’ that would make people lose control of their bowels when they come upon it unawares. Then all hell breaks loose!” Coyote: “Did you ever see it?” Roy: “Many times; like, I live with it. In June 2000, I came out of my tent one morning to see a bearded young man complaining bitterly to Pusi, the village councillor. All his household gear had been ripped off during the night by some Chimbu bandits, who are called ‘rascals’ and hang out in the bush.” Coyote: “And the police were Chimbus, too, so they were of no help.” Roy: “As Pusi was explaining to him. And so I walked over to them and asked them if they had ever heard of vigilantes, explaining what I meant.’” Coyote: “So then what happened?” Roy: “Half an hour later the news came down: the bearded young man was dead. Returning to his hamlet he had confronted the first opponent he could find, a Daribi of the opposing faction. Venting his wrath upon him, he struck him repeatedly on the breastbone with the butt of his machete (buruhwa) to make his points. And the opponent drew his bow and shot him straight through the heart at point-blank range.” Coyote: “Wow! When these guys lose it, they really lose it. The Irish would be proud — like Rebecca of Donnybrook Farm, (sings): ‘Not only did she do them wrong, she also did all of them in, them in, them in . . . ’” Roy (humoring him): “ . . . and occasional pieces of skin, of skin, of skin.’” Coyote: “So what happened then?” Roy: “All hell broke loose, they touched off the MANPOWER CASCADE ; all of the line of the dead man and their friends ran ululating through the community, burning the houses and despoiling the gardens of the opposing faction and driving them into permanent exile in the bush. And then it began: all the roads for miles around were choked with mourners, coming The Coyote of Anthropology 65

in to vent their grief over the body. They wailed for days and nights, nonstop, smashing the possessions of the people living there, cutting down their fruit trees, despoiling their gardens, because they did not take care of him.” Coyote: “And you could barely make it down to the station, even to leave Karimui — down through the lines of mourners, and the mud, and the incessant La Niña rain of that year. To wait for your plane for days, which could not make it because of the weather. And you, after the secret of Daribi sociality.” Roy: “Let me point out, Coyote, that my leaving Karimui always had to do with rainbows.” Coyote: “There you go again, Roy, pointing at things you should not. Tell me now: did you ever not make a mistake in your whole life?” Roy (somewhat abashed): “Well, I was born . . .” Coyote: “Sure, you were born, everybody was born. I was born. Shucks, even Yapenugiai was born . . .” Roy: “Let me finish, dammit. I was born in what is clinically known as the double-breech presentation: ass-backward and upside-down, with the navel cord wrapped around my neck!” Coyote: “Well that, at least, explains your sonnets. What it does not explain, besides of course rainbows, is the origin of things: how the Daribi got to be that way. Not only the manpower cascade, but the whole friggin’ world-view of how things got to be that way.” Roy: “Explanation, Coyote, is a very dirty game, sometimes rising to the level of a blood-sport.” Coyote (sings): “. . . and occasional pieces of skin, of skin, of skin . . .”

Expersonation

The Secret of Daribi Holography: The Pearlshell, the Self-Modeling Series, the Manpower Cascade, and the Keberebidi Roy: “Remember our friend the Magistrate, the shadow-catcher, the one who showed me the source of my own animation?” Coyote: “Roy, that was your revelation, not his; he only helped.” Roy: “Well, in that case I needed some further help, having just made another discovery myself — that of the truly holographic world perspective, dramatically enacted, of the Barok people of New Ireland. I wanted to know whether the Daribi had anything like that.” Coyote: “And you asked him, didn’t you, you born-again mistake in sonnet’s clothing?” Roy: “No, I showed him. Night after night (for he was sleeping in the doorway of my tent to protect me from rascals) I showered him with the most vivid examples of holographic worldviews in other parts of New Guinea. Not only mine, among the Barok but also Jadran Mimica’s, is, among the Jeghuye, Arve Sørum’s among the Bedamini, even Gillian Gillison’s among the neighboring Gimi people. After a while he could rehearse them in his sleep.” Coyote: “So what did he say to all of that”?” Roy: “Not much. The perfect mutual occlusion of part and whole in any human contingency is a damn hard thing to think about, much less talk about. Like when I asked Louis Dumont whether he realized he had created anthropology’s first holographic model in his book on the Hindu caste system, hom*o Hierarchicus, he said, ‘Holo . . . what?’” Coyote: “Quit hedging, Roy; what did the magistrate say?” Roy: “He said, ‘I am dead sure we have one of these; I just can’t think of what it is.” Coyote: “So what is it, the manpower cascade?” Roy: “In a manner of speaking. All significant Daribi mythology and symbolism — origin myth, sorcery practice, even marriage and kinship — are based on a three-sided metaphorical synthesis. The word ge in Daribi means both ‘pearlshell’ and ‘egg.’” The Coyote of Anthropology 67

Coyote: “Like pearlshell, the traditional icon of Daribi vital wealth, the archetypal signifier in bride-price, child-price, and death exchanges, is the immortal picture-soul of human mortality. Pearlshells are the human ‘eggs’ that never hatch, but keep being traded for human life potential, moving opposite, in the necessary exchanges, to the flow of human life and procreation. Human beings are mortal beings with immortal eggs.” Roy: “Got it in one, you bloodhound. Whereas birds are mortal beings with mortal eggs: they hatch out of their eggs, their eggs hatch of them, they hatch again out of their eggs, and so it goes, in a never-ending cycle. We move parallel to our eggs, they move through them, and vice-versa.” Coyote: “Got it in two, you bloody Anti-twin. So what about the magical, if not only symbolic, third-order synthesis? Or, as you would call it, the obviation?” Roy: “Snakes, however, are the magical, third-order synthesis. For although snakes also lay eggs, the snake, after hatching out of its egg, keeps hatching out of itself, shedding its skin over and over, and so forever renewing its youth. Snakes are immortal beings with mortal eggs.” Coyote: “So the series is completed, or, as you would say, obviated: triple play — pearlshell on first, hatchling on second, and then to immortality, back on home plate. But as that is only a game — a metaphor, or dramatization of a purely symbolic truth. How does it relate to the manpower cascade, or the deadly keberebidi sorcery?” Roy: “In other words, what is to keep Louis Dumont from saying ‘Holo-what?’ all over again. Like Yogi Berra’s déjà vu. Well, look, Mr. Dawgnabbit, I got your ‘hollow what’ right here.” Coyote: “What, another Cleveland Indians fastball, like back in ’48?” Roy: “Not this time, Feller. It has to do with the self-modeling series, of which the snake is only an impersonation, and with the secret of Daribi mathematics — the fact that there are only three necessary numbers — there is no such thing as strike four.” Coyote: “I thought all numbers were necessary.” 68 Expersonation

Roy: “Nope, they just do not count. The Daribi, I mean. Or at least they did not, before the introduction of Tokpisin, the New Guinea lingua franca (‘French kiss,’ for those who do not speak the language). Traditional Daribi mathematics was not based on counting, that is, placing numbers in a one-to-one correspondence with an appropriate collection of countables. Nor was it based on the remapping of number upon number, what we call ‘number theory’ — addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.” Coyote: “So, in other words, they had no mathematics in our sense.” Roy: “True, and what is worse, we have no mathematics in their sense, either. Daribi mathematics is based on a peculiar ratio established between duality, or scission, with itself, and its only comparative feature is that ratio itself, called sidari-si, the ‘twotogether-two.’” Coyote: “Like the Anti-twins, gender and laterality, and like déjà vu and vùjá de, impersonation and expersonation playing games with each other.” Roy: “Eggs-actly. The word si means either ‘two’ or ‘half,’ and usually both at the same time. So si-dari-si could mean anything from ‘one fourth’ to ‘four,’ or any fractional or multiplicative derivative of the comparative process one might wish to pursue. It could even mean si taken to the power of si, provided only that we could figure out what power that was.” Coyote: “So what’s the bottom line?” Roy: “The bottom line is that sidari-si automatically cancels out the possibility of even numbers, which are like birds reproducing themselves endlessly — and thereby also excludes the possibility of numeri-comparisons! ANY numerical comparisons.” Coyote: “What about the snake, the automatically self-modulating series?” Roy: “That, my friend, is why the Daribi had only three numbers — deri, si, and sera.’” Coyote: “Que será será?” Roy: “Precisely: got it in three, the third-order synthesis! See, the The Coyote of Anthropology 69

first two numbers of a self-modeling series are stochastic, selfindeterminate, like the binaries used in computers. And that is because the first two numbers, or points of origination, in such a series do not yet constitute a series in themselves, given the formula n + 1 = n + n-1, which cannot come into its own until the third term is reached. And after that it is unbeatable, like a manpower cascade.” Coyote: “So, in other words, computers are for the birds.” Roy: “And Daribi are for the snakes. Our most familiar example of a self-modeling series is the Fibonacci series, which begins 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, . . . . but, depending on the first two numbers, it could be, with a wide variety of other possible options.” Coyote: “But why is a self-modeling series unbeatable?’” Roy: “Because it is made of its own interference-patterning, or modeled upon the interference-patterning of a single series with itself, like the linearly coherent, nonradiating beam of a laserprojection. And like the HOLOGRAPHIC image projected by that beam, which is not so much symbolic as it is scientific; an image that stands for itself.” Coyote: “Wait a minute, Hoy. You’re telling me that that image could be the ogwanoma’, the Daribi boy-soul, generated by the interference-patterning of disruptive factionalism, foolhardy bravado.” Roy: “Coyote, I’m not telling you anything, I’m showing you. Because the intervals between the numbers, or successive members, are taken up as the values of the numbers themselves, after a brief lapse of time (anticipating self, nagual, anticipates recollective self, tonal, is per Don Juan), the internal cohesion or intimate self-contagion of the sequence substitutes itself for time itself and carries the day. It dominates by dominating itself.” Coyote: “So a sonnet that based its acoustical meaning on a selfinterfering rhyme-scheme pattern would take precedence over any other sonnet.” Roy: “I thought you had already figured that out. It would merge with its own imagery, become part of its own reality.” Coyote: “Then a lovely young women, somewhat disenchanted, 70 Expersonation

falling from 6,000 feet without the aid of a parachute would likewise merge with her own reality.” Roy: “Provided she was well-cushioned and she acted with pure abandon, like those Daribi warriors.” Coyote: “And a weapon, based on that principle, could dominate any other wavetrain, and blind any radar or any other sensory or computorial equipment on the battlefield.” Roy: “Goes without saying; it could wipe out computer-memory or, if powerful enough, bring ordinary memory, which is based on brain waves, to a standstill. Remind me to write you an immemorial sonnet.” Coyote: “Merging with its own reality reminds me of the echidna, the New Guinea anteater-monotreme Zaglossus, whose brain lacks a hippocampus or organ of long-term memory and so, as you once put it, it walks forever in the daylight of the now, in a dream of itself. And it also lays eggs.” Roy: “Funny you should remember that; most of its victims don’t. Zaglossus is the secret of the dreaded keberebidi ‘memory-wipe’ sorcery, the agency to which Daribi have traditionally attributed all deaths.” Coyote: “What? And not to the manpower-cascade?” Roy: “It’s practically the same thing. Researchers have just discovered that Zaglossus has a bioelectric antenna in its long curving snout, one that by all evidence must project a self-modulating electronic impulse, one that acts to dissipate the self-orienting body image of its prey, just like the buruhoa. After which it simply grabs the ants and eats ’em.” Coyote: “So how does it get involved with sorcery?” Roy: “By means of a ruse, likewise connected with the egg. See, the word keberebidi is taken to mean ‘cassowary-man,’ suggesting the stealth of that mysterious bird whose plumage is used to embellish the ogwanoma.’ But in fact it does not; kebi or tori is the word for ‘cassowary’ whereas kebere is based on an archaic Daribi usage: ge-bere, meaning ‘egg-hider’ or ‘egg-concealer.’” Coyote: “So how does the sorcery work?” Roy: “I’d tell ya, but then I’d have to kill ya. That’s the way the DariThe Coyote of Anthropology 71

bi treat it — ‘What makes you think I have anything to do with anything so evil,’ etc. Nobody knows how it is done, so everybody finds out. It is actually quite simple. A raiding party of keberebidi finds a lone victim, knocks him unconscious, and plays the kebere-ge across the victim’s thorax, wiping out all memory of the event. That makes the victim disoriented, without his memory-image of himself and, when the lone assassin comes to dispatch him, quite easy to kill.” Coyote: “What is the kebere-ge, and where does it come from?” Roy: “From ‘places that have white-limestone outcrop,’ according to the Daribi; they find them in limestone caves beneath that outcrop. Shucks, even kids know about it. Looking through my early field notes I found the following entry, told to me by some Daribi children in December, 1963: ‘Small keberebidi hatch from eggs that are covered with spines.’” Coyote: “And then, in May, 1964: Some women of Masi were walking around the gardens of Maina and saw the footprints of a man. They followed them to a hole in the base of a tree. Here they found some dry grass and banana leaves, and underneath them the kebere-ge. This was furry, and had a nose, but no feet, eyes, or ears. A vine was tied around it in the shape of a U . Roy: “Finally, in December 1968: Oza is a place where the keberebidi was obtained. The mountain was broken on top, and the “children” of the keberebidi fall down from the mountain. The kebere-ge is the child of the sorcery. They are like fruit; some fall on the ground, some fall on trees. People who are quiet and stealthy picked them up. The sorcery is found where the stone is all white (e.g., limestone), inside the broken stone. The kebere-ge is like a stone. One of the people in a kebere raid carries the kebere-ge in a bilum (net bag). When the victim is “killed,” the keberebidi recites a spell (pobi), touches the ge to the thorax, and resurrects the victim. 72

Expersonation

The kebere-ge hides the marks of violence, and when the victim returns to his house the episode is erased from his memory. His mind is confused. People say that the kebere-ge is “half living, and half inanimate.” Coyote: “Roy, none of this makes any sense until one realizes the profound significance that the Daribi attach to eggs, mortality, and immortality. Daribi call the embryo a ‘child-egg,’ wai-ge, and they call the net bag (bilum) in which an infant is carried a ‘pouch’ (sagau), like that of a marsupial. Or, for that matter, a monotreme.” Roy: “And none of that made any sense either until the expert on Australasian wildlife, Tim Flannery, came to Charlottesville and confirmed some of my suspicions about Zaglossus sp.” Coyote: “What, he discovered that you were a kebere-ge?” Roy: “Nope, he told me that Zaglossus does have a dormancy period of about a month and a half.” Coyote: “So then it might seek the shelter of a limestone cave to wait out its dormancy period, and the wet drip from the rocks would cover its spiny body with a calcite solution, which would then harden, giving the appearance of an anomalous ‘thing’ that was half animate and half inanimate.” Roy: “But the real scientific solution to the sorcery would be that the bioelectric antenna in its snout would carry a residual charge, enough that, when deployed suitably and played across the thorax of a victim, it would dissipate the self-orienting body image of the victim.” Coyote: “And thus have the effect of a post-hypnotic death suggestion, like the ‘vibrating hand’ that the martial arts people talk about. You know, first you deliver a seemingly innocuous blow, weakening the chi of the victim. Then, when the victim is lulled into a false sense of security, the martial artist delivers a second blow to the already weakened chi, and death results. Just exactly like the keberebidi.” Roy: “Or like a buruhoa, or a miniaturized scale model merging with its own reality of the manpower cascade.” The Coyote of Anthropology 73

Coyote: “Roy, the Daribi taught you well. Once you get your act down pat, you go looking for someone to kill.” Roy: “Not necessarily, Coyote. As the Daribi say, ‘a child is a wound from within.’ Notwithstanding the sad facts of my birth, one of the moments of pure joy in my life was discovering that I have the same birthday as Mahatma Gandhi, Wallace Stevens, and Groucho Marx.” Coyote: “See what I mean? Tell ’em Groucho sent ya. Welcome to our show, Crypto Marx. Come on, now, bore us all from within.” Roy: “Merging with one’s own reality is no joke. There is a medieval French epitaph that goes: ‘Before he lived only for others; now he lives only for himself.’” Coyote: “Pure narcissism is the basic personality structure of our times; totally self-absorbed and totally self-destructive at the same time. Like, ‘it may seem boring from the outside, but once you get down to the inner core, you realize that it is deadly boring.’” Roy: “Expersonation is like the Daribi manpower cascade: it is only dangerous when you think you know what it is.” Coyote: “Like a shopping mall, or like a R A I N B O W .” Chasing Rainbows Roy: “It’s back to the buruhoa, and the Cessna, and the story of my life. You know, I luck in the double focus. Coyote: “DUMB luck!” Roy: “Nope. Scintillating luck. See, when I left Karimui, after my first fieldwork, this time in a twin Cessna, a DOUBLE RAINBOW formed around the plane and paced our flight, all the way to Goroka. And the Daribi with me, they were pissing scared.” Coyote: “You mean pissing rainbows?” Roy: “No such luck, they are a very careful people. And then, when I was coming back to Karimui for the second time, I had some trouble getting my research permit.” Coyote: “Don’t tell me: it was made out in triplicate?” Roy: “Nice try. Nope, I was driving through Wyoming, on my way 74

Expersonation

to Seattle, when a DOUBLE RAINBOW arced across the sky, straight in the direction of Seattle, as though marking it.” Coyote: “Mark Twain, Roy. And when you got to Seattle you discovered that the research permit had arrived there on the very same day that you saw the rainbow, and at the precise hour that you saw it in Wyoming.” Roy: “And it goes on. When my son was four years old, he surprised me one day by saying, ‘Rainbows can steal ducks.’ And I said, ‘Don’t be silly, Jonathan, how can a rainbow steal a duck?” Coyote: “And he said, ‘Simple. It makes itself longer, comes down, and grabs the duck.’ Or, you see, the anthropologist. Memory image, wound from within, expersonation, manpower cascade, that sort of thing.” Roy: “Oh, you must mean my son’s son, little Graham, that day at the San Antonio Zoo.” Coyote: “It is the cutest thing in the world: every time Graham goes to the zoo he goes to the aquarium tank of his favorite grouper fish, and the two of them kiss each other through the glass.” Roy: “Mere guppy love. Not real bird-flirting, like with the kauweri. So I wandered over to the aviary, and there, in one of the cages, was a lovely young zoo attendant flirting with a RAINBOW LORY , the bird the Daribi call ABUPAGAI .” Coyote: “What does ABUPAGAI mean, in Daribi?” Roy: “It means something so awesome it should never be put into words. But, etymologically, it translates as ‘father-based,’ or ‘father-filled.’” Coyote: “So it really means something, like ‘Duck, big daddy is coming.” Roy: “You must never point at pretty girls, Coyote; they might take you for a bird-dog.” Coyote: “And you must never point at RAINBOWS , either, at least if you are a Daribi.” Roy: “Nor if you are an ancient Chinese person, either. There is a line in the Chinese Book of Songs, the Confucian classic, that The Coyote of Anthropology 75

goes, ‘There is a RAINBOW in the east; no one dares to point at it.’” Coyote: “So what is this thing about pointing at RAINBOWS , Roy?” Roy: “Search me, research me, I wouldn’t know it from my own grandson.” Coyote: “A long story, and a wet one.” Roy: “Sure. Still wet behind the ears, on my first independent journey around Karimui, I saw a fleeting RAINBOW in the sky at a place called Nekapo. There was a group of older Daribi men sitting on the ground, ostensibly gathered to talk to me, or something. I asked them what it was, and most likely pointed at it.” Coyote: “Dead silence. Lots of muttering. Like, ‘These guys claim to have invented powered flight, something crazy like that, and there he stands, pointing . . . like he’s at the San Antonio Zoo or something.’” Roy: “Hell of a lot they knew about grandsons. Then one of them broke the silence and said it was an unigibidi, and that an unigi was a kind of iridescent snake.” Coyote: “Well, from now on I’ll know where to go for real disinformation, like in Cleveland, where they don’t just forecast the weather, they OVER cast it.” Roy: “And then there was the time that Suabe and his family invited me to name their newborn son.” Coyote: “And you suggested ABUPAGAI , didn’t you, And they turned around and ran like hell.” Roy: “Give ’em a break, Coyote, they were from Dobu, the homeplace of ABUPAGAI .” Coyote: “Didn’t need you to point them out, hey?” Roy: “Nope, too disappointing. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Tultul Hanari told me of a Daribi folk-belief: If you point at a RAINBOW , your mother’s breasts will burst. Then he laughed and said, ‘My mother is already dead, so I can point at all the RAINBOWS I want.’” Coyote: “And when he had recovered he explained to you that the so-called folk-belief was just a simple deception, of ‘the stork 76

Expersonation

brought you’ kind, designed to fool small children and keep them from POINTING AT RAINBOWS .” Roy: “DAMN STRAIGHT MISTER . There is often profound wisdom in these so-called simple folk-beliefs, like the Daribi counterintelligence about the airplane: The white man has just invented a new kind of airplane, that doesn’t need any wings at all, but can travel the whole way along the ground, where it really matters!” Coyote: “See, Roy, every culture has its say things, things that one normally says, about everything. Even scholars have their say in things, and, like Don Juan says, ‘They spend all day running through their inventory, competitively, with one another, and then, when 5 o’clock comes around, they go home and try to forget it.’” Roy: “But what my friend Badu Buruhwa, the Daribi doctor who runs the hospital, told me, which really shook me, was, ‘Sure that story about Souw, the Maker of the Land, that is a great story. But the story of ABUPAGAI , that is truly awesome.’” Coyote: “So tell me the story about ABUPAGAI .” Roy: “There isn’t any story about ABUPAGAI ; it would be too much like pointing at a rainbow.” Coyote: “Well, then tell me a fragment.” Roy: “That’s funny, because that’s just what I asked the magistrate, you know, that disenfranchised expert on holographic worldviews? He responded with a fragment about how Souw had invented the first cow.” Coyote: “Roy, this is getting us nowhere.” Roy: “Funny, too, because that is exactly what the bull said.” Coyote: “Roy, I know pure bull when I see it. Get on with the fragment.” Roy: “Okay this is what I got: ABUPAGAI is the same as the hoa-bidi (buruhoa). ABUPAGAI ,

when he died, followed (“behinded”) the rain and the lightning. He had a space behind the waterfall, and he died there. He died, and his bones were there. People came and saw them. When The Coyote of Anthropology 77

it thunders, ABUPAGAI FLIES ON TOP ; his wings make the wind. When this happens in the morning, it will rain all day. ABUPAGAI makes it rain; he follows the lightning and thunder around. Coyote: “Roy, it is plain as day just exactly what this means. It can’t be a bird, because nothing was mentioned about a bird. And it can’t be a waterfall, either, because, ‘he left his bones behind the waterfall,’ so it must be that thing that shimmers in front of a waterfall, if you tilt your head just right, and also FLIES ON TOP of a rainstorm, and nests, so to speak, in the cumulonimbus, forms around the lucky Cessna, announces research permits to weary travelers . . .” Roy: “STOP RIGHT THERE , Coyote. You are perilously close to PERDITION ; you are about to commit a NON-CARDINAL SIN !” Coyote (going on, as though nothing had happened, which is, in fact, the case): “Whereas, if you so much as POINT YOUR FINGER AT IT , you will be struck, instantly, by lightning.” Roy: “There is not now, nor was there ever, a Ben Franklin at Karimui. And, in any case, you haven’t got the key. The only thing this means is that if you go ahead and point it out, your MAMA will be SORREE .” Coyote: “Yet, nonetheless, the story goes on.” Roy: “DAMN STRAIGHT the story goes on. It was the ANTITWINS all along, and it goes on because ABUPAGAI had a grandson.” Coyote: “And his grandson was caught smooching groupies at the San Antonio Zoo.” Roy: “Nope, wrong grandson. ABUPAGAI’S grandson had beetlewings, and was named DOBUBIDI , not Graham, and he was the founder of the sui generis Dobu lineage.” Coyote: “Sui-generis? You mean they came from PIGS ?” Roy: “Nope, that would be the curse of sow, not Souw. I mean they came from INCEST . That is the story of Dobubidi.” Coyote: “I don’t follow.” 78

Expersonation

Roy: “It’s like the ANTI-TWINS would say: High levels of humor and incest signify only one thing: extreme personal, social, and intellectual uncertainty, and a frustrated attempt to do something about it.” Coyote: “But that’s two things! Roy: “Welcome to reality pardner; that’s the ANTI-TWINS talking.” Coyote: “I smell another story.” Roy: “Dobubidi lived in the deep river-gorge country to the west of Karimui — sheer 3,000-foot cliffs, that sort of thing. He had taken a wife from the Mt. Ialibu region, where the Daribi say they came from. He and his wife had a daughter, and when the daughter grew up, Dobubidi began to cohabit with her. And his wife was pissed.” Coyote: “I would be pissed too.” Roy: “I mean pissed off. So she went back to her people at Ialibu and said, ‘I married a MONSTER , you gotta do something about it.’ So they raised an army, you know, touched off a manpower cascade, and the army marched down the river gorge toward Karimui to give Dobubidi what for.” Coyote: “So what did Dobubidi do about it?” Roy: “Well, he ate a lot of sugarcane and left huge piles of leavings around, as though an immense number of men had been camping there. And then, when he saw the manpower cascade coming along the river gorge, he got on his beetle-wings. He unfolded the wings from under those glossy wing cases and flew to the top of one of those 3,000-foot precipices. ‘Hey you guys over there,’ he shouted, ‘ARE YOU READY FOR THEM ?’ Then he flew to the top of another and called back “WE SURE ARE, HUNDREDS OF US, WHAT ABOUT YOU GUYS ?’ And he flew back and forth, calling like that, from one butte to another, until the whole place was echoing with his cries.” Coyote: “So what did those guys from Ialibu do about this?” Roy: “They said to their daughter, ‘Look, sweetie, we don’t care what kind of MONSTER you married, WE’RE OUT OF HERE ! You can do what you like: come with us, or go back and live with this pedophile.’ So she went back and lived with The Coyote of Anthropology 79

Dobubidi, and he begat the Dobu lineage upon his very own daughter.” Coyote: “So what is the moral of this story?” Roy: “If you’ve got it, FLAUNT it! Actually the whole thing is a cautionary tale about the whole secret of Daribi sociality as well as sociopathy: the manpower cascade, the keberebidi.” Coyote: “The ANTI-TWINS. SIDARI-SI. OBVIATION. MERGING WITH ONE’S OWN REALITY .” Roy: “But not the RAINBOW , see? Only ABUPAGAI and his buggy grandson.” Coyote: “So it’s back to square one: the eye does not belong to he body . . . ” Roy: “But the body itself, or perhaps the picture-soul, belongs to its internal vibrations — nerve-impulses, synaptic responses, breathing, blood-flow, memory, speech, gestures, impulsive action, the active subject. Plus the same periodicity that is used to augment those vibrations can also be used to dampen them. SHOUT IT FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS !” Coyote: “Call in the CAVALRY !” Roy: “You got it: We use a kind of leverage, the face, the elbow-joints and knees, the pantomime emotions of the heart, to make sublime the patterned movements that our thoughts erase, to lift the tail and arch the neck of rhyme, use equine sweep and figure to make pace — the borrowed muscles of the human race forget themselves as language every time. To flay the teeth with pheromones, to mate convulvular the long and rolling gait, the rigid back that liquefies the leather; to sound the eunuch-horn, to make the noun re-verb-erate, to take the wind in tether — WHAT GOOD IS POETRY WHEN WRITTEN DOWN ?

Expersonation

Coyote (sings, in German): “Lory, lory, lory, lory, schön sind die Madchen von sechzehn, achtzehn Jahr” “ Roy: “Die Gegenzwillingen sind allmächtig, Coyote: word games make us proud to live!” Coyote: “Tell it to the guys at CalTech.”

The Golden Section Roy: “What? And give away the secret to Daribi ecology, gardening practice, community-building, the self-defining and selfdestroying social unit? Si deri teruwaiu, ‘making one of two,’ the Golden-Sectioning of Daribi settlement pattering.” Coyote: “Don’t tell me it’s the manpower cascade all over again?” Roy: “Well, that too, but this time in reverse: the dampening effect is also self-augmenting. Daribi call it me bidigo ni gerigibizhu, ‘staying en masse to cut other peoples’ garden.’ They swarm, Coyote, they pullulate — all able-bodied men and boys comes together to cut the gardens of the whole community.” Coyote: “Like, when you first worked at Karimui, your community numbered about 200 souls, and now it’s over 800.” Roy: “And the total population has increased from about 5,000 to over 20,000.” Coyote: “Wow, these guys breed like rabbits.” Roy: “Rabbits do not cut gardens. They breed like Daribi.” Coyote: “So tell me about the Golden Section.” Roy: “I’ll show you about the Golden Section. Indigenous Karimui peoples do not live in isolated longhouses, scattered across the landscape, but rather like social insects, in hives, or compact unities. They swarm. That is the secret of how the hive is formed: it both generates and distributes itself, following the radial drainage pattern — some of them expanding and merging, others forming or dispersing all by themselves (in some cases across rugged terrain.)” Coyote: “Actually, it looks like a bad case of hives on the nonrainforest. And the Golden Section would be the honey.” The Coyote of Anthropology 81

3. A Bad Case of Hives

Roy: “Let’s keep our Schatzele to ourselves, even if they are named ‘Lory.’” Coyote: “So when Karimui people start to form a new community, it’s like homesteading. They build their longhouses in a tight cluster, with the gardens around them. Then as the land tires out and the population expands, they move outward, cutting new gardens and building new houses on the periphery, forming an ever-expanding ring around the fallow land.” Roy: “And the people — they harry each other and they marry each other, forming unions across the lineage-boundaries, unions that are themselves people. So that yesterdays blood-and-marriage ties are tomorrow’s kin-unities — deeds of a new lineage with boundaries of their own. And as the boundaries become people, so the people themselves become boundaries — all generated by the interference-patterning.” Coyote: “So the communities divide as they breed, and breed as they divide, like cells in the body. But where do the ANTITWINS come in?” Roy: “That goes to the conceptual core of indigenous Daribi mathematics, the ratio formed by duality or scission with itself: sidari-si. The only way in which the Daribi seem to be able to conceptualize the political or ideological aspects of the community process is by twinning the definable lineal units with one another through an idiom of intermarriage, sharing, and exchanging. Regardless of the other facts, they understand the process as a making and separating of pairs.” Coyote: “Whereas, as we have seen, the whole dynamic of the process — garden-cutting bees, manpower cascade, and even the insidious ‘memory-deathray’ of the kebere-ge — operate on the principle of the self-modeling series, a principle that can only come into its own, or ‘synthesize’ itself, once the magical three is reached. Is ‘merging with its own reality’ out of consciousness for the Daribi?” Roy: “In fact they have no name for the thing or process that we have been objectifying as the ‘community,’ any more than bees have a name for the hive. It is too important, too much a part of The Coyote of Anthropology 83

its own context, like Freud’s subconscious. Too holographic. How would you objectify the process of objectification itself?” Coyote: “So the phenomenal essence, or tonal, of the Karimui community is a Golden Section holography, eh? How can that bee? Hadn’t you ought to let us in on the secret of the Golden Section, Roy?” Roy: “The Golden Section, the phi of the mathematicians, is, properly speaking, the tonal of shape, or shaping— the proportioning of proportion with itself. The best way to show this is a linear demonstration: you divide a line into three segments, asymmetrically, by making two cuts along it, such that the smallest segment, at the one end, stands in the same relation to the medial segment, in the middle, as the two of them do to the largest segment, at the other end.” Coyote: “But Roy, that’s your ‘magical three,’ the third-term synthesis, where the self-modeling series comes into its own, Daribi sena, in relation to the stochastic duality-ratio of scission with itself, Daribi sidari-si.” Roy: “Hence the intimate relation of the Golden Section’s proportionality to the self-modeling series. If you form a series of ratios, or fractions, with the successive members of the Fibonacci series as the denominators, and the successive members of that same series, stepped back by one, as the numerators, that series of ratios will approach the Golden Section as a limit as it approaches infinity.” Coyote: “Sidari three, as it were. And because such a self-modeling series, manpower-cascade, or whatever models itself upon itself, taking up the numerical intervals between the numbervalues within the numbers themselves that follow them, the Golden Section is implicit in the self-modeling series.” Roy: “With all the properties, proportions, and vibrational values pertaining thereunto. There are many examples of this in nature, such as the growth and self-proportioning of the nautilus shell, or the growth and distribution of flower petals. Probably harmonics have something to do with it, as in the group-howling of canids.” 84 Expersonation

Coyote: “And there are many examples of it in culture, too, particularly in architecture and design, such as the temples constructed by the ancient Egyptians, Minoans, and Greeks. Especially the labyrinths. Tell me, why is that?” Roy: “Because the self-modeling series has the special effect of dominating all wave-trains but its own. And because memory is made of waves, as in the case of the kebere-ge, speech is made of waves, thought is made of waves, vision is made of waves, radar is made of waves . . . COYOTES are made of waves, earthquakes are made of waves. And also because the self-modeling series has the effect of dampening or canceling out any wave-train that is not of its ilk.” Coyote: “So, then, those outside of a Minoan labyrinth could not hear the anguished cries of the hero battling the Minotaur within.” Roy: “And for the same reason the labyrinth itself would be to some degree earthquake-proof. Like the Parthenon in Athens, or the Egyptian temples: any structure founded and constructed upon the specifics of the Golden Section will model itself upon the dampening effect and so sustain itself against the irregular waves of seismic shock.” Coyote: “So what about that ‘special effect’ that the Golden Section is most famous for: that anything modeled upon the Golden Section or its proportions will appear especially pleasing to the eye? Like the Parthenon, for instance?” Roy: “Well, vision is made of waves, too, and the effect of the proportioning is to cancel out the irregularities of insight and kill ’em with beauty (always a matter of proportioning and interference-patterning). Real beauty is always very lethal and erosive of the memory, as in: ‘To drink from the waters of Lethe.’” Coyote: “Didn’t you call your first book on obviation, Lethal Speech?” Roy: “Sure did, and on the basis of obviation, and also the kebere-ge, you could weaponize anthropology, make a very nifty military weapon by modeling an electronic pulse upon the The Coyote of Anthropology 85

self-modeling series. It would blind radar, computers, and any sensory or electronic weapon on the battlefield, possibly even act upon the organisms of the soldiers themselves.” Coyote: “So there’s hope for your sonnets yet!” Roy: “Taste, Coyote, is also a matter of interference-patterning.” Coyote: “Still, Roy, there is a problem. Sure, the self-modeling series interferes with itself, acquires a spontaneity or self-mimetic originality all its own and becomes its own criterion, or standard of non-symbolic judgment. Just as language does. But, as per your example of the line divided into segments, or the GrecoEgyptian labyrinth, or, for that matter, the laser beam, it does so in a strictly linear fashion, even if it does take a spiral form, like the nautilus shell.” Roy: “I see where you’re going: the Daribi modeling of their own ecological life-process, their communality, is not really linear at all, but center-peripheral, moving outward in all directions from a dead center.” Coyote: “Whereas the Aztecs, according to Miguel Leon-Portilla, called their version of the one-and-only God, Moyucoyani (‘the God that invented himself ’), the ‘Lord of the Center and of the Periphery.’ That betokens a wholly different form of interference-patterning, an areal or circular rendition of the Golden Section.” Roy: “Take a good look at figure 4, Coyote. It shows the difference between the linear and the circular renditions of the Golden Section in a very graphic way. Some very insightful archaeologists were searching among the ruins of the great Mayan city Palenque for any trace of a standard unit of linear measurement that could have been used by the ancient Mayans to lay out the foundations of their temples and other structures.” Coyote: “Let me guess: they couldn’t find one.” Roy: “You got it. But then a local Mayan shoved them the secret of the flower-petal, or what might be called ‘butterfly’ diagrams. When the Mayans wanted to lay out the foundations of a building they would fix a centerpoint and incise a series of four, six, 86 Expersonation

Graeco-Egyptian “labyrinth”

4. Circular, or Concentric Interference-Patterning

or eight circles in the ground, all of which met at that central point and were all equal to one another, with their centerpoints ranged around the periphery of that point.” Coyote: “Then the interference-patterning of the circles with one another, as marked in figure 4, would be self-modeled within the model of the diagram, and the whole effect of dampening wave-trains, as in ‘earthquake-proof,’ as well as the visualaesthetic effect of the Golden Section, as in ‘beauty,’ ‘the waters of Lethe,’ or ‘the Parthenon,’ would be realized in the construction of the Mayan edifice.” The Coyote of Anthropology 87

Coyote: “And so the ‘butterfly’ or ‘flower petal’ interferencepatterning could be called the picture-soul of Mayan architecture.” Roy: “Because it is drawn upon the earth, one could say that the Earth Lord — the Mayan version of the buruhoa — taught it to them. And because the secret of the butterfly is that it incorporates the self-modeling of transformation within its own life cycle — egg larva chrysalis-winged being-egg — one could liken it to the design of the Mayan ‘One and Only God,’ the Hunab Ku.” Coyote: “And because the Daribi self-generative process of communality is likewise drawn upon the earth (figs. 2 and 3) there is a strange synchronicity between the Daribi and the Mayan forms of expersonation. And because the interference patterning of circles ringing outward generates the spawning of Daribi intermarrying lineages as well as their sustenance and manpower cascades, one could conclude that the picture-souls of Mayan cities and Daribi ecological self-transformation show a remarkable co-equivalence with one another.” Roy: “The birds, the bees, and the butterflies, especially because the butterfly incorporates the Daribi mortality/immortality egg transformation within its own life-cycle. The larvae are like snakes, and the winged being is like a bird, whereas the chrysalis, or cocoon, is like Don Juan’s luminous egg: the picture-soul of human recapitulation and self-imitative transformation.” Coyote: “Or at least trance-formation, eh, Roy? Like your sonnets, or like your personal fantasies about the monarch (‘roy’ meaning both ‘red’ and ‘king’), the totem bird of those born in October.” Roy: “They all fly from different parts of the United States to a single mountain in Mexico, like, ‘Tell him Groucho sent ya’: Monarchiad Creation without hands, love without lies, dark autumn knows the stars by undertow; trees double-dye their foliage to show deception as the map the monarch flies, 88 Expersonation

the tardy one, the next to last to know the prostrate sun, the rivers cracking wise, that thirty thousand gross of butterflies take Santa Ana’s road to Mexico, So dense a boy could beat them with a stick, and innocent of joy as sweet vermouth. Vermillion is the pro that turns the trick, it is no easy thing to tell the truth and harder still to listen: flashbulb-quick senescence imitates the surge of youth.” Coyote: “Tell ’em WALLACE STEVENS sent you!” Roy: “So what is it we are modeling here? Is it the man who dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly that dreamt it was a man?” Coyote: “Roy, is it not you, yourself, who wrote the following, and I quote: ‘The more suspect “language” itself becomes (in the undermining of credibility in its words and phrases, its concepts and ethnic background, its very authority), the greater the tendency to attribute weird, or highly inappropriate autonomies to the items of its inventory, invent “cultures,” “symbolic constructions of reality,” and even spiritual insights to explain them’”? The Work of Language Is a Strange Device Roy: “And also the following: No word is true until it mates in rhyme, no language means itself apart from sound, acoustically redundant, in the round; the squares of grammar implicate a crime, investigate the figure in its ground until the sentenced culprit does its time. There are no double meanings but sublime cross-pollinating hybrids that redound The Coyote of Anthropology 89

like poppy fields in breathing such a scent that pheromonic colors take for rare, that makes the RAINBOW think itself up twice. The work of language is a strange device, no recollection knows the way it went. A symphony is made of empty air.” Coyote (quoting Wallace Stevens): “Let be be finale of seem / the only emperor is the emperor of ice cream.” Roy: “Furthermore, as I have also written, I can say a metaphor to you, regardless of whether I know what it means or not, and you assume I had known what I meant, and give me another metaphor to follow it, without you knowing the meaning of that metaphor either, and we could go at this play of assumptions all day without either of us being the wiser.” Coyote: “I get your drift, Roy, and also your scent. See, your sonnets are too pat, too formal, too finished. They’re not icky enough, not wiggly enough. Let me try my paw: Diet of Worms by Coyote We sleep in sonnets, stigmatize the page, somnambulate in corridors of dust like annelidic psychos, held in trust by anorectic shrinks of mucilage, and con de scent of sources, come what must. A book is Mother Nature’s cryptophage, the line a wormhole to some other age; inscription is the ribbon-worm of lust. For poetry is passion’s parasite, no telling where and when it lays its egg, or why it lets the larvae out at night, in what unholy corridors they kiss and lie and steal, and sometimes even beg; behold the language in its chrysalis.” 90

Expersonation

Roy: “We have spoken a great deal about personal and cultural closure — the finishing in any sense of the term, the terminality, the terminix.” “ Coyote: “And last, but not least, the termite. We have digested a great deal about worms, and other icky and wiggly things, not to speak of sonnets.” Roy: “We have spoken a great deal about representation, impersonation and expersonation, self-modeling, the Mayans, the One and Only God, and the merging with one’s own reality that makes closure of any kind, including death, anticlimactic and self-defeating.” Coyote: “But have we given any consideration to the fact that the sonnet has become, since the salad days of the Elizabethans, a sterile, antiquated, and monumental relic. And that, despite the triumphs of William Shakespeare, with his admittedly challenged rhyme-schemes and juvenile addiction to close-rhyming: ‘When in despite of worms, and fortune cookies / I seek my outcast fate among the WOOKIES .’” Roy: “The fate of an impersonator, you derivative canid. Content is everything, it’s how you say it that counts. ‘When, in despite of germs, and WOMEN’S eyes / and notwithstanding moths and butterflies / then every time I speak A COYOTE DIES .’” Coyote (expires): “Yechh.” Roy: “We only pretend to die, Coyote!” Coyote (pretends to revive): “We only P R E T E N D to die?” Roy: “Sure, the obvious facts of death are only a kind of ‘cover,’ a decoy for the pragmatic afterlife, the real expersonation that began a long time before: The Mirror Inside Out Death has no other side, it’s like a mirror in which the shapes of life be multiplied, an orbiture of color, double-dyed, a hemisphere unto the hemis-fearer adrenaline at heart, and mortified. The Coyote of Anthropology 91

The signature of Lear upon the leerer, like passion’s second gear, but even queerer, e-motion without e.’ Be satisfied. To rhyme without a sound, to cite invective without that Special One that makes it stick, is harmful to the soul, and worse than wit— reflection knows its own from counterfeit — a mirror inside-out is not reflective, so finish off this line, and make it quick. Coyote: “So, in other words, the medium of expression through which life represents itself to itself becomes the expression of a medium that merges with its own reality, and appears as death to everyone else.” Roy: “The aristocratic way to emigrate; a sonnet is the preferred form of life-recapitulation — it gives you the experience of facts, turns it around into the fact of experience, and then obviates the image to show you the real humor of what was going on the whole time. All sonnets are funny, Coyote, when you get the point.” Coyote: “Still, it is hard to kill the suspicion that a sonnet is a purely ornamental, though admittedly lordly, archaeological ruin, or rune. Like those amazing though utterly useless ROOF COMBS that crown the Golden Section Mayan edifices to this very day.” Roy: “ROOF COMBS , Coyote? They take the cake: Roof Combs Too steep for architecture, stiff for arch, they make the gods feel good for not existing or acting up when stela-stones are listing. At noon their self-important shadows march like priests across the plaza. Not resisting a single thing but gravity they parch like corn in sunlight, give the rain its starch, and flute the moon when valley floors are misting. 92

Expersonation

They comb the clouds, the wind and stars, and show the world’s impossibilities to law, they do not go but upward, they command attention in the heavens for the land. ‘I MADE THEM THUS, MY NAME IS YAX AHAW, THE LORD OF DISTANCE ,’ so the roof combs go. Coyote: “So, the fewer the gods, the better, hey, like they replaced their divinities with ROOF COMBS ?” Roy: “You just don’t get it, do you? I mean, the point of divinity itself: the better the fewer, the fewer the better. Divinity is HOLOGRAPHIC , or it is nothing.” Coyote: “The odds are good, but the goods are odd.” Roy: “See, Yax (pronounced yash) is the color that archaeologists call ‘Mayan Blue,’ the background, or second attention color that Mayans used in their power depictions, much as the Byzantines used a gold background in their icons. And blue is the distance.” Coyote: “But blue is the color that Goethe called ‘an enchanted nothingness’ in his Color-Theory.” Roy: “Nonetheless, it is the Faustian color. And Mayans invented the zero, didn’t they.” HUNAB-KU ; The WEAPONIZING of Anthropology

Coyote: “So what is the Hunab Ku?” Roy: “It is the terminator, the figure-ground reversal of the zero, the HORIZON of your lifetime, and anyone else’s. It’s what Don Juan calls the crack between the worlds.” Coyote: “But it is only a simple glyph, a glyph depicting itself or depicting itself depicting itself.” Roy: “Without attributes or characteristics, without concrete attributes or characteristics power would have no power, even over itself. What was the first lesson that Don Juan taught Castaneda?” Coyote: “That peyote is not peyote but a powerful teacher and protector called Mescalito. That if you do not keep your cool unThe Coyote of Anthropology 93

der the influence of an outside agency — hallucinogen or person — you will have a bad trip.” Roy: “Was it superstition, then, or some form of primitive animism that brought them to call the bomber that dropped the first atomic bomb the Enola Gay, and call the first atomic bombs ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy?’ Or call the first gigantic siege gun, back in the fourteenth century, Mons Meg, ‘The Mountain, Margaret?’ The Kaiser had ‘Big Bertha,’ and Admiral Nelson called his flagship the Victory.” Coyote: “The object must have part of the person or user in it, just as the user must incorporate the object within the leverage of their mind or body if they are to work in tandem, or mutual confidence. That is the secret of the déjà vu and the vújà de: what we call ‘automation’ is just simply a badass acknowledgment of this; a Coyote-copy.” Roy: “It’s an old story, Coyote. That is why we give names to things, or write sonnets about them though they may be only vibrations of a fold in the throat. It simply does not matter whether the ‘agency’ is animate or inanimate, hallucinogenic or whatever. The way in which you treat the agency is the way the agency treats you: whatever you put on it, it will put back on you.” Coyote (quoting The Rolling Stones): “When you see her dressed in blue, like the sky in front of you . . . ” Roy: “SHE’S LIKE A R A I N B O W . . . ” Coyote: “HOW SWIFT THY DISPOSITION, HUNAB KU !” Roy: “Like a work of classical music, it grows in a dimension that is perpendicular to time (Zuckerkandl). It is at one and the same time the center of the periphery and the periphery of the center. So now it’s my turn, Coyote: “What is the Hunab Ku?” Coyote: “Well it looks (fig. 5) like a yin/yang figure with balls, or wings, like the Wrong Brothers’ version of the Wright Brothers . . . THE HELICOPTER’S HALL OF FAME .” Roy: “Come on, now, BE SIRIUS , you dawg-star. What does it MEAN in terms of our discussion (or digression, as the case may be)?” 94 Expersonation

5. Hunab Ku: The One and Only God

Coyote: “A self-analytic re-programming of the reproductive lifecycle, a mortality cum immortality trilogy that we found to be generative of the Golden Section in the case of the Daribi.” Roy: “Far too abstract, Coyote. You’re beginning to talk like an anthropologist. Remember what Don Juan taught about the concrete and practical essence of power. Remember that this is a Mayan glyph, and, in fact, the glyph of all glyphs — a GOD .” Coyote: “Now you’re beginning to talk like a Castanedan. In that case it looks like one of those Mayan architectural ‘flower petal’ diagrams, complete with stamens and pistils. Or perhaps the morning glory world of hummingbird, the Mayan Eclipse-Lord, that sustains itself on the nectar of the flower: ‘invisible, shot through with eye and wing.’” Roy: “That, too — Nature’s helicopter, the terminator of the mornThe Coyote of Anthropology 95

ing and evening twilight. The mutual transcendence, in lifecycle terms, of the night-living moth — Don Juan’s ‘Bearer of Knowledge’ — and the day-living butterfly. Who feeds on jade and darkness? The moon and Venus hang in solitude, they whisper crickets, kindle darkness, brim the deep cenote waters; world goes dim and half-gods raise their eyebrows, eat the food that turquoise lays beneath their feet. To him who feeds on jade and darkness these are crude and opalescent outlines; certitude is measured on the fall of night, and slim. The days are names that figures represent, the nights are liquid voices, soon the bats may eat the stars, and sleepers draw the breath of daylight’s syllabary through the spent and shadowed worlds of dreaming on their mats; the twilight is the gods’ excuse for death. Coyote: “So the TWINS of the Popol Vuh, the Mayan Book of Creation, are really, though I wouldn’t believe it myself, A N T I-T W I N S .” Roy: “HOW SWIFT THY DEPOSITION, HUNAB KU ! The dark worlds of the Mayans are ones that even they could not penetrate. They loved it that way.” Coyote: “They made book on it!” Roy: “Hunab Ku is like the recapitulation chamber of the flower, bird, and insect world. You know, the ancient Meso-Americans had a totally different grasp of evolutionary cycles than we do. They claimed that each major order of creature had its turn at sentience: the insects, the birds, the lizards, the monkeys, and now the human beings.” Coyote: “I wouldn’t bet on it; look how far I’ve gotten.” Roy: “Yeah, the HELICOPTER’S HALL OF FAME . No major civ96

Expersonation

ilization makes it easy. Those half-understood things we deign to comprehend as civilizations are there to PREVENT meaning, making it increasingly difficult either to deal with or do something about. Overspecialization, Tower of Babel stuff.” Coyote: “So the work, or vocation, of a ‘civilization’ is like your definition of humor: getting the point by not getting it? What we pretend, or at least idealize as the truth is not really the truth at all, but the OBVIATION of what happens when one gets caught in the description. Any description, of anything. OBVIATION lays bare the essential humor that lies behind any possible description, including the labyrinthine significance of the Hunab Ku.” Roy: “Oh, you NOTICED ? If you are waiting for messages from gods, Coyote, you will have to wait a long time. They communicate largely in self-signs, postures and gestures, innuendo, raising their eyebrows, etc.” Coyote (scratching): “Well then we will have to start from scratch, like with what the Hunab Ku does not mean. The most obvious thing in the world is that the glyph represents the respective nocturnal and diurnal Lepidoptera, each evolving from the selfcontained egg-larva-chrysalis-winged being lifecycle of the other. The day-moth and the night-butterfly. See the two opposite larvae, crawling out of the egg-like convolution at the center? As they grow and transform themselves into caterpillars, they eventually encapsulate themselves into chrysales, or cocoons — you can see their sensory antennae poking upward and out to the periphery. Whereas the bladelike diametrics, cutting the whole figure into four parts, are the wings of the beings that result, drying on the carapaces of their former cocoons and preparing for their nuptial flight out to the periphery.” Roy: “So if that is what it does not mean, then what it really means is the mutual OBVIATION of the moth by the butterfly, and the butterfly by the moth. Surrogates, of course, for the first attention and the second attention, or the tonal and the nagual, if you will.” The Coyote of Anthropology 97

Coyote: “The not-doing of a not-doing is simply another doing? The picture of a fact is the fact of the picture?” Roy: “Precisely. And it is impossible to picture a total transformation without transforming the subject as well; what you have taken for visual is actually acoustic, what you have taken for larvae is actually the spinneret’s of the SPIDER that ate ’em both, and what you have taken for a cocoon is actually the crenulated body of the spider.” Coyote: “And what I have taken for antennae are in fact the eight legs of the spider, spread out to the four directions of the web. And what I have taken for wings are the lethal blades of the web itself, the center and periphery of a killing machine.” Roy: “The spider senses her prey through vibrations in the tympanum: To lick the wind with gossamer; insights disguise a secret wounding of the lips, there is no world beyond their fingertips, no sky above their fickle northern lights. Contained in syllabary craftsmanships the tongue dissolves the senses’ parasites; the snare that caught the outer world requites the webwork of the lungs in long ellipse. The mind is like the DNA of sound all spiraled into tone and iridescence; a counterpoint of life, a killing zone of echo-like vibrations in the round, the melodies, the chords are of the essence, and these in turn have spiders of their own. Coyote: “SHOCK AND AWE ; death by chocolate, death by sex, death by something too complex. One thinks of the sacrificial victims of the Aztecs and Mayans, of the world-creating spider of the Oglala Sioux: 98 Expersonation

Transilient, its iridescence twinned with something like to stardust out in space; the widow-spider masks her person-face, its RAINBOW -spittle gardening the wind, with all the hanging trophies of the chase, the dark fantastic mealtimes dried and spinned “Like spinneret-kabobs,” she winked and grinned, “how many gave their lives to know this place?” An agency’s whatever does the works when half-authentic beings have their say like voices trapped within a symphony; on every minor planet something lurks — the minute gods of dusk, the lords of gray, the spider-herding dreams of Sigma Three.” Spider: “I am your old Aunt Nancy, Anansi, Weaver of the Cloth of Myth, come to tell you that you are both DEAD WRONG . What is unpictured in the Hunab Ku is neither life nor death, nor transformation, but the ultimate NOT DOING of all time: the SOLAR ECLIPSE , the coronal suture of all thought and all being. And it is the work of the ECLIPSE LORD , Hummingbird, the merciless WARRIOR GOD of scale change, and holography. Something SUBLIME , something akin to PURE LOVE : No feather but a blur, and scarce the clearance that folds the honeylove of butterfly; old sunbeams turn to shadows when they die and not for want of nuptial interference. Mosaics worked in glass but cut the eye, unglaze the RAINBOW in a brief appearance, and have no mate nor meet for perseverance. What wisdom contradicts the blossom’s lie? What jeweled shade decocts the atmosphere? The deep end of the spectrum goes for this, inebriate of darkness, half obscene

The Coyote of Anthropology 99

the wine of love. On anything but green the bird that does not move, but just appear, as angels do, and flowers, plants a kiss.” H. K.: “What? You mean I am not the architectural masterpiece people have taken me for? That the so-called larvae or spinnerets are not the limestone conduit-channels of the cenotes, curling beneath the Yucatec Mayan temples? That the so-called cocoons or the spider’s body are not foursquare Mayan temples, facing upward to the four directions, with their ROOF COMBS jutting upwards like antennae? That the so-called wings or killing blades of the web are not the resplendent glory-strokes of feeding suffering to the gods?” Hummingbird: “No way, Baby. Or, as Don Juan would put it, nothing doing. It goes back to the self-eclipsing of the human soul that the Magistrate showed to Roy. Lux et Tenebris, don’t you know, like the SUNDIAL said: ‘You are guided by shadow; I am guided by light.’ It goes to the SUBLIME NONEXISTENCE of the human soul. Perhaps John Donne would have said it the best. Say it like this: For concupiscence’s sake, a great restrictor, a soul is neither physical nor mental, deliberate, or semi-accidental; a different nothing negatives the victor, the body and the mind, experimental, for information is a poor predictor, a lie unto itself, a truth-evictor, and immortality is up for rental. Some inadvertence, desperate and coy, some greater sharpness whittles out the knife, invisible and deft, and makes appliance immune to purely abreactive science, And such a prescience doth the soul enjoy: it UNEXISTS to bring the rest to life. 100

Expersonation

Coyote: “So by now, Roy, we’re all pissing RAINBOWS .” Roy: “Don’t point!” The Minute Gods of Dusk, the Lords of Gray Coyote: “SEGUE . It is getting to be twilight at Karimui, the almost inaudible call of the domuai (‘like an echidna’), a minute treefrog, is sounding through the rainforest, a call so delicate and heart-wrenchingly beautiful that the Daribi reserve their designation solely for the naming of very special young girls, as the mark and measure of all impermissible delicacy on this earth.” Roy: “Roy is sitting in front of his tent, talking to Moses Hanari, son of the now-departed RAINBOW -mastectomy expert.” Coyote: “Moses is musing, as Daribi often do, on the peculiar characteristics of various forms of wildlife found in the area. He says, ‘You know, cassowaries sometimes bay like hounds; I heard one once, and saw it coming down to the water.’” Roy: “Then he says ‘Listen, Roy; you can almost hear them, if you listen real close. That is the strange little snake that we call the pini, tiny, minute, they live communally in piles of debris on the forest floor. They go out in the twilight to search for food, and to communicate with one another they whistle.’” Coyote: “So what? Lots of things live like that. Even coyotes do something like that, every once in a while.” Roy: “Not like that; he said they whistle on the IN-BREATH .” Coyote: “You mean like taking all their words back every time they speak? You mean that if they tried mouth-to-mouth resuscitation they would create a meaning-vacuum between them? It’s like you said about metaphor, Roy: you and I could exchange invisible meanings all day long, and neither of us be the wiser.” Roy: “That would be total obviation. No, Coyote, as Groucho would say, ‘close, but no cigar.’ I was talking about the METABREATH , the invisible but inseparable companion, the face-toface ally that is with us every day of our lives and that departs at the moment of death.” The Coyote of Anthropology 101

Coyote: “You mean like, ‘I met a breath, you meta breath, everybody gotta METABREATH ?’” Roy: “Closer yet, but no cigarette. The METABREATH is the one that breathes you in when you breathe out, and breathes you out again when you breathe in.” Coyote: “Wow! Tell me more about it.” Roy: “Don’t hold your breath.”

102

Expersonation

3 | obviation

Three coyotes decided to take a train ride; they wanted to check out, well, maybe some sheep down the line. As they were buying their tickets they ran into three live wires, a.k.a. RAVENS , who were interested in currency and perhaps finding a nonconductor. The RAVENS bought only one ticket between them. “Why did you guys buy only one ticket?” asked the coyotes. “Watch and see,” said the RAVENS . When they all got on the train and it started moving, the three RAVENS all crowded into a john and closed the door. The coyotes took their seats and watched. When the conductor came around taking tickets he shouted into the john and said, “Tickets, please!” The door opened just a crack, and a beak poked out with a single ticket in it. The conductor took it and moved on. “Aha” said the coyotes, for they saw the RAVENS ’, trick (coyotes always say “Aha” in these stories, and RAVENS say “Oho”), “two of those bastards got to ride for free.” Well, there weren’t no sheep on that there line, except maybe the coyotes themselves, so they got off at the next stop and decided to wait for the next train to go home again. The RAVENS got off, too, with the same idea in mind. This time, however (“Aha”), the coyotes bought only one ticket between them, but the RAVENS (“Oho”) bought exactly none. “Why did you guys buy exactly no tickets?,” “Watch and see” said the RAVENS , and they mumbled among themselves, quothing “NEVERMORE .” This time, when the train got underway, the three coyotes, who knew a thing or two, all jammed themselves into the john with their one ticket and closed the door. The three RAVENS who knew one thing more, found themselves anoth-

er john, jammed in, and closed the door. After a little while one of the RAVENS snuck out of the door, hopped over to the Coyote’s john, cleared his throat, and said, “AHEM, TICKETS PLEASE !” Ever since that time coyotes have watched their back-track, ranchers have used electric fences, and passengers depend on nonconductors when they get their wires crossed. Johns are always jammed. Negative Capability Coyote: “So MEANING has been our big problem all along?” Roy: “Ain’t that the truth.” Coyote: “Well, truth too: it gets in the way of telling a better lie.” Roy: “Actually, NAMES are the real problem, as in ‘the NAMED is the mother of the myriad creatures.’” Coyote: “My mama was called ‘Nomme du Chien.’” Roy: “And that makes you a very cross-breed. A hybrid, like Bruno Latour says. You know, all the things we think, and all the things we do, which means especially products — they are neither natural nor cultural, but something in between — something totally scary. You would never want to look at it.” Coyote: “Like that Don Juan NOT DOING experiment you performed one summer evening with the huge white oak tree, while sitting on your deck. Remember?” Roy: “Don Juan told Carlos to study the shadows of a tree, isolate the darkness within it and around it as if it were a separate, freestanding thing in itself — Ding an Sich. But the tree was so huge, over there on the ravine, that I could only do it part by part. I studied and grouped one part of the tree’s darkness after another, carefully convincing my body that the shadows were real and the visible tree-outline was not.” Coyote: “But it was getting dark — you know, TWILIGHT and all — so you gave up, didn’t you. You got up from the chair and turned around to go into the house.” Roy: “The visual memory is a very strange thing, Coyote — it collects the whole even when you’re not aware of it.” 104 Obviation

Coyote: “Sure, Roy, and the soul is even trickier — it UNEXISTS to bring the rest to life. And you made the mistake of looking back. NEVER LOOK BACK .” Roy: “And what I saw there, standing where the oak tree should have been, was a M O N S T R O S I T Y that will haunt me all the days of my life.” Coyote: “Time’s movie of itself, the NEGATIVE NEGATIVE . Like that other oak tree showed you, the one in the cemetery at Lexington, Virginia, by Stonewall Jackson’s grave.” Roy: “It was a giant among giants, and what it said — like projecting word-images in my mind — was, ‘YES, I WAS HERE BEFORE THE CITY OF LEXINGTON WAS HERE, AND I WAS HERE BEFORE THE WHITE MAN WAS HERE, AND ALL THE TIME BETWEEN THEN AND NOW IS LIKE A SINGLE I N S T A N T .’” Coyote: “So did the tree OBVIATE you, or did you OBVIATE the tree? Roy: “Obviously, there is no such thing as OBVIATION , Coyote.” Coyote: “That is what makes it so POWERFUL .”

Getting a Grip on OBVIATION Roy: “You gotta control yourself, Coyote. You gotta grasp that amoeba firmly by the pseudopod.” Coyote: “You gotta get a grip on yourself, Roy. You gotta chop that negative negative tree down and use it for firewood.” Roy: “So, in other words, we gotta PRETEND that OBVIATION is possible even though we know for a fact that it does not exist.” Coyote: “We gotta find a SUBSTITUTE for OBVIATION , given that SUBSTITUTION is the very essence of what we are talking about.” Roy: “And how. It is the only thing that ever goes on in conversation or myth — it’s the dialectic. And all we ever get of language is the myth of language. For without the concrete embodiment of what language is talking about — the myth of the image in Obviation

105

the image of the myth — language itself would lack for concrete dimensions.” Coyote: “Nobody ever learned anything from pure abstraction.” Roy: “Shucks, even pure abstraction never learned anything from pare abstraction.” Coyote: “Language invents image and then image invents the language.” Roy: “The OBVIATION DIAGRAM invents the OBVIATION DIAGRAM (fig. 6) and then the OBVIATION DIAGRAM invents the myth.” Coyote: “I thought the myth was the first thing the human race ever knew.” Roy: “Nope, it’s the second thing: narrative sequency. SUBSTITUTION was the first thing the human race ever knew. You know, the best SUBSTITUTE for a SUBSTITUTE is a SUBSTITUTE . Like what I once called ‘The Most Original Joke of All.’” Coyote: “Then the third thing is the SYNTHESIS , the point of closure in a myth — the punch line of a joke. Like, you know, the great invention of Hegel: the Buck stops here.” Roy: “Hegel never made any doe.” Coyote: “That is because he forgot about FIGURE-GROUND REVERSAL , the synthesis INVERTED upon itself. You don’t figure, you don’t ground. You must have had a pretty abstract sex life back there in Jena.” Roy: “G. W. F. Hegel imagined that his discovery of the synthesis, or closure of the dialectic, bespoke the end of history. But what it really did was take him back to the beginning of human thought: grounding the figure by figuring the ground. Joke, see? ‘In Jena geht es wunderlich / Dass weisst die Ganze Welt.’ What we gotta do is bring his magnificent discovery up to speed, relocate it on the timeline.” Coyote: “Precisely. And we can do that best by introducing the ANTI-SYNTHESIS , the figure-ground reversal of the synthetic triangle, and which proceeds by acts of CANCELLATION disguised as SUBSTITUTIONS .” Roy: “‘It is at twilight,’ said Hegel, ‘that the Owl of Minerva spreads 106

Obviation

PR (en A G erg M A y – TIC gh os A F T tp ers E R L ist I F en E ce) no-time for sequency

cancellation for synthesis /cross-axial substitution

C sublation

synthesis for substitution and sequency

O F sparagmos for obviation

A substitution for myth

B sequency for substitution

6. The Obviation Diagram

her wings.’ And that means pragmatic afterlife, energy-ghost persistence, the down-stroke; what the old drama-theorists called the denouement, the ‘falling action.’” Coyote: “So the best way to understand the DIAGRAM (fig. 6) is to make it self-analytic in its own terms, make it draw a picture of itself. Else it would only be a myth-understanding, like what happened to Hamlet back at Elsinore.” Roy: “Substituting his MAD self for his other MAD self.” Coyote: “So how does it work?” Roy: “It doesn’t, that’s the point.” Coyote: “So let’s start at A, the very bottom, where the concrete mostly gets you.” Obviation

107

Roy: “We substitute the act of substitution for the myth itself, substituting in the myth one person, thing, episode, or concept for another establishes the basis for OBVIATION .” Coyote: “And then go on to B, sequency for substitution: the narrative sequency or temporal continuity of the story is substituted for the principle of substitution itself. From now on it’s one damn thing after another.” Roy: “But HARK , can it be? It must be, I hear hunting horns, it sounds like our old friend . . . ” Hegel: “Da ist wieder der Hirsch . . . ” Coyote: “What is he trying to say? Quick, Roy, I need a translation, fast.” Roy: “Not so fast. After all, ‘There is once again the stag; the learned philosopher from Jena is trying to tell what has got to be the oldest German joke on record: “There is once again the stag at which your Lordship every winter shoots.”’ Coyote: “You mean the Buck does not stop here?” Roy: “Only for Hegel did it every winter do so. You tell a joke / it tells on you. At point C we substitute SYNTHESIS for both substitution and sequency.” Coyote: “And that means full closure for the initial scenario of the story or joke — where the Buck trips up. From then on the OBVIATION goes into figure-ground reversal, energy-ghost persistence.” W.S.: “Now bid the stricken deer go weep, the hart ungalled play / for some must watch while others sleep, so runs the world away.” Roy: “You see, D is the midpoint of the OBVIATION , the place where figure-ground reversal kicks in. Cancellation SUBSTITUTE S itself for the merely synthetic closure, and does so on the downstroke, the first cross-axial substitution, taking out A , so all we have left is B , C , and cancellation itself.” Coyote: “We have nothing left to SUBSTITUTE for SUBSTITUTION .” Roy: “And, as you may have noticed, SUBSTITUTION is nothing less than the very principle of synchronicity, or co-incidence. And 108 Obviation

it just so happens that, synchronicity being the very presence of time, we have NO TIME left.” Coyote: “So there is only one thing left to do: SUBSTITUTE NO TIME for the presence of time itself, at E , cancelling out sequency at B , and leaving us with only C , D , and E .” Roy: “Which is hardly a coincidence, because at this point there is nothing left to follow and all we can do is fall. ‘Here falling suits us best,’ as Rilke said in “An Holderlin,” his magnificent apostrophe to the poet Hölderlin: Oh you wandering spirit, the most restless of all. How they live snug in their overheated verses, lingering long in the small comparison, taking part. But you only drift, ghosting like the moon. And below brightens and darkens your holy terrified landscape that you know only in farewells . . . ” Coyote: “So point F , cancelling point C on the backstroke, is the total inside-out inversion of what a SYNTHESIS would have to be; what the ancient Greeks call the sparagmos, the ‘scattering.’ The SUBSTITUTION of pure abandon, or detachment, for the whole set of operations that have guided us around the socalled hermeneutical circle. Tell me, Roy: is that what you call OBVIATION ?” Roy: “Not unless you are willing to ‘linger longer in the small comparison.’ OBVIATION is a fractal, or scale-retentive feature, that is evident (made obvious) at every point, and the ‘circle’ is not a circle at all, but a triangle.” Coyote: “So the real stroke of OBVIATION would be the contrast, the humor or irony brought into stark realization between the sparagmos at F and the original SUBSTITUTION at A , that set the whole myth in motion in the first place.” Roy: “Right on, Coyote. And because that ‘humor’ or ‘irony,’ as you call it, goes beyond all understanding and is in fact exactly the sort of MONSTROSITY that ruined my whole day when I did Don Juan’s NOT-DOING exercise with the tree-visualization, it Obviation

109

is impossible to put into words, or even thoughts. It is what Hegel called the SUBLATION .” Coyote: “Then you will just have to walk me through it. Like, What really happened to Hamlet? Not the Hamlet in Shakespeare’s magnificent dramatic elucidation but the NOT-DOING Hamlet, the tree-visualization Hamlet? You know, like that ancient Kabbalistic notion of the tree that grows inward to its own seed.” Roy (somewhat exhausted): “Go back to figure 6 and follow me, step by step. A : Prince Hamlet, faced by seemingly incontrovertible evidence that his uncle Claudius had murdered his father, took the decision to act himself mad so he could speak the truth and disqualify that truth even as he spoke it. He could then say what no Crown Prince was ever allowed to say, and so OBVIATE the purpose of the new King Claudius.” Coyote: “But then B (SUBSTITUTING sequency for substitution), he encounters the court adviser Polonius, father of his staunch friend Laertes, and of his intended fiancée, Ophelia. Polonius is famous for his almost-wise saying, ‘To thine own self be true,” counseling the exact opposite of the course that Hamlet elected to follow.” Roy: “And it is the unspeakable irony caught between those two very different courses of action that accounts for what happens in the SYNTHESIS , point C (SUBSTITUTING the SYNTHESIS for both sequency and substitution). Hamlet decides to spring his trap. He gets some traveling players to perform a dumb show, the famous ‘play within a play,’ before the whole court. The play is supposed to show a man murdering his own brother by pouring poison into his ear, and so OBVIATE the crime of Claudius, by making it obvious to everyone without words.” Coyote: “But what the dumb show does in fact show is not that at all, but a nephew murdering his own uncle. This tips the hand of the requital that Hamlet was plotting, or, in other words, OBVIATES Hamlet himself, instead of Claudius.” Roy: “From that point onward the action goes into reverse mode, figure-ground reversal, cancellation, and falling action; pragmat110

Obviation

ic afterlife, as it were. The hero is now running in a relative trajectory and cannot act for himself anymore. Here is where the Buck starts.” Coyote: “D : CANCELLATION for SYNTHESIS , cross-axial SUBSTITUTION . Hamlet goes to confront his mother in her room and is startled by a movement behind the arras (tapestry). Thinking it to be Claudius, already wise and spying on them, Hamlet runs him through with his rapier. But, alas, ‘I took thee for thy better,’ it is NOT Claudius but that dim-witted expert on truth-detection, Polonius. This effectively CANCELS (D-A ) the mad for sane SUBSTITUTION with which the whole charade had begun.” Roy: “In no time flat Hamlet has just done to Laertes (and Ophelia) just exactly what Claudius had done to him: he murdered their father. E effectively cancels out the counsel of Polonius, which came in sequence after Hamlet’s original strategy-decision. Now the betrayed Laertes is exactly on a par with Hamlet, except of course Hamlet himself is the betrayer. Hence the bizarre significance of E : Claudius, now wiser than ever, loses no time in conspiring with Laertes to set up a duel to the death disguised as swordplay, before the whole Elsinore court.” Coyote: “And what you called the sparagmos just naturally fell into place. Through their respective machinations— poison, swordplay, etc. — practically everybody dies except Horatio. And all as a result of the self-betraying dumbshow, at the point of SYNTHESIS , at C. F CANCELS out that SYNTHESIS (F-C on the backstroke), bringing its ominous forebodings full circle.” Roy: “But it was LAERTES , it could only have been Laertes, who saw the whole play of circ*mstance behind the whole dumb show: HE SAW THE TREE ! As he lay dying on the boards he screamed at Hamlet: KILL THE KING ! And so Hamlet, as his last desperate act on this earth, goes and does so.” Coyote: “So the real HERO of Hamlet, The Obvious, is actually Laertes!” Roy: “No way, Coyote. The Tiv people of Nigeria called him a witch! Obviation is never what you think it is, and there was anObviation

111

other more powerful drama going on behind our backs this whole time. And it is the play of: Fortinbras, the Not-So-Mad Berserker from Norway Coyote: “So the TREE of NOT-DOING never looks the same way twice?” Roy: “Hell, Coyote, it never even looks the same way once — you have to do the looking.” Coyote: “You gotta watch those Vikings; just turn your back and they’ll discover America.” Roy: “And call it Vinland, the Good. (!) The SUBSTITUTION through which the drama began was that of Hamlet’s missed successorship to the throne of Denmark. Fortinbras (Norman for ‘Strong Arm’) took advantage of the ‘scattering’ (F ), F-C , obviating the original SYNTHESIS , to SUBSTITUTE his own power for the series of failed SUBSTITUTIONS A-F. ” Coyote: “Only because of the ‘empty time’ at E , and the falling out of the principals precedent to Hamlet’s and Laertes’ dual. (F-E ; reverse temporal motivation).” Roy: “But that was only because of Hamlet’s mistake in skewering Laertes’s dad, Polonius, instead of Claudius, behind the arras at D, CANCELING the original SUBSTITUTION at A . Itself a natural consequence of the failed SYNTHESIS at C , wherein the ‘play within a play’ tipped the hand of Hamlet’s revenge (E-D-C ; reverse temporal motivation). That was Fortinbras’s secret: the plot, and virtually every OBVIATION , is psychologically motivated backward, giving the protagonists a kind of precognitive view of what will happen — a sort of ‘future memory,’ or future-in-its-own-past.” Coyote: “So let me get this straight: the death of Claudius motivated the duel, which in turn motivated Laertes to act in collusion with Claudius because Hamlet had taken out his illocutionary opposite at D . And that, in turn, happened precisely because the dumb show SYNTHESIS , at C , showed the opposite of what it 112

Obviation

was supposed to show, consequent upon Polonius’s ‘wise words’ at B , which naturally came about because of Hamlet’s decision to act himself mad at A . Just who is this Fortinbras guy, anyway? Did he actually live time backward, like the wizard Merlin in King Arthur’s court?” Roy: “No, he was only doing what any straight-thinking Norse leader would do,: act berserk, instead of merely mad. And besides, this is only a myth, and a myth is always transparent to itself. Just like real life, as it were.” Coyote: “And behind that prima facie evidence — the Plot — lies another subplot, eh? Like the one that moved Fortinbras in what you humans would like to call Shakespeare’s subconscious. Lay it on, Roy, lay it on real thick.” Roy: “No need to get bent out of shape. Backward, forward, what’s the difference? There is much good evidence that people are in fact motivated by real or anticipated future events, that we remember the future at least as well as we remember the past. But we have a great fear, or hesitation, about admitting that fact to ourselves. It terrifies people, Coyote, like the tree, and forces them to tell myths instead, like ‘mostly harmless’ surrogates.” Coyote: “So what is really going on in OBVIATION ?” Roy: “I’d tell ya, but then I’d have to show ya, which I will in fact do, in figure 8. But first, see, a metaphor or trope is not what it seems to be. It is the thin edge of the wedge of something much larger, something that is totally encompassing.” Coyote: “Like a joke or a pun disqualifies itself, keeps the possibility of an all-encompassing humor from getting out and disintegrating the world of commonplace, respectable seriousness. That is why people pretend to hate puns — they destroy language’s ability to picture, which is the legal basis of, among other things, morality.” Roy: “The figure-ground reversal, as in Hamlet, The Obvious, and Fortinbras, The Unobvious, is the SECOND POWER , or what mathematicians could call the POWER SET of the world of metaphors. All the metaphors; not only jokes and puns but all the secular, religious, artistic, and scientific metaphors Obviation

113

that make up the whole library of our ability to picture facts to ourselves.” Coyote: “So now don’t tell me, Roy, let me guess: there is a THIRD POWER that controls the world and action of figure-ground reversals just as surely as figure-ground reversal itself controls our ability to intuit, to imagine, to remember, to conceive mentally. And that THIRD POWER is OBVIATION .” Roy: “Not so fast, Coyote. It is the end-result of OBVIATION , the sublime motivator of the whole obviative process. It is what Hegel called SUBLATION : underdetermining the sides, sub-latio, just as re-latio means ‘relation,’ putting the sides together.” Coyote: “Then sublation would be the opposite of both sparagmos and SYNTHESIS . THIS , I gotta see!” Roy: “You’ll see it in a minute, and it goes like this: if a myth, tale, or legend, or an explanation (which is the same thing) is a verbal picture of itself, or an image told in many episodes — each substituted for the previous— then it must have a point of OBVIATION . A vanishing point where all its episodes and pictographic details merge together to form a single holographic entity, the tiniest part of which is equal to the whole.” Coyote: “Don Juan calls this the ‘abstract core’ of the story, the part that cannot be verbalized no matter how many times you repeat it. By contrast, of course, I am just a concrete flake.” Roy: “Save your archaeology for Indiana Jones. To illustrate why this must be so and what OBVIATION means (‘to anticipate and dispose of ’), perform a simple experiment: Using a light source, project the image of a triangle, the simplest linear figure, through an inverting lens and onto a screen, as with a slide projector. Now the ‘image’ itself, the triangle, is exactly the same (e.g., isomorphic) throughout the sequence, though it shows as right-side-up and upside-down at opposite ends of the continuum. But at the focal point of the lens — which ‘twists’ the image through 180 degrees — the isomorphic image exists as a dimensionless point.” Coyote: “That is the vanishing point of knowledge and the emer114 Obviation

gence of silent knowledge that the MYTHODOLOGY of OBVIATION seeks to establish? Now I see it.” Roy: “Now I don’t. The Creator need not have created the world after all, but only the MYTH of the world’s creation. In short, there is no universe of extensions (e.g., space or time) but that there must be, at some point in its continuum, a nondimensional abstract core, an UNEXTENDED image, that is isomorphic with all reality. That point is both the origin and the demise of all the stories or explanations that could be told of it.” Coyote: “ What Hamlet and Laertes or Hamlet and Fortinbras knew but could not tell each other . . . ” Roy: “ . . . or even themselves . . . ” Coyote: “ . . . each being the result of false claims made upon the other, that the world as they knew it goes all the way through that point of NONEXTENSION and comes out the other side.” Roy: “They were like players in a chess game, each playing the inside of the other’s strategy.” Coyote: “But from a parallactic viewpoint there was only one strategy after all, the one that the GAME itself knows.” Roy: “Goes to Wagner’s Law: ‘Of all the possible things that could happen in the next moment, only one of them will.’” Coyote: “Goes to Shakespeare’s insight: There Are More Things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than Are Dreamt in Your . . . ” Roy: “OBVIATION . What is actually OBVIATED in a myth is the self-sustaining structure of three-dimensional reality — the kind of mathematical approximation in which ‘dimension’ becomes a viable means of describing space through the dependency of each particular ‘dimension’ upon the other two (add more if you want to really screw yourself up).” Coyote: “In this sense people would have myths, or try to know the world of experience through them in order to OBVIATE the kinds of problems that spatial extension poses for them.” Roy: “Figure 7, created from the self-inversion of Penrose’s ‘impossible’ tribar, makes use of the OBVIATION diagram itself to dramatize the ‘dimensional’ perplex of the OBVIATION proObviation

115

cess. In this case the holographic aspect of OBVIATION is very hard to miss . . . ” Coyote: “ . . . or comprehend, either . . . ” Roy: “That, too. Look at figure 7; each of the lettered (A, B, C ) SUBSTITUTIONS is situated at a point of paradox vis-à-vis the other two points on its particular triangle, and each is at the opposite-but-coordinate point (the NOT-NOT ) of the SUBSTITUTION that is opposite to it within the whole (e.g., two triangles) figure.” Coyote: “This means that the two triangles that form the figure itself stand in a relation of complete cancellation to one another, as well as to themselves. Each OBVIATES itself, and also the positioning of the other. Thus, since each triangle by itself comprises and exhibits the effect of three-dimensional OBVIATION , and does so by virtue of the other, a totally HOLOGRAPHIC set of procedural possibilities is set up. This means that any three SUBSTITUTIONAL points on the whole figure can be used to form an OBVIATIONAL triangle in opposition to any three others.” Roy: “It means much more than that, Coyote. It means that each SUBSTITUTION creates and manifests a whole world unto itself, that each could act fully on a par with the others. Every particular SUBSTITUTION within an OBVIATION is, from its own perspective, an axis upon which the whole thing turns. You could begin the myth at any point, provided you come full paradox around the diagram, and complete it with a SUBLATION at that point.” Coyote: “So back to the story of Hamlet. Beginning and ending at point B we have the equally probable drama entitled: ‘Polonius; Wise Soothsayer of Elsinore, And How He Got His Errant Son-in-Law to Prove His Words True.’ Beginning and ending at point C : ‘The Smart Dumb-Show Players, And How They Tricked a Real Nephew into Murdering His False Uncle.’ Beginning and ending at D : ‘It’s Curtains for You; How a Simple Tapestry Brought Down Two Adults with a Single Blow.’ Roy: “Notwithstanding the main point, A-SUBLATION : ‘And 116

Obviation

7. Pragmatic Afterlife Re-Envisioned: What Laertes Saw in Hamlet

Flights of ANGLES . Sing Thee to Thy Rest.’ Laertes saw it all in a flash; both past-ness and futurity are actually consumed by the effort to get past it. Laertes did not see that both Hamlet and Fortinbras were living each other’s obviation backward, he only saw a way out. Fortinbras saw a way in. Laertes saw a PARADOX .” Coyote: “Doctor Hamlet, Esq., from Wittenberg, and Doctor Fortinbras, Inq. from the School of Hard Knox.” Roy: “And also, alas, Doctor FAUSTUS , Relativity Incarnate, the secret motivator of the whole Reformation period upon which Shakespeare himself had cut his teeth. The Creator, Coyote, had no need to create the physical, material universe, but only create the MYTH of the world’s creation.” Coyote: “ Once that myth was OBVIATED , come full circle, He was already there at the Beginning. Point A prime: Alpha et Omega. ‘The Story of a Simple SUPREME BEING , And How He Got the UNIVERSE to Do His Work for Him.’” Obviation

117

Roy: “What we have here, Coyote, in the guise of a Supreme Being, is SUBLATION , the Buck that Never Stops, the sublime motivation, or HOLOGRAPHIC movement, of the whole creation. It is the AUTOMIMETIC AGE, ROY that imitates you, models you, if you will, far better than you could ever imitate or model it.” Coyote: “So Spengler should have called this the HAMLET Culture instead of the FAUSTIAN Culture, though there is that little thing about selling one’s soul to the devil for power, or at least profit.” Roy: “Prince Hamlet did something far worse: he sold his soul to AUTOMIMETIC AGENCY .” Coyote: “And Prince Fortinbras bought it, lock, stock, and barrel.” Roy: “He bought it in what might be called the SUBLATIVE tense, or mode, a kind of exponential realization of the subjunctive, or ‘as if,’ and is intimately related to the agentive confusion between past-in-its-own-future and future-in-its-own-past.” Coyote: “Like pragmatic afterlife, ‘energy-ghost persistence’ is the place where the AUTOMIMETIC AGENCY of the myth takes over from the storyteller? Like the Last Judgment is the youngest judgment of all?” Roy: “Like Paul Riceour’s famous observation that ‘the meaning of a myth does not lie behind it, but in front of it.’ And especially like that age-old mistake that astronomers make about the so-called fossil, light that reaches us from distant objects out in interstellar space, and gives us all the information we will ever know about the universe.” Coyote: “We have no evidence at all that the light is not its own AUTOMIMETIC AGENCY , stealing its own message, as it were.” Roy: “But we have plenty of evidence that it is, such as Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2. If the velocity of light is a constant, as Einstein showed is the case, then everything else is its AUTOMIMETIC variable. For by transposition, c, the velocity of light, is equal to the square root of energy divided by mass and, as in any other quadratic equation, the flux of universal transformation can 118 Obviation

take either positive or negative values. It copies the way that the universe behaves better than the universe can copy it; it steals its own message.” Coyote: “So light in and of itself is the meaning and the myth of the universe, the subliminal of the subluminal, as it were. As you once put it, Roy, ‘Light artificially ages the cosmic expanses around it as it pretends to move through them, growing FOREVER YOUNGER as it travels; it gives us a totally dissimulative picture of the motion and composition of the universe.’ (Take that, Caltech!) Light is the ultimate gravity lens (see fig. 7).” Roy: “In this case seeing is not quite the same thing as believing — in fact, it is the very opposite. I could show thee infinity in a nutshell.” Coyote: “And I thee in a nutcase. You have shed absolutely no light on the subject, and as you yourself have put it [chap. 1]: ‘The job of stars is staying up all night / to intimate insouciance to the mind.’” Roy: “And as I myself have written, in my not-so-very-famous afterword to On the Order of Chaos: What medium of representation shall we use to represent that which represents itself better than we can represent it, that automimetic quality that Richard Dawkins has called the ‘meme’ (The cat family seems to have evolved by ‘stalking’ — imitating its own nonpresence to its prey, so I have used it here as a totem for the automimetic; Hamlet (‘To be or not to be’) is the automimetic hero of our literature. Wittgenstein (‘We picture facts to ourselves’) was the philosopher of the meme). Language itself acquires a self-similarity when it mimes the things of which it speaks, and because that self-similarity is both tighter than logic and looser than fiction, much of my prose seems to be about itself in a sort of free-associational wordplay.” Coyote: “Cheer up, Roy. You’ve made it Big Time — you’re way up there with Erving Goffman, you know, ‘Secretly controlling the one who thinks they’ve been controlling you all along, and Obviation

119

then allowing them to imagine that they have been doing the same thing to you, but only as COVER for the fact that it was really two different people all along and we, ourselves, none the wiser . . . ” Roy: “Nor even they, like ships passing . . . CHIPS parsing . . . CHAPS POSING . . . ” Coyote: “KNIGHTS , Roy, KNIGHTS , like KNIGHTS PISSING IN THE SHAFT . Dammit, can’t even get a simple cliché straight. What this whole thing reminds me of is the voice of the meme, similar to how the science fiction authors used to talk about The VOICE .” VOICE of the Meme

Roy: “Reminds me of the Daribi tale of Pozhubo, po wabo, “he utters,” being (scant wonder) an irregular verb in that language. The infix zhu here indicates ‘exclusive,’ so his name means ‘He (exclusive) speaks.’” Coyote: “The fully autonomous, no-holds-barred one liner.” Roy: “Tell me about it: Some children were going along the Tua River. They came across a pandanus tree growing by the water, took some fruit from it, and returned home. When they broke open the fruit pod to prepare it for cooking, they found a man inside, who leapt out and ran into a drum, carrying a miniature bow and arrows with him. All of the men came together, and one decided to look into the drum. When he did so, the little man shot him in the eye with an arrow, and he died. Then another man got up and looked into the drum, and he was shot in the eye and killed also. This went on until all the men in the line were killed except one. He didn’t know about the little man in the drum. He slept and had a dream in which his brothers came and said, ‘We were all killed by a little man who is inside the drum; he shot us each in the eye.’ In the morning the man arose and went to find a sogoyezibidi (shaman). The sogoyezibidi came up to the house, and the 120

Obviation

man told his wife to kill a pig. After they had cooked and eaten the pig the sogoyezibidi smoked some tobacco and then told the man that his brothers had indeed been killed by a man in the drum when they had looked inside. Then the man fastened a stone to the top of the drum and another to the bottom and carried it outside. The man said, ‘I’ll let him out here.’ The little man in the drum, however, said, ‘You may not let me out here or in your garden; carry me to another place and release me.’ They came to another place, and the man said he would let the little man out there, but he replied, ‘No, you hunt here and make your gardens here.’ They came to the mountain Dogu, and again the man wanted to release him, but he said, ‘No, keep carrying me.’ Finally they came to the two mountains called Kegena and Samanawe, and the man opened the drum and looked inside. But the little man had already gone to the mountain, and shouted back, ‘I’ve gone already.’ Then the little man shouted down that the man should cut off all his hair. When he had done this he called back, and the little man told him to take his clothes off. He said, ‘I have taken them off.’ ‘Alright, now cut your earlobes.’ ‘Done.’ ‘Now cut your nasal septum.’ ‘Done.’ ‘Now cut your penis.’ The man went to cut his penis, but now he fell dead. The little man up on the mountain said, ‘Oho, oho.’ People used to see his campfire up on the mountain, but now he has gone. His name was Pozhubo.” Coyote: “So the difference between the visual and the acoustical is the meme.” Roy: “Now cut your tail, Coyote.” Coyote: “And the difference between the VOICE and the CHOICE is the command.” Roy: “Now cut your talk.” Coyote (gagging): “So where did the command decision come from?” Roy: “It’s where it went that counts.” Coyote: “And where did it go?” Obviation

121

Roy: “It OBVIATED , it recapitulated all the indignities suffered upon the person of its hapless victim.” Coyote: “The tale begins with an anomaly, a miniature human being replete with bow and arrows, discovered within a pandanus pod (SUBSTITUTION A : miniature person for pandanus pod). Freed of its integument, the imago rushes into the likewise tubular body of the characteristic hourglass-shaped drum. It exchanges one sort of tubular integument for another, but it is significant in that the drum is a sound-producing communicative device (SUBSTITUTION B : drum for imago, soundproducing integument for silent edible one). As the men peer into the drum, one by one, to try and discern the shape of their visitor, they are visually fixated, shot, and killed. The attempt to foil the visitor by recourse to visual communication is turned to the visitor’s advantage; the men render themselves vulnerable by exposing their eyes (SYNTHESIS C : eye-death for attempted communication).” Roy: “The surviving man realizes that a different sort of ‘seeing,’ that of the shaman, is in order, and, accordingly, he brings one, who is able to divine the identity of the visitor and confirm the purport of the man’s dream (CANCELLATION D : begin Falling Action: spiritual for secular communication, D-A , taking out the beginning of the tale).” Coyote: “I get it. Here’s where the meme kicks in. Made aware of the danger, the man caps each end of the drum with a stone, impervious to arrows as well as sight (CANCELLATION E, E-B : stone for tympanum, opening or entering of drum. The little man’s chosen medium for miscommunication has been OBVIATED . But now, as the man carries him off to be released, the little man invokes the final means of sound-communication, command (CANCELLATION F, F-C, SPARAGMOS : death on command for eye-death).” Roy: “OBVIATION . NOT A for NOT D, MEME for DREAM . The little man effectively changes places with the surviving human being, ordering him to replicate on his own person the in122

Obviation

dignities that the little man has suffered (removing his hair and clothing to represent removal of the pandanus pod, cutting his earlobes to represent the drum, and cutting his nose and penis, appendages locally associated explicitly with arrows). Oh isn’t life wonderful, Coyote?” Coyote: “In Jena geht Es wunderlich! SUBLATION: THE STOP BUCKS HERE ! Even the little man, seen before up on the mountain, is now gone.” Roy: “And his name was Pozhubo: ‘He speaks EXCLUSIVELY .’” Coyote: “Das ist buchstabirt H E G E L auf Deutsch!” Roy: “Und zwar L A E R T E S auf Änglisch.” Coyote: “You didn’t bother to translate.” Roy: “Nor shall I; it is selbstverstandlich. At Harvard they told me I must learn German if I wanted to be an astronomer.” Coyote: “And look where it got you, Roy: the MEME , the secret dream of all anthropologists, the DATA that kicks your ass, gets up, walks by itself, talks by itself, and GETS A LIFE of its very own.” Roy: “The TONAL : you can dress it up, but can you take it out?” Coyote: “You’ll never get lonely on dates anymore.” Roy: “I drink To make OTHER PEOPLE more interesting.” Life on the Edge: The MEME that’s on the BEAM Coyote: “The strange and wonderful story of Ella.” Roy: “If she had anything, she had edge.” Coyote: “She positively sparkled.” Roy: “Negatively, too. What folktales miss in the process of institutionalization, or what could be called de-naturing, is the cutting edge of risk or charm, which turns what Don Juan calls intent into its object.” Coyote: “Once upon a time what we now think of as myths or folktales were creative instruments of intent, actual spells through which unbelievable transformations were brought about.” Roy: “Sonnets. WEAPONS .” Coyote: “In cases of extreme overfamiliarization, like the story of Obviation

123

Cinderella, the tendency is to overcompensate this loss with attribution of magic, caricature, sentimentality, and much worse.” Roy: “The details of the plot and characterization are well known, and for our purposes all that is necessary is to isolate the axes of cross-axial cancellation (D-AJ E-B , and F -O), noting only that, as usual, each SUBSTITUTION includes a great deal of subsidiary incidentalization.” Coyote: “Thus we have D-A : godmother-stepmother (coachpumpkin, horses-rats, FOOT men-mice); E-B , midnight at the Ball, down among the cinders (chafing debutante–desprized stepdaughter, no time left, all the time in the world, glitteratihousehold vermin); F-C : glass slipper-slip glasser narcissism (transparent footwear — self-adulation in mirror, splendidattire-rags, exclusion of inclusive Ella, inclusion of exclusive Ella). In short, we have a BALL .” Roy: “In long, we have a HALL .” Coyote: “Yah, tell me about it: ‘RATS — wrong FOOT man,’ ‘stroke of midnight — stoke at midday,’ ‘let’s see some PRINTS — let’s be some CHINTZ. ’” Roy: “In cases like this the only real way to rescue the Edge of Intent is not only to tell the tale backward, but re-conceive it entirely on that MEME : SPLINTERELLA

Once, in a room made of glass, in a tower made of glass, in a palace made of glass, in a kingdom made of glass, lived a LASS made of glass. She could see through everything — even her parents were trance ones, like a transom over the glass door, and all she had for company were some PRINTS made by a muddy foot. She longed for the earth, and the cinders, and the RATS . Way down below she saw a BALL , which could be the earth, so she danced with delight, leaving non-PRINTS all the way, till it got to be day. At the crack of dawn, down on the lawn. And down on the ground, all spinning around, from out of the clay, came a negative image, that looked like a scrimmage. It was her 124

Obviation

HAIRY SOD MOTHER ! She marshalled her forces, instead of coach-horses, said RATS , and sang her magic song:

What shall we do with a drunkin punkin, What shall we do with a drunkin punkin what shall we do with a drunkin punkin Ear-lai in the morning? Way, hey, and UP she rises, Way, hey, and UP she rises, Way, hey, and UP she rises, Ear-lai in the morning. And down came the glass, which fell on its ass, and down came the tower, at that very bitching hour, and down came the splinters, which fell among the cinders. And down came her fella, and he called her SPLINTERELLA . And out of the fella she made her some PRINTS , and out of the blisters she made her some sisters. She slept with the PRINTS , and made him a father, she slept with the sisters and burned them to cinders. And all through the winters she gouged them with splinters — no mother, no father, no fuss and no bother, no RATS and no cats and no bats in the belfry. No one thing, no OTHER , no HAIRY SOD MOTHER — SHE’S DOWN IN THE DUST AND SHE LIKES IT THAT WAY ! Till one day, unknowing — the embers were glowing — emerged just the mate she had wanted always. A SCARY CLOD BROTHER , proceeded to smother, her hopes and her fears and her frightful INCEST . He blew in her ear, and he bloodied her nose, and he dressed her all up in the fanciest clothes.” Coyote: “Hoo boy, Roy, you just RECTIFIED my whole life. (sings): ‘Hey, BABA YAGA , hey, BABA YAGA . . .” Roy: (from a letter by Professor James Frederick Wiener to the author) “The trouble with OBVIATION , Roy, is that it SCARES people.” Obviation

125

Coyote: “Hmmmm — Mahatma Gandhi, Wallace Stevens, Groucho Marx — scars them, too. Look what you done to their MYTH , Roy. Why reconceive a story backwards when the same set of oppositions is driving it forward?” Roy: “That, my friend, is the Golden Section secret of psychoanalysis and the kind of retrospective view you get of a dream when you try to tell its story to yourself afterward. It’s just as the poet Howard Nemerov said: ‘The interpretation is the next room of the dream.’” Coyote: “So you are both trying to get the gist of what Freud called ‘the dreamworker. ’” Roy: “Precisely. The one who dreams you is exactly the same as the one you dream — regardless of whether that dream is a psychoanalytic trance-formation, a myth, a symphony, or even a sonnet. It is a self-aware manifestation of what Don Juan called The Definitive Journey.” Coyote: “If you can dream it UP , you can dream it DOWN .” Roy: “The MEME , the AUTOMIMETIC AGENCY , as we have seen, will take any guise necessary to lure you into that journey — the LUMINOUS EGG or COCOON , the LUCID DREAM , sometimes a sonnet, more often the kind of LUMINOUS MUSIC we get from very special composers such as Jan Sibelius or Antonio Vivaldi.” Coyote: “Il Prete Rosso, they called him, ‘The Red Priest,’ the redbearded dreamworker from Venice . . . Roy: “ “Ah, Venezzia (background music, Vivaldi’s Concerto per Trombo Marina in C). Il Prete Rosso All cats make secrets, taking down their minds, which we make up for them, domesticate. As horses do for violins, they mate in tandem with the strutting of behinds, the afterlife of cat — eviscerate. 126

Obviation

So music makes its cause of double-binds and double-stops behind Venetian blinds; they also serve who only counter weight. No sweep of bow but makes the stallion groan, a lente, lente, currite, what’s your hurry? You be the judge, and I shall rape the jury. His beard was red, but mind the undertone, felicitatis nocte, soft and purry, No cat but keeps a secret of its own. Coyote: “Dennis the Menace from Venice.” Roy: “Venison, son: it’s where the BUCK stops.” ACOUSTIC SUBLATION

Coyote: “DEER POWER is the most careful, courteous, and prescient power known. SUBLATION — ‘The Stag at which your Lordship every winter shoots’ — is completely indefinable, arrested forever in the twilight between life and death. It stays forever at the point of its own transilience.” Roy: “Rilke, in the third sonnet of the second part of Sonnets to Orpheus, speaks of mirrors as ‘wasters of the empty gallery, when the twilight happens, wide as the woods,’ and of the chandelier, or luster, that ‘goes through the impenetrable twilight of the mirrors like a seventeen-point buck through the forest at dusk.’” Coyote: “We have heard that the intimately translucent Fifth Symphony of Sibelius was the consequence of a kind of shamanism — soul-capture of the composer by the wild swan. Seven of which you saw at Porvoo, Finland, remember?” Roy: “But we can only guess that the magnificently autumnal Seventh is the hoabidi of forest itself, a powerful, ancient stag harmonizing death and the rutting season in a long, full sweep of melody. That the main theme (trombones, marked sonore Obviation

127

in the score) is likely the grandest symphonic theme ever conceived — They Buck against the Wind quasi una fantasia Though all we know of motion makes a liar of languages, and music moves too slow, and day mates night in equinoctial fire — they buck against the wind and sideways go. And elegant, the stars the birches sire, decamping in a swath the autumn blow — the slate of spreading lakes like smoke below, they buck against the wind and sideways go. The ghosts of sun and shade, the shattered choir, the sidelong buck that, slantwise with desire, remodels wind in whistling to the doe — the night above the lake like undertow — where galaxies like hooded owls conspire and buck against the wind and sideways go.” Coyote: “In the final analysis, both music and shamanism, like lifeforms themselves, are basically kinesthetic phenomena. What is going on in the Fourth and Seventh symphonies is far too serious to be either joyful or tragic, and even philosophy, with its static questions, is shaken and overcome.” Roy: “You forget yourself. This is a stag, as the English poet Thompson put it, ‘A stag of warrant, a stag, a stag / a runnable stag with kingly crop . . . ‘ A buruhoa in self-inverted double perspective, like what the New Ireland people call a malanggan.” Coyote: “In that case, let me try: Stag Party by Coyote The moon’s a swollen stag that walks the sky and bugles hollow down the white-boned cliffs, 128

Obviation

and flakes the fragile chalky shale, and sniffs fermenting brooks and fields-of staring white transparent grapes like globes of sleeping light and thickets cobwebbed silver in his eye. He tilts his gleaming tines to chase his does through groves of ash and blowing beech and pine and curves his supple new moon silver spine above their backs in grottoes where he ruts and valleys full of rotting wine and nuts, the whirling milkweed breath he coughs and blows will spray the slopes with golden seed-dust soon and banks where leaves like rusty jewels fall, the trombone shudder of his harem-call will echo through the forest hollows long and turn to frost as does the cricket’s song, sung soft beneath the mating of the moon.” Roy: “Yechhh . . . florid, heavy romanticism; I can imagine even Elgar and Rachmaninoff puking in the aisles!” Coyote: “What? And not from the podium? Well, that’s a change. But it’s also the point of Coyote Anthropology: without the estrangement of purely self-serving ornamentation, Roy, no explanation in the world is worth the effort of even spitting at it.” Roy: “SUBLATION — the ‘stag at which your Lordship every winter shoots,’ is completely indefinable, arrested forever at the midpoint between life and death — it stays forever at the point of its own transilience.” Coyote: “Like that mysterious IT that the caretakers were afraid of at Sibelius’s home, Villa Ainola? The one that grabbed you twice in the pit of the stomach in 1999, when you were visiting that hermetic solitude.” Roy: “It felt like G -force, and knocked the wind out of me.” Coyote: “Wood-wind?” Roy: “Soul wind: ‘it unexists to bring the rest to life.’ Sibelius was convinced that the different musical keys had concrete colorObviation

129

values. D major was ochre yellow, and F major was metallic dark green — like the tiles on the magnificent Finnish stove in his dining room, one of the places where the G -force grabbed me.” Coyote: “Music feels you in the gut! That was the stove in which, one night in the 1940s, Sibelius burned the never-to-be-revealed scores of three unpublished symphonies and twenty tone poems, as a conducting student of Thor Johnson told you back in 1957.” Roy: “That, according to Victor Sanchez, is what the Indians of Mexico call ‘telling the story of your life to Grandfather Fire’: A recapitulation of The Definitive Journey.” Coyote: “So — what was the second time you got grabbed by the ghost-that-was-not-a-ghost?” Roy: “See, they had not disturbed the blankets on the cot in Sibelius’s study, where he died in 1956. Secretly, when no one was looking, I touched them, and ZOWIE ! I was arrested. I went into the kitchen, which was furnished in 1950s decor, just like my parents’ kitchen in Cleveland, where I had first heard the Fourth Symphony on a little plastic radio. I was floored; I went into immediate recapitulation.” Coyote: “Roy’s backward-Cinderella story; PRAGMATIC OBJECTIVITY — the tree that is neither its own shadow, nor the tree itself . . . ” ROY : “That does not even begin to describe it. Symphony #4 in A Minor A symphony is too remote to cry, the thought of sound unblinking is absurd, apology is silence. Undeterred, emotion fills the space that asks it why, that cannot tell the listened from the heard unspoken sound, Statistics is the lie that number makes of quality; the eye will never see the substance of the word. 130 Obviation

The sun that walks the birch trees through the ways that shadows make to hide reflection’s pause. The ghost of loneliness, the wraith of haze, the red of passion’s voice when life withdraws, the frost that covers stillness with its gauze, the space between the stars that night displays.” Particle Degradation: The FACT of Representation Coyote: “The crisis that came upon Sibelius during the composition of his Fourth Symphony was something much larger than the ‘mid-life crisis’ that may have afflicated him at the time.” Roy: “The so-called winter pastorale; ‘alone with nature’s breathing things,’ as Rosa Newmarch put it. The crisis between orchestral over-decoration and the effective nature of physical reality.” Coyote: “It was far more than that, something that Goethe had set in motion with his re-grounding of nature-knowledge on holographic principles, ‘to bring it closer to the meaningful.’ It was the crisis of representation itself, the quintessential split between the grandiosely aesthetic and the acutely scientific.” Roy: “Each being the result of false claims made upon the other. Like the best fiction approaches, the acute objectification of science as a limit, whereas the best nonfiction ‘reads like a novel,’ as they say.” Coyote: “No anthropologist has ever seen or experienced a society, a culture, or even the people they were working with. Even in the most intimate details of their interaction with those people, not to speak of recorded notes or what is called ‘theory,’ all the anthropologist ever experiences is a REPRESENTATION of the people or culture they PRETEND to study, as well as of themselves representing that representation.” Roy: “No artist or scientist has ever seen, experienced, or even intuited the object, let alone the subject, of their representations, but only the action, or working-out, of the process of representation itself.” Coyote: “That was the essence of Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen DeclaObviation

131

ration: that experiments performed out of scale with the abilities of human beings to make them meaningful on their own scale of experiential reality are doomed to a bizarre sort of cognitive dissonance or self-dyslexia akin to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, or the quizzical thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s Cat.” Roy: “It goes to the principle of magnification, the basic tool used for generations by natural scientists in all disciplines. As Goethe put it, ‘telescopes and microscopes magnify the insignificant.’ Most of the distant galaxies we can observe are empirically smaller than germs, whereas, as an American poet put it, ‘electrons deify a razor-blade into a mountain range.’” Coyote: “The idea of the particle as a basic constitutive unit (or of the unit as a particle) either of matter/energy reality or of the way it must be represented, plays a strangely ambivalent role in this, a sort of zero-sum determiner, or subject/object shifter.” Roy: “What I have elsewhere described as particle degradation — the subliminal decay of the represented into the field of representation — and vice-versa. Self-inverting double perspective.” Coyote: “On the strictly experiential, or plain-sight empirical scale, physical and representational value-attributions change places when the tolerance limits of ambiguity are reached. Imaginably physical particles degrade into quizzical and even droll parts of the lexical inventory-sound-values like ‘quark,’ ‘neutrino,’ and ‘gauge boson.’ Whereas the conventional items of vocabulary turn into grotesque, particle-like units — phonemes, morphemes, sememes — when disconnected from meaningful statements at the microscopic level.” Roy: “Lak mamaran, ‘luck in the double-focus.’ New Ireland malanggan carvers create their surrealistic masterpieces ‘To Remember the Faces of the Dead,’ as Tom Maschio so eloquently put it.” Coyote: “So they might as well have been representing you, eh? Great symphonies turn into sonnets, and these turn into pure 132 Obviation

conceits about the role of sound in naming and educing the facts of empirical reality.” Roy: “Funny you should mention that, for it brings us back to the details of Sibelius’s compositional crisis, the brute facts of subliminal representation. The crisis that physics experienced about the matter-energy SUBLATION that resulted in Planck’s quantum hypothesis, occurred at the same time — roughly 1900 — as Heinrich Schenker’s holographic theory arose about the germmotif and its iterative self-interference patterning in classical music.” Roy: “The study of nature, on one hand, and the close examination of musical culture on the other, were approaching the same ends by different means. The Sibelius crisis, which actually lasted from 1911 to 1919, existed at a point of cross-fertilization between the two — roughly coincident with Einstein’s work on Relativity.” Coyote: “Like my Stag, eh? Or like Dylan Thomas: ‘My craft, or sullen art, exercised while the moon rages.’” Roy: “Or like W. B. Yeats: ‘Woven of the light and the half-light.’ Schenker’s claims that music’s holographic underdeterminations are in fact life-forms in their own right are OBVIATED in the quasi-naturalistic realizations of Sibelius’s works (swans, stags, cold red suns), which are in fact stupendous representations of sound in its own body.” Coyote: “Whereas, on the other hand, photons, quarks, neutrinos, and gaugebosons are misrepresentations of the sound-values that constitute their only reality.” Roy: “There is no such thing as a single sense; the fact is that the senses must imitate one another in order to apprehend their own values as such, that is, the sonnet of the symphony, and the symphony of the sonnet.” Coyote: “That thing, call it IT or whatever you will, which can imitate you better than you could ever imitate it, can also imitate itself better than itself could imitate itself.” Roy: “IT marks the point of closure between any conceivable repObviation

133

resentation and any conceivable reality . . . each being the result of false claims made upon the other.” Collective Expersonation that Takes on a Life of Its Own Coyote: “Of all the structures, cultures, laws, constitutions, social organizations, and ways in which the forms and values of society are shared collectively among individuals . . . ” Roy: “All the ways in which the expersonative means of OBVIATION may be impersonated . . . ” Coyote: “Musical scores, literary texts, codicils, equations, periodic tables, artificial models or matrices of cosmic or national law or order . . . ” Roy: “Descriptions of things and of people, histories, genealogies, grammars, syntaxes, languages . . . ” Coyote: “Coyotes . . . ” Roy: “Coyotes . . . ” Coyote: “No static form of any kind carries the slightest hint of the impetus.” Roy: “Or holds in evidence any trace of the SUBLATION , of the motion, not to speak of the motivation that brought its conception into being in the first place.” Coyote: “Life in one long sentence.” Roy: “The definitive journey in one long OBVIATION .” Coyote: “Even the derivative in calculus is a contradiction in terms, dividing by zero, making a positive attribution of what amounts to speed or velocity in zero time (no time at all).” Roy: “NOT DOING ; the extensional quality of space has been OBVIATED , given that we measure the time factor by putting the temporal interval in the denominator, in this case dividing by the difference between extension and itself.” Coyote: “The NOT DOING of the calculus works in a dimension that is perpendicular to time.” Roy: “The calculus of OBVIATION works in a dimension that is perpendicular to extension in all its forms.” Coyote: “The structure of OBVIATION is the OBVIATION of structure.” 134 Obviation

Roy: “So any static structure or design, whatever its origin or purpose, is likewise a palpable fiction or a fantasy based on the potential arrest in space and time of the OBVIATIONAL process that brought it into being in the first place.” Coyote: “They BUCK against the wind and sideways go.” Roy: “There is no Hamlet quite like Hamlet, not even Hamlet himself.” Coyote: “Life is NOT a stage, and we are NOT merely players.” Roy: “We are LUMINOUS BEINGS conceived in dreaming and merging eventually with the background of the dream. Like the Daribi buruhoa, and like what the Australian aborigines call THE DREAMING , or ‘dreamtime.’” Coyote: “Dreaming is EXPERSONATION, SUBLATION is EXPERSONATION , and all we know of secular life is an IMPERSONATION .” Roy: “The most outrageous form of social organization ever conceived is that of the Meso-American warriors’ party— a severely regimented antisocial organization whose whole purpose and goal is the OBVIATION of its worldly and other-worldly status. It is to EXPERSONATE individuality itself and fuse into a single BEING .” Coyote: “Like a corporation that really lives up to its promises, it actually becomes the LOGO of its self-imaged advertising.” Roy: “CEO , Coyote: CONTROLLED EXPERSONATIONAL ORGANIZER. ” Coyote: “In that case the LOGO would be the HUNAB KU working in a dimension that is perpendicular to what Don Juan calls the axis of perception.” Roy: “The HUNAB KU is a highly abstract imaging of the basis of ail perception, representation included. As a mutual overlapping, or in fact occlusion or ‘eclipse’ of the first and second attentions by one another, it belongs to neither and is in fact a visual impossibility showing what that occlusion would mean when seen from the vantage point of the THIRD ATTENTION .” Coyote: “Which automatically kills you, or comes upon you at the point of death, if you even try.” Obviation

135

Roy: “The death parallax: to burn with the fire from within. If one were only able to sustain oneself, ‘luck in the double focus.’ Within that focus one would be able to die and keep an awareness, that is, treat even immortality itself as a sort of anticlimactic realization. But don’t hold your breath, and be careful when crossing your eyes.’” Coyote: “This happens to some people only inadvertently, through no ‘fault’ of their own, and is commonly known (which means basically unknown) as ‘spontaneous combustion in human beings.’ Rather contemptuously, Don Juan calls that ‘the Eagle’s Gift,’ referring to the Meso-American conception of the super TONAL of all TONAL s, the ultra-being called the EAGLE , which eats you when you die.” Roy: “Ectoplasmic endocannibalism; you are what you eat. Comes of insufficient detachment from the description or the items of the inventory. The EAGLE is made up of all the things that could not get past the EAGLE and died trying. EAGLE CITY is something like Las Vegas: what preys there, stays there. It’s full of good advice, though, about how to get past the EAGLE .” Coyote: “Would you take it?” Roy: “That would be like asking a gambler how he lost his chips. The EAGLE is actually a hybrid conglomerate made up of the quenched lifeforce elements of all aware beings in the universe that were not able to get past it. Don Juan: ‘They float like barges on the nagual.’” Coyote: “They buck against the wind and sideways go. ‘So how do you get past the EAGLE ?” Roy: “You ‘win the lottery,’ is what a gigantic redwood tree told a friend of mine in California. Don Juan says you can either do it by making a full and complete recapitulation of your life (like the Buddha did under the Bo tree), or by dreaming (making your physical body and your energy body into one and the same thing).” Coyote: “But that is the exact description of the HUNAB KU .” Roy: “And an inexact description of the CORPORATION that uses the HUNAB KU as its LOGO .” 136 Obviation

Coyote: “So what is an EXACT description of the CORPORATION ?” Roy: “The definitive journey of the warriors’ party.” Coyote: “So I take it, from everything we’ve been saying in the past few pages, that the party is a picture of the journey, and the journey itself is a picture of the party. So far, so good. But, Roy, what exactly is a Warriors’ Party?” Roy: “ A perfect miniature, or scale model of the human race, with all the specific roles or attributes of its types of men and women moving in lockstep, fitting together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle — a kind of self-unity that only clicks in when all the component roles are moving in perfect synch with the totality.” Coyote: “So it’s an ideal type: always right, never wrong, like the U.S. Constitution, or what Lévi-Strauss calls an elementary structure of kinship.” Roy: “That would be the biggest mistake you could make about it. It is the OBVIATION of an ideal type — a structure that only becomes a structure when it works itself out in time and space.” Coyote: “So what is the basic precept, or historical model of the Warriors’ Party?” Roy: “A subliminal text etched in the memory alone, verbalized and objectified in Castaneda’s book The Eagle’s Gift as The Rule of the Nagual. Don Juan says that the ancient seers picked it up from ‘the faint reflection of man in the EAGLE ,’ much as Christians claim that God wrote their Bible, or Hindus maintain that their Vedas and Upanishads are implicit in the structure of the universe.” Coyote: “And that model would be . . . ?” Roy: “Well, it was not a model at all, just a kind of airplane-spotter’s manual, more or less, for the luminous bodies of the various types of men and women in their mutual intercalation into a Warriors’ Party. The problem with this is that second-attention realities like the luminous body make no sense when translated into the first attention, which is the only place where human beings can think or reason properly.” Coyote: “And that is why the seers of Don Juan’s movement made Obviation

137

an interpretation, and decided to ‘treat the rule as a map,’ or a picture of itself.” Roy: “And they didn’t do such a great job of it, either. Too mesmerized by the inherently counterintuitive designs of the second attention. What they failed to take into consideration was the fact that this was not a static, but a dynamic structure — a ‘map’ of movements and transformations.” Coyote: “Like the story of SPLINTERELLA : what they failed to take into consideration was the OBVIATION implicit in the Definitive Journey, the NOTDOING that is integral to the ways in which the various personifications of the Warrior’ Party must interact with one another.” Roy: “They were not exactly rocket scientists; clarity may be ‘almost a mistake,’ but it’s the only clarity we’ve got.” Coyote: “So in other words, the roles or personifications of the basic types of men and women only come clear when arranged in a perfectly synchronic schematic based on the NOT-DOING implicit in the HUNAB KU , the third attention mutual occlusion of the first and second attentions.” Roy: “Thus the Warriors’ Party makes it through the passage, or gets past the EAGLE , by virtue of the interference-patterning between the first and the second attentions. Much as a Sibelius symphony makes it on the interference patterning among the holographic iterations of its germ-motif.” Coyote: “That means that the mysterious IT you encountered in Sibelius’s home was grabbing at you from the Third Attention, like it actually forced you to write this text.” Roy: “It means much more than that. It means that the whole origin and source, as well as the accomplishment, of the Warrior’s Party is based on the fusion and interference patterning of two remarkable BEINGS : the DOUBLE MAN and the DOUBLE WOMAN . ‘Made first by the Creator to guide mankind to the passage, to abstract and negotiate the passage.’” Coyote: “A DOUBLE BEING has two left sides and two right sides, like the Hindu goddess Kali, each encompassing the four polar types of its respective gender and thereby encompassing 138 Obviation

the whole Warriors’ Party, both from within and without. I got it, Roy: the Warrior’s Party is itself the passage, which is both created and negotiated by its own machinations from within!” Roy: “Nice try, Coyote; close, but no cigar. The machinations, as you call them, are themselves a function of a much more encompassing figure-ground reversal, one that exercises its force from both sides of the EAGLE at once.” Coyote: “Knights, pissing in the shaft.” Roy: “The real SECRET behind the secret of the Warriors’s Party is that they take the DOUBLE WOMAN , or NAGUAL WOMAN , of a given party out past the EAGLE with the exit of the PREVIOUS party, so she can act as a BEACON to the remaining members of her own, drawing them onward through the Spannung, or NOT-DOING tension between the Third Attention and its mere approximation on the other side.” Coyote: “So it’s like the SUBLATION at the climax of Goethe’s Faust: ‘Die Ewig Weibliche zieht Uns hinan’ (The eternal feminine draws us onward).” Roy: “More like the perfect NIGHT TRAP , as navy pilots call it, on a storm-tossed carrier: She is the one called ‘Paddles,’ who guides you into a perfect landing.” Coyote: “Isn’t it a version of that NOT-DOING tension that creates the design of the Warriors’s Party itself? Who locks the respective ‘four kinds of women’ and ‘four kinds of men’ into their specific roles, tasks, and identities?” Roy: “Sure is, and that’s where the de facto interpretation of the rule, made by Don Juan’s lineage ‘screwed the pooch,’ as navy pilots would say. They made a fatal mistake: they ignored the internal cross-polarity inversion among the four kinds of women, which are actually eight kinds of women arranged into two PLANETS , according to the Rule: the four kinds of stalker (first attention) women, and the four opposite kinds of dreamer (second attention) women. And thereby they missed the significance of the tasks of the four kinds of men. Coyote: “Thus figure 8 is a RECTIFICATION of Don Juan’s peoples’ mistake?” Obviation

139

NORTH DOING

BEING

CHAOS

WEST

man of action

EAST ORDER

CHAOS

scholar

ORDER

nd co on se nti te at

man behind the scenes

DOING

t no ng i do o st ti ﬁr tten a

courier

BEING

SOUTH 8. Rectified Schematic for The Rule of the Nagual

Roy: “Damn straight, on your six, Paddles! Those warriors were unable to ENVISION the whole schematic precisely — couldn’t see the fourses for the threes, and now they’re out there spinning on some mad recapitulation of their own.” Coyote: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but the four poles of the diagram, assigning each of the kinds of women to one of the four directions of Native American cosmology, ignore the fact that there are two different kinds of women at that point, each holding the place of the oppositely directed significance of the other. Like they OBVIATE each other.” Roy: “Sure, the north wind woman is blunt and purposeful and should be called DOING ; her direction is opposite to that of the south wind woman, who is warm and nurturing and called ‘the Joker, the Warm Wind at your back’ who should be called BEING .” 140 Obviation

Coyote: “Like Marilyn Monroe. And the east wind woman, ‘she is called ORDER ,’ is the ‘Wind of Illumination’ like the goddess Athena. Her direction, in its whole sense and semblance, is opposite to that of the west wind woman, called ‘the spirit-catcher,’ whose thing is CHAOS .” Roy: “Which is putting it mildly; she is prone to moods of manic depression and outright insanity, and melancholia. ‘Warriors cry tears of blood,’ as Don Juan put it.” Coyote: “Like your paternal grandmother, Roy, and like your wonderful green-eyed lover, ‘Mother Right.’” Roy: “Let’s not get personal. These are immutable types, regardless of personnel changes, and the definitive work of the four kinds of male warriors can only be understood as that of transacting between two opposite polar types of women.” Coyote: “To be sure, the man of action, ‘great, fickle, humorous companion (businessman); the scholar, ‘honest and upright keeper of facts and histories’ (subtle if you don’t read close, Mr. Academic); the courier or scout, ‘the type of assistant who has to be told what to do’ (look him up on the Internet); and the man behind the scenes, ‘the unknown and unknowable man’ (spy, counterintelligence, anthropology), could not be made sense of in any other context than that of figure 8.” Roy: “Or, for that matter, in any context whatsoever in the case of the man behind the scenes since, according to the Rule, his body involuntarily emits a burst of CHAOS to keep the seer from seeing him.” Coyote: “The work or task of the man of action is to transact between the stations of the respective dreamer and stalker women at the top of the diagram, then turn second attention BEING into first attention DOING , where it counts. The work of the scholar, at the right, is to turn second attention CHAOS into first attention ORDER ; the work of the courier, at the bottom, is to turn second attention DOING into first attention BEING , which is why, Marilyn Monroe or no, he has to be told what to do.” Roy: “And, last but not least, the work of the man behind the Obviation

141

scenes, at the left, is, of course, to turn second attention ORDER into first attention CHAOS .” Coyote: “What Don Juan is doing here is something very special, something that is like backward OBVIATION . He is turning what seems to be an arbitrary description — such as ‘ally’ or sorcery implement — into a REALITY that happens precisely because you have taught yourself to feel it that way in your body.” Roy: “In his movement they call that ‘making your command BE the EAGLE’S command,’ but it is something that all human beings do unconsciously and inadvertently.” Coyote: “Hence the two key figures in the Warriors’ Party are UNMARKED in figure 9; the NAGUAL MAN and the NAGUAL WOMAN are invisible because they are the NOT-DOING of the whole thing. They are the alpha and the omega of the Definitive Journey.” Roy: “So we can think of the Warriors’ Party and its definitive journey as the subliminal IMPERSONATION of the EXPERSONATIONAL design of the HUNAB KU — in which the transactional activities, or tasks, of the four kinds of male warriors both dramatize and mask the flux between the first-attention and second-attention images of the HUNAB KU . They trace out the otherwise invisible effects of the NAGUAL MAN in the design.” Coyote: “Whereas, of course, the outer circle of the stalker women and the inner circle of the dreamer women hold between them the precocious nuptial flight of the NAGUAL WOMAN to the other side of the passage. She is not here because she is already there.” Roy: “Just as Sibelius, or whoever that was, forms the invisible link between the first attention reality of his home and the neverneverland of the symphony.” Coyote: “AUTOMIMETIC AGENCY . You’ve really got to stop writing sonnets, Roy.” Roy: “In The Power of Silence Don Juan says the the SorcererStoryteller ‘attains his whole perfection’ simply by the telling of stories, and then goes on to describe OBVIATION just as we 142

Obviation

have described it here. By that standard, making my command BE the EAGLE’S command, if I can get just one sonnet exactly right, or ‘perfect,’ I would need no Warriors’ Party and no Definitive Journey. I would get off scot free.” Coyote: “Don’t hold your breath.” Roy: “The sonnets write me, conceited though they be; just the perfect mate for a narcissistic egoist, with a God complex. You know what the Germans say about one of their greatest conductors.” Coyote: “‘When God has delusions of grandeur, He dreams He is Herbert von Karajan.’” Roy: “Yup. ‘Forget the universe. HE controls the ORCHESTRA .” Coyote: “The DREAMING of the MEME -ing is the MEME -ing of the DREAMING . Don’t quit your day job.” Roy: “The thing they call THE DREAMING forms the invisible link between the first attention secular reality of the Australian aborigines and the GREAT SPREAD OUT NOW of the Creative Epoch that some simplifiers have called the ‘dreamtime.’” Coyote: “Which the Walbiri people of central desert Australia call djugurba. They have it all — Warriors’ Party, Definitive Journey, Passage, and the description that turns into stark reality because you have made it part of your body. They live and think that way.” Roy: “‘Luck in the double-focus.’ The strangest thing of all is what a Polish ethnographer told me in Vienna: ‘The Walbiri have the ANTI-TWINS , Roy, just exactly as you have described them.’” Coyote: “The strangest thing is that you keep writing almost-good sonnets when you could be out there kicking ass.” Roy: “I am of a naturally modest disposition, Coyote, subtle but demure, and most normally very, very shy. When God goes into a severe depression, He almost always imagines He might be me.” Coyote: “Tell me about it. The ABSOLUTELY strangest thing in the whole wide world is the totally impeccable match between the rectified version of Don Juan’s Warriors’ Party and the socioObviation

143

spiritual schematic used by the Walbiri aborigines for every facet of their social and spiritual lives.” The Strangest Thing . . . Roy: “It’s like those famous last words: ‘See ya on the FLIP side’: DE DREAMTIME LADIES SING DIS SONG DOO-DAH, DOO-DAH, DE DREAMING TRACK AM TEN MILES LONG DID-JERIDOO DAH DAY, WALK ABOUT ALL NIGHT, WALK ABOUT ALL DAY, AH BET MA MONEY ON DE RED KANGAROO, SOMEBODY BET ON DE GREY .”

Coyote: “What do you mean by FLIP , Roy, I mean besides being ‘flipped out,’ as usual?” Roy: “I mean like DOWN UNDER , where the Australians live, the far side, you know, the funny edge — the ANTI-TWINS , the crack between the worlds.” Coyote: “It’s gotta mean more than that.” Roy: “Afraid it does. It’s the AUTOMIMETIC inversion, like the one we encountered in the physico-aesthetic phenomenon of particle degradation and the medium steals the message fact that the qualities and properties of light, in and of themselves, are alone responsible for the size and shape of the universe that we observe through them.” Coyote: “Well, what does it mean in this particular contingency?” Roy: “It means that the very same diagram, first introduced by Claude Lévi-Strauss in The Savage Mind, can be used to describe both the rectified version of Don Juan’s Warriors’ Party in its Definitive Journey and the self-definitive life structure of the central desert aborigines. And with absolute conciseness in both instances.” Coyote: “Anthropology does not exist, Roy. Now, if you were selling used cars, that would be something, because cars do exist.” 144 Obviation

Roy: “Sure, Coyote; OBVIATION does not exist either, that is its POWER . Remember? Like John Donne might have said, ‘And such a prescience doth the soul enjoy / it unexists to bring the rest to life.’” Coyote: “So what is the relevance of the soul, or the AUTOMIMETIC INVERSION , or the ANTI-TWINS , in this particular contingency?” Roy: “Well, the Walbiri told Mervyn Meggit that the whole system, which ‘works like the windmill at the station,’ was given to them by two birds: Wedge-Tailed EAGLE and Pink co*ckatoo.” Coyote: “BIG BIRD , yet! Roy, as you yourself once put it, ‘Humor explains NOTHING , it makes rather a circus of its relevance to the matter at hand.’” Roy: “Oh YEAH ? Take a good hard look, a ‘squizzy,’ as the Aussies would say, at figure 9. The figure marks the affinal, or marital, and also the descent-lineal, or cross-generational substructure of the traditional Walbiri social and spiritual organization. Each U shaped figure (the traditional aborigine icon for a person seated on the ground, its ‘track,’ so to speak) marks the spot of one of the eight so-called SUBSECTIONS , defined in its place by both cross-generational matrilineal and patrilineal descent.” Coyote: “So then the curvilinear dotted lines on the figure would represent mutual affinal, or marriage connections between the respective SUBSECTIONS , grouped two by two — they marry each other. Like Djambidjimba and Djabangari on the diagram (right, inside), or like Djungarai (left, outside) and Djangala (top, inside).” Roy: “As any FOOL can plainly see, SEE ? It’s like a NOT-DOING between the cross-generational maternal descent-line Djambidjimba-Djabananga-Djagamara-Djungarai, going clockwise around the outer circle, and its oppositely motivated other, the maternal descent line Djangala-Djabaldjari-Djuburula-Djabangari, on the inside track, going counterclockwise around the inner circle.” Coyote: “Aha — ‘De dreamtime ladies sing dis song’ — the outer Obviation

145

Djambidjimba

Djangala

Djungarai

Djabaldjari

Djabangari

Djabananga

Djuburula

Djagamara

9. Walbiri Socio-Spiritual Organization, Shaded to Mark Wedge-Tailed Eagle Endogamous Patrimoiety

circle on figure 9 is like the ring of stalker-women in figure 8, the rectified version of Don Juan’s Warriors’ Party, each holding place at one of the four directions. And the inner circle is like the ring of dreamer-women, each doing the NOT-DOING of that direction.” Roy: “Oho — ‘doo dah, doo dah,’ Lévi-Strauss calls these cycles, each circumventing the whole of the system in an opposite way, whereas the four cross-generational male descent lines he calls couples, Djambidjimba-Djangala-Djambidjimba (father-sonfather-son) alternate by generative NOT-DOING between the contra-rotating cycles of the women.” Coyote: “So, HEY — the four couples are just exactly, by position and by transaction, like the four kinds of men in the Warriors’ 146 Obviation

Party, making their Definitive Journeys by turning one cycle of the women into the opposite signification of the other.” Roy: “Two by two, two by two, everything on the diagram works on the NOT-DOING principle of the ANTI-TWINS , even in your dreams. For the purely secular manifestation of the kinship-sequence is likewise used for ritual (‘dreamtime’) pairings and cross-pairings of the units, or separate dreamings as they call them.” Coyote: “‘De dreaming track am ten MILES long,’ just like the aniMILES going two by two into Noah’s Ark.” Roy: “EXPERSONATELY speaking, that is, for the SUBSECTION identities were actually quasi-animal beings in the dreamtime, of which the people themselves are only IMPERSONATIONS , like the four kinds of men and the eight kinds of women.” Coyote: “‘Ah bet ma money on de red kangaroo’— that would be Pink co*ckatoo, wouldn’t it? Like the sui-generis, self-autochthonous, NOT-DOING male endogamous (that means ‘marrying within itself ’) Semi-Moiety, that is unshaded in figure 9.” Roy: “‘Somebody bet on de grey.’ Nasty stuff. That would for sure be Wedge-Tailed EAGLE Semi Moiety, shaded grey on figure 9. It’s like two NOT-DOING Warriors’ Parties, each BEING the result of false claims made on the other, each making its separate bid for immortality, each trying to get past the other’s BIG BIRD .” Coyote: “Like two chess players, each playing the inside of the other’s strategy, even though the Board knows only one.” Roy: “‘Why do you hate me, Roy, every time I whip you in one of our chess games?’ Perfect match, for a narcissist with a Godcomplex. She had red hair, too, and green eyes, and when she was done gloating, she would go over and solve my Rubix Cube once again, for spite.” EVEN STRANGER : The Game of Chess

Coyote: “So every stag gets the game he deserves, eh Roy?” Roy: “Chairman of the bored. Perfect pointe d’appui for thinking, and also doing — the game of life turned inside out. Every model Obviation

147

for kinship or strategy can be modeled better on the chessboard. Even mating. Check it out: chess begins with two populations, evenly matched, like two Warriors’ Parties each trying to get past the other’s EAGLE , and proceeds turn by turn by dual byplay down to a single mating. Life begins with a single pair and proceeds, by dualistic foreplay, to a full house. There is the life of chess, and the chess of life, the strategy that anthropologists conceal from themselves when they think of it as kinship.” Coyote: “Chess only models what we might call the difference between the Warriors’ Party and the traditional Walbiri socio-spiritual DREAMING scenario. You get what Don Juan calls the True Pair in all three cases: the NAGUAL WOMAN and the NAGUAL MAN , Pink co*ckatoo and Wedge-Tailed EAGLE , and the self-inverted battery of the inset kings and queens — the only gendered pairing on the board.” Roy: “The four male couples in figure 9, and Don Juan’s four transactional types of male activity (fig. 8), are perfectly matched in the game of chess. The courier or scout, ‘the type of the assistant who must be told what to do’ — those are the pawns who scout ahead of the Warriors’ Party. The rook or castle, foursquare and solid, that’s the scholar; the fickle knight, dancing between the squares, he’s the man of action; whereas the bishop, slantwise in his action, conspiratorial, like the cardinals Mazarin and Richelieu, is the man behind the scenes.” Coyote: “Event rules the game in all three cases: getting past the EAGLE , merging with the dreamtime, and moving toward checkmate. But event itself is only the by-play of the four male types — transactors of the difference between the two sets of four place-holding women.” Roy: “But what about the eight types of women, the ones who hold place in the two diagrams, and are held by place?” Coyote: “That’s the real difference between the two diagrams, the normally invisible framing of the game; eight by eight is 64, and there are 64 squares on the chess-board.” Roy: “So then what is the difference between chess on one hand and the Warriors’ Party and Walbiri system on the other?” 148 Obviation

Coyote: “Schachtspiel med Doden — ‘chessplay with death,’ as in Bergmann’s The Seventh Seal. SYMMETRY and opposition — it’s the point of our whole discussion. Chess has a single MEME , as if it were a single strategy that the two players compete for, and that takes them over by turns, whereas the Warriors’ Party and the socio-spiritual schema are collective forms that involve the mutual integration of a number of MEMES .” Roy: “IT always wins, IT always loses. The STRANGER QUEEN , the part of us that loves the wind and the night and danger, the Splinterella AUTOMIMETIC AGENCY that anticipates itself so well that it acts perfectly, like a ballet dancer. And without even thinking — PURE ABANDON , future in its own past.” Coyote: “It has a single point, a single message, a single motivation, one that is so defeating to our Western minds that even the great Sigmund Freud was obliged to divide it in two— the life principle he called EROS and the death principle he called THANATOS — to even begin to make sense of it.” Roy: “Reason beyond reason: no tragedy so deadly but that it catches the edge of its irony, no humor so deliriously funny but that it finds itself transfixed on the point of its tragedy. The MEME of the goddess KALI , with her ghastly earrings — a dead infant depending from each ear — and her neck-lace of skulls, each one of them a letter of the Sanskrit alphabet.” Coyote: “Red hair and green eyes. ‘Why do you hate me, Roy, when I beat you in one of our chess games?’ She dances victory at the intersection point between past-in-its-own-future and future-in-its-own-past, between the presence and the passage of time.” Roy: “She SHINES , she SHINES like a supernova from the far side of Infinity! She’s LIKE A RAINBOW .” Coyote: “So we have been OBVIATING the wrong play all along. It should have been Romeo and Juliet!” Roy: “William Shakespeare, the REAL William Shakespeare, first got an inkling or striking-point of that message when he was an apprentice leather-worker (glover, like his father) in northern Italy, watching the mayhem of the Lombard street gangs. Obviation

149

Montagues and Capulets, West Side Story, GANGS OF NEW YORK .” Coyote: “The glovers of England at that time, according to Philip K. Bock, were Lollards to a man, that is, followers of that great contemporary of Chaucer, JOHN WYCLIFFE , who OBVIATED the message of Martin Luther over a century beforehand.” Roy: “I like to imagine, in Middle English of course, what would happen if the great WYCLIFFE were miraculously transported across space and time to the sacred cenote at Chichen Itza, and made the Definitive Journey of the Mayan Prophet HUNAC CEEL , Ruler of Mayapan, who threw himself as sacrifice into the sacred waters and emerged triumphant, bearing the Prophecy of the Rain God, CHAC MOOL : We Have No Need of the Visible Chirche To given Rat’s Ass for the Godde of Reyne, hir Lollardye beliketh me in swoun, hir Chirche Invisibel lay upside-doun tho levere Elenor of Aquiteyn — to amenuse, preche withouten soun, ne Holy Aqualung to me susteyn whilom I hadde watere on the brayn and twenty fadom depe below the toun, belike it were the Bathing Hous of Sodom, Saintes and Martyr all about the bottom, ab-hominable Messe everichoon; I stonde her and no thing more to done, the more he semeth, more he ben the same. the more Invisibel — I hadde Dreme.” Coyote: “How many Martin Luthers can dance on the head of a pin? You ought to thank your teacher, Bartlett J. Whiting, the expert on humor in Chaucer.” Roy: “He would only nod at me and smile when we passed on the 150

Obviation

streets of Cambridge, as though he knew something that we both could not fathom at that time.” Coyote: “And right after that, no doubt, it would rain. Meanwhile, back at the raunch, as you Easterners are wont to say . . . ” Roy: “ . . . We have this little thing about Romeo and Juliet, the MEME of tragedy miming itself: All tragedy has a motion, ‘e-motion without an e,’ and in the great NOH dramas of Japan, at the crucial time the performers will strike the pose of that motion while the musical accompaniment goes wild.” Coyote: “A tragic stillicide, as Nabokov would have it, that the greatest melodist of all time, Serge Prokofiev, captured perfectly in his ballet Romeo And Juliet: Forget the contradictions, dance the FLAWS , make music MEAN the way it should not go, as lightning shakes its shadow-echo show all melodies are humor without cause. Imagine all the things you dare not know — unthinkable, they also have their laws: the love that really kills retracts its claws, and hate has greater hatreds to forego. Wolves mortify the stars with ultrasonics; what music does for lovers goes by chance, the practiced lie, and what that lie unsheathes, dysharmony prefigured in the dance like KALI ’s metaphor preserved in onyx; no creature knows that innocence, and breathes.” Roy: “The best SUBSTITUTE for explanation, or death, whichever comes first, is to say it all it once, in pictures, with decorum, with finesse, and with absolute finality.” Coyote: “But that runs the risk of mistaken identity, as with Hamlet, Pozhubo, and Splinterella, bless her buttons. Re-enchanting the disenchanter: getting someone else to commit one’s suicide, like Hamlet and Ophelia or Romeo and Juliet.” Obviation

151

Roy: “The imitation of love is the love of imitation.” Coyote: “And that goes double: ‘luck in the double focus’ for egoistic narcissists like you, and, of course, Pygmalion. I have, if you and Bartlett J. Whiting don’t mind, a little poem written all by myself that I have been saving up for this occasion: Coyote’s Poem Pygmalion made a statue and she called him Bernard Shaw, she had him by the short hairs and he wore them on his jaw, the two became a marvel, and the one became a play he carved it out in marble — you can see it to this day. The Greek is to his statue as the writer to his ink, the body is an image that the mind can never think, not much is left of passion when it makes it through the eye, and the COYOTE is the JACKAL he outFOXES on the SLY .” Roy: “Well, it worked. You got me DOUBLED UP , and not with LAUGHTER either.” Coyote: “Good. And now for the tender-LOIN. ” Roy: “TENDER -loin? What the HELL might that mean?” Coyote: “Well, if we was Sasquatch, it would mean NAWK , because NAWK means ‘friend’ in their language — which we are not supposed to know — so in this case it means NOO YAWK .” Vikings, Toasting the Millennium, Down by the Battery Roy: “Which Millennium?” Coyote: “Why, the only one appropriate to their occasion: The FIRST Millennium.” Roy: “With aquavit?” Coyote: “Line aquavit, the Norwegian kind that has to make it across the line, or, in other words, the equator. See, there is much we do not know about the early Norse presence in the Americas, including how far they got.” 152

Obviation

Roy: “On the first date?” Coyote: “More likely the first pineapple, or cashew nut. There are murals in the Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza of whiteskinned, blond-haired captives held down over sacrificial altars, and red-bearded captives being led in shackles, with a ship in the harbor bearing a sail . . . ” Roy: “There were no sails in the New World!” Coyote: “Nor line aquavit either, until the Norse got there. The recovered remains of Norse settlement in the New World, at L’Anse aux Meadows, dated at about 1000 AD , show an exploration site. They had smithies there, and shipyards, and nuts brought from up the St. Lawrence.” Roy: “And they certainly damn well knew about the Millennium, and had a certain affection for strong drink.” Coyote: “It’s more than that. Studying the texts of the sagas, a Norwegian expert determined that the only place an the eastern seaboard that exactly matched the description of Leif Ericsson’s settlement in the New World was NOO YAWK harbor! Dig down under all the English and Dutch debris down at the Battery, or the ‘Collect’ at Five Points, and you’ll find their smashed drinking cups.” Roy: “Skoll!” Coyote: “LUCK IN THE DOUBLE FOCUS ! (sings): Noo Yawk, Noo YAWK , it’s a wonderful town, the Bronx is up, and the Battery’s down.” Roy: “Well, your battery may be low, like your sense of humor, but I hear BANJOS .” Coyote: (sings, with banjos): Ah couldn’t find no RAINBOW , ah got no pot of gold, so ah come down to Hell’s Kitchen, where drunks and joints are rolled,” Both: “TO ME WAY-A, SANDY, MY DEAR ANNIE, Obviation

153

OH, YOU NEW YORK GALS, CAN’T YA DANCE THE POLKA ?” Coyote: “Say now, Roy, ah been wonderin’ — why do they call New York the Big Apple?” ROY : “Comes from understanding things the wrong side up.” Coyote: “OVER -standing?” Roy: “You got it, Babe! And when I rolled around the town they showed me for a freak; I vested out my transfer then and turned the other cheek,” Both: “TO ME WAY-A, SANDY, MY DEAR ANNIE, OH, YOU NEW YORK GALS, CAN’T YA DANCE THE POLKA ?”

Coyote: “Like rosy cheek apple, hey, seen from the wrong side up?” Roy: “Keep your vest tight, Buster. The Big Apple metaphor stems from New York street slang in the 1860s. Back then they used to call Manhattan Island ‘The Frog and Toe.’” Coyote: “Like ‘Frog and Toe and AWAY WE GO ?’” Roy: “Nope. Comes from looking at a horse’s hoof from the bottom. See, the soft, inner part — the tenderloin as it were, like the brothels and pubs in the inner part of the island — that’s the FROG . And the hard outer shell — like the ring of docks and longshoremen around the periphery — that’s the TOE .” Coyote: “So in my lady’s apron I wandered most forlorn, till MARTIN CHURCHILL took me in, and he sent me round Cape Horn.” (HIGH CAMP — B A N J O crescendo) Both: “TO ME WAY-A, SANDY, MY DEAR ANNIC, OH, YOU NOO YAWK GALS, CAN’T YA DANCE THE P O L K A ?”

Coyote: “Ah still don’t git it, Roy. where does the BIG APPLE come IN ?” 154 Obviation

Roy: “It’s not where it comes in that counts — STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH — but where it goes out. You can look a GIFT HORSE in the mouth all you want, but when you’re in the FROG AND TOE , you better mind the other end, friend.” Both (slammin’ banjos): “C O Y O T E A N T H R O P O L O G E E E E E !!!” EXEUNT SALTANT

Obviation

155

4 | the book of symmetries

Who would believe there’s a pot of gold at the end of a RAINBOW ? Which end? Is it like a mirror, that uses the possibility

of an inside to distract that of an outside, and vice-versa? Surely there must be something there, but where, exactly, is ‘there?’ It was with thoughts like these that Coyote pursued his course, or maybe it was the other way around. “Not a RAINBOW in sight. Gotta keep lookin’”; and he went on and on. Now who was it said that thing about “the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and with the wrong enemy?” Coyote had a certain dyslexia about everything — his thoughts and movements as well as meteorological phenomena — and he lost his footing and fell into what is known in those parts as an OXBOW LAKE . He couldn’t tell one BOW from another, and besides, it was dark down there and hard to see. Finally Coyote did make out something. “And who might you be?” “I’m the kind of gal you meet when you go looking for RAINBOWS and then fall into an OXBOW LAKE .” “Oh, there is so much I need to learn from you. For instance, what exactly is a pot of gold, and which comes first, the right or the left?” “Look, Mister, I’d be glad to tell you anything, if you will just kindly let me know WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO MY SHEEP .” Roy: “It is not what you say, but how you say it that counts — the voice, the character, the precise underdetermination of your words.” Coyote: “I beg to differ. It is what you really say that counts

most — the overdetermination of fact behind the pictures we make of it.” Roy: “You’re both wrong. The underdetermination of overdetermination, or vice-versa, is merely a battle of rhetorics — the politics of representation. The best we can hope for is to bring these two into SYMMETRY or equilibrium with one another; the balanced fact, the balanced line.” Coyote: “The cause of the effect meets the effect of the cause; and at that point of suspension— what Don Juan calls ‘stopping the world’ — the humorous and the serious meet and merge with one another. You know, Roy, you human beings are the craziest critters in the world. You honestly believe you can detach yourselves from that SYMMETRY and still have your way.” Roy: “I wouldn’t talk, Coyote.” Coyote: “We come to a point where the difference between organic and inorganic SYMMETRIES disappears — the vanishing point between what the old anthropologists used to call ‘nature’ and ‘culture.’ All ‘cultures’ merge with one another — as you say, holographically — and so, in fact, do all ‘natures.’” Roy: “The anthropologist wants to be the figure as well as the ground. And so, in fact, the figure-ground reversal itself honestly believes it is an anthropologist.” Coyote: “Though it is really the interference-patterning between the two that counts most: the way in which any two polarities interfere with one another.” SYMMETRIES

Roy: “We have studied biology as though it were evolution, and evolution as though it were biology. The one thing that matters most in determining the environment is the species that has created that environment through a process of mutual adaptation.” Coyote: “Add together all the species in that environment, in their communicative relations with one another, and you will have said something. They are not species at all, but multivalent us158 The Book of Symmetries

ages, part of the SPECTRUM of life-empowerment. They are SYMMETRIES that the sonnet captures in epigrammatic form.” Roy: “None of the so-called ‘natural laws’ can exist in isolated form, alone and by itself. In every instance where gravity (which the Germans call Schwierigkeit and the New Irelanders call ‘female fight’) has been used or observed, it contains a fractional coefficient of angular momentum (anti-gravitic velocity), just as angular momentum is nonexistent without the presence of gravity. Neither of these forces would matter in the slightest but for the electromagnetic SPECTRUM , the emissions of which are solely responsible for everything we know about natural forces or laws.” Coyote: “But without the presence of mind, the sentience determined upon the tuning fork-like resonance of the interference patterning between cause and effect, all the so-called ‘forces’ in the universe would go for nothing. Even gods would need the mute witnessing of the sentient to echolocate what they are, and how to differentiate themselves from one another.” Roy: “Or human languages, for that matter. Each language, to say nothing of the story-forms told within it — mirrors to its text — is a complete world in itself, constantly changing form and content. But each is likewise completely dependent on other languages outside of and within it, regardless of how isolated it may be. There is only one story in all of human history and synchrony.” Coyote: “And we are about to tell it.” Roy: “Don’t hold your breath.” The Story There is a very old story, at least twice as old as we are. It is the story of setting up the illusion of its own previousness to itself, as though it were born ass-backward and upside-down with the navel-cord wrapped around its neck. And the story goes like this: Way back in the beginning, MYTHS sat around the campfire telling PEOPLE to one another. And the MYTHS and The Book of Symmetries

159

the PEOPLE were each the better half of the others’ illusions, each being the result of false claims made upon the other. And the stories would not die, for the life of the people caught within them. And the people would not really live, either, for the life of the stories caught within them. Coyote: “Now that story tells me nothing.” Roy: “Scant wonder. It OBVIATES the need for world-historical depth, as well as the distinction that is usually made between ‘civilizations’ and ‘tribal’ or ‘primitive’ cultures.” Coyote: “And human beings and coyotes.” Roy: “Don’t bet on it: Important that these sonnets have no order, by random chance assortment is conferred, important that the message go unheard, important that creation has no border; the sonneteer is just a minor third, the singing line is but a tape recorder, the Muse a happenstance of wild disorder, important that the sentence be a word. Significant, perchance, the suave comportment, the chant of reason goes by happenstance; illusion mates the mind with stiff cohesion, the casualties of artistry are lesion; incontrovertible, the weird assortment, significant, you read it at a glance.” Coyote: “In other words, if you don’t get the message, the MEDIUM will surely get you.” Roy: “And I, for one, am a HAPPY medium.” Coyote: “Take the inherent simplification of the heuristic as a factor in its own right, as something basic to understanding, and the whole significance of the natural as opposed to the supernatural disappears. Apart from the placement of its humanism, 160

The Book of Symmetries

there is nothing primitive or unnecessarily anthropomorphic about Navajo thinking, and nothing obscurely Native American about the Navajo processing of thought.” Roy: “They know the ANTI-TWINS , after all, and they call them Sa’a naghaii and Bik’e Hozhoo, ‘Lifetime Recursive,’ and ‘Referred Again to Itself as Excellence.’” Coyote: “Would some traditionalist Navajo anthropologists studying the scientific world conclude that it is really a collection of moralistic tales about ‘Force Man,’ ‘Perception Woman,’ and the ‘Matter-Energy Twins’?” Would they also observe, taking a glance at our consumer-fantasies, that we not only invent supernaturals of this sort, but want to eat them, like the rubbery pizza-people in commercials, mutilate them like crashtest dummies, and elect or impeach them like the caricatures in political cartoons? No wonder those old-time anthropologists had such trouble in defining the supernatural; we use it to define ourselves.” Roy: “In other words, why not treat the abstractions and principles of science as people, or personality profiles, since it is only people who know things, use them, and introduce knowledge of them to one another?” Coyote: “Even if we do not connect gravity with the pompousness and grasping personality of Sir Isaac Newton (‘attraction’ would hardly be the word), or evolution with the ponderous lifestyle of Charles Darwin, we do dramatize the whole history of discovery and invention through the egos and interactions of the people involved in it. And since most of those inventors and discoverers are no longer around, it is left to the authors or lecturers who interpret them to give real character to the quality of scientific abstraction.” Roy: “For all of it is just simply people talking to people, and talk, or reading, is just a small part of what goes on in comprehension. Advertisers are the puppeteers of abstraction; they tell us that it is really the quality of life that matters, and take the abstract or super-personal distance of the product (it is scientific!), corporation, or logo, and turn it back into something that looks The Book of Symmetries

161

and feels like people. Only more so. The problem is that advertising has come to be such an art form, a product in its own right, that its modeling has the reverse-effect as well: it turns people into the products that consume them.” Coyote: “Or books about coyotes, eh?” Roy: “Enough to make a pre-logical mentality think twice about it. Even at its worst, sorcery only tries to kill people, or make them sick. So maybe even post-logical folks like the Navajo knew all along that no abstraction of any kind, however deep, innovative, or useful, is worth anything more than the concrete imageries used to make sense of it. That the model does more for the mathematic than the mathematic can do for the model.” Coyote: “John Farella told you that?” Roy: “John Farella was, by all the gods, the greatest student the Navajo ever had. Scientific agencies are animated automation; that is, the presence of mind in them recognizes its function as a mechanical, or thing-like agentive. Regardless of whether the subject matter is animate or inanimate, physical, chemical (ever meet a carbon-reaction that didn’t?), biological, social, mental, or even literary, its model is machine-like and self-organizing in the way that we are to understand its workings. It is objective, tough-minded as they say. However, its impressions might be laundered back into the fuzzy-minded, impressionistic, or humanistic. Automation, the ‘works by itself ’ overmodeling that we now demand of ourselves, comes out in the wash as the washing machine.” Coyote: “Like Don Juan said, we do not live the life of our emotions, but of the description of our emotions.” Roy: “And as the Irish would say, SYMMETRIES are what God made coyotes for.” Coyote: “And as Reilly said, ‘Ukrainians did not learn to sing until they invented the washing-machine.’” Roy: “Oh YEAH ? ‘Giddy-ai-ay, giddy-ai-ay, giddy-ai-ay for the One-Eyed Reilly.” Coyote: “BE SIRIUS ! The form of agency that becomes thing-like only to make its point, like the animal-spirit guides, the moun162

The Book of Symmetries

tain, the wind, the thunder people, the verbal spell or participatory ritual that effects a humanly-desired happening in the world, does this the opposite way around. It is automated animism, and you have to do its work, pretend its fantasies for it. By hand, if necessary.” Roy: “Otherwise, and on the surface, there is not much difference between them. The logic that was primitive at its roots but has since grown up into objectivity and the animism that is really logical at its core are the same thing coming and going. They effect the causes and cause the effects of one another. Why else would early pioneers like Edward Burnett Tyler and Sir James Frazer, to say nothing of Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, be so absolutely proud of what they had discovered as animism, the different ways that we and they think about it? The civilized folks animate the proposition with what they can learn about how others think, and the others proposition the animal. ‘Think like a horse to imagine where the horses have run off to’ is how EvansPritchard put this, and he was being very droll.” Coyote: “This is absolute nonsense, Roy, and you know it.” Roy: “Get a good, hard grip on reality, Die Wirklichkeit, Coyote, you’re gonna need it.” More Closely UNRELATED to Us than We Are to Ourselves Coyote: “We have already been acquainted with some of the ways in which extension — space and time, to our rigid, compartmentalized minds — is similar to itself, the kind of detached, out-ofbody heuristic that topologists and fractal mathematicians call ‘self-symmetry.’” Roy: “We have encountered the first two examples of this: the Mobius Strip and the Klein bottle. If you recall, they were connected with representation, memory, the Gimmick, Don Juan’s conception of seeing, the déjà vu and the vùjá de, and thereby the highly counterintuitive facts of incest and outcest.” Coyote: “They are highly counterintuitive in the way that representation itself is, as in the Wittgenstein paradox: the fact that The Book of Symmetries

163

although ‘what is reflected in language cannot be expressed by means of language,’ that fact itself must be expressed in language, and is therefore true because it is false, and, of course, false because it is true.” Roy: “This alone gives us the confidence to re-state the first two examples of self-symmetry in highly abstract terms: 1. A Mobius Strip is an axial one-sided self-symmetry. 2. A Klein bottle is a bi-axial in-sided self-symmetry.” Coyote: “Furthermore, the experiences of Chapter 2 (the picture of the picture, the visual HUNAB KU ) and of Chapter 3 (acoustical pictures in sound; the mutual interference-patterning between the visual and the acoustic; OBVIATION ) give us the confidence to establish three more examples: 3. A mirror is a one-sided visual self-symmetry. 4. A Sibelius symphony is an acoustical one-sided self-symmetry, thereby OBVIATING the counterintuitive self-valuation of the emotions. 5. The difference between the waking and dreaming states of BEING is a self-axial three-sided self-symmetry, exactly as depicted in the HUNAB KU : the first-attention and the second-attention both foregrounded and backgrounded against each other, and the third-attention as the point of parallactic displacement between the two.” Roy: “I call that FIVE POINTS , Coyote.” Coyote: “And I call it the ANTI-TWINNING of SYMMETRY with duality. Each traps the other within itself and gives rise to a third, which is the point of OBVIATION for life’s representation of itself to itself.” Roy: “The recapitulation of the first-attention within the dreaming state of the second-attention is called a lucid dream. That is in many ways the secret of all shamanism. But there is also the direct opposite of this in what Don Juan calls dreaming 164 The Book of Symmetries

awake — the recapitulation of the second-attention within the first that makes a cold, hard, empirical reality of the otherwise fuzzy and subjectively dissembling second-attention. Don Juan calls this sobriety, and it is like the objectivity of objectivity itself. The ultimate pragmatic.” Coyote: “That is the shamanism of the Essences that language makes of our world, the so-called realism of Plato’s Cave analogy. As the NOMINALISTS put it, there is nothing in the phenomenality of things but that it is a feature of the NAMES we give to them. That is the shamanism of the foregrounded figures that we have learned to perceive in our looking-and-thinking world — learned so well that we take them unconsciously as matters of fact.” Roy: “Learned by matter-of-factly discounting the inherently confusing second-attention background of things and people. Which is, of course, RECTIFIED in the hyper-objective, inherently pragmatic lucid waking experience.” Coyote: “Hence the distinction drawn by the Amazonian peoples between the daylight shamans (Coyote’s RAVENS , or shamans of the Essences), and the night shamans (RAVEN’S coyotes) of the dreaming-vision sort. Night shamans have the body | within the spirit-vision, while daylight shamans have the spiritvision within the physical body and figure their version of the inner dream within the contortions and movements of the body itself — catalepsy.” Roy: “Sonnets are waking-visions of the sorcerer’s catalepsy, shaking it all out in the rhythmic conceits of rhyme-scheme and AUTOMIMETIC voice — the Shakespeare-seizure.” Coyote: “And the Caesura. The Siberian shamans, according to ANNALEINA SIIKALA , also make this distinction; they say that the cataleptic body-dance, as EDIE TURNER calls it, is simply another form of shamanism.” Roy: “Then the ANTI-TWINS, DIE GEGENZWILLINGEN (why do these things sound so satisfying in German?), would be the form of anti-cataleptic seizure by which the human race itself came into existence.” The Book of Symmetries

165

Coyote: “Systole and diastole, out-breath and in-breath. The inyour-face METABREATH , the turning of the world, as in the Prologue to Goethe’s Faust: ‘Es wechselt Paradieses Helle / mit tiefer, schauervolle Nacht.’ ‘It changes — paradise — illumination with deep, shuddering night.’” Roy: “Green, the midpoint of the RAINBOW , was Goethe’s favorite color. ‘That color,’ he said in the Farbenlehre, ‘in whose presence you wish to be nowhere else.’” Coyote: “And it was also, apparently, that of the Mayans, as exhibited in the magnificent Quetzal that illuminates the twilight of the deep forest.” Roy: “Whereas Don Juan knew the assemblage-point cohesion of the crow position, and could actually turn himself into a crow: The quetzal and the crow, their colors vary from iridescent green to black withal, refraction clouds its spectrum in their caul; there are no words in twilight’s dictionary but diagrams of darkness standing tall, unfazed by sunlight, vocable, contrary, that crack the code of time’s vocabulary — at certain times there are no gods at all. In certain moods the whims of mortals crack, uncertain of their lives and what they mean, like wings of crows that bring the shadows back; then suddenly, that incandescent GREEN unspeakable, that takes the light aback — at certain times the shadows split the scene.” The ANTI-TWINS , Again and Again Coyote: “At certain times all the permutations and combinations of ordinary TWINNING are not enough, and ANTI-TWINNING must come to our rescue, given that the human part of any animal enterprise is also the animal part of any human enterprise.” 166

The Book of Symmetries

Roy: “All the powers in the knowable universe, from the microfauna to the slowly turning galaxies, are animal powers and dispensations of our own special symmetry, if only because it takes our symmetry to know what symmetry is, and our animality to know what existence is.” Coyote: “The twinning outward of the bodies into two separate genders is a thing we share with most ‘higher’ forms of organization in living creatures. The twinning inward of those bodies into the single individual, with the right and left side laterality, is likewise a thing we share with those creatures.” Roy: “Other creatures probably tell stories and even jokes in ways that we cannot fathom, particularly cats, but there is one way in which human beings may be unique, and that is in the comprehensive knowledge of TWINNING as a living symmetry in its own right.” Coyote: “Although other creatures have their own ways of dealing with this, possibly superior to our own, the comprehensive knowledge of TWINNING for human beings goes both ways at once, both positive and negative, inside and outside.” Roy: “They, the ANTI-TWINS , are the gender symmetries. We are the laterality symmetries. They have only one side each, which is why they are practically invisible, but each of them has both genders. We have only one gender each, which is why we are impractically co-dependent, but each of us has two sides. Because sides reproduce themselves technologically, we are necessary to create them, but because genders reproduce themselves corporeally we are at their mercy in matters of love, personal choice, and mating. They have the shoulders for gender-choice, but we have the shoulders for alterity, for ‘yes’ and ‘no.’” Coyote: “You mean when we fall in love it is really them?” Roy: “Yup, and when they fall into anonymity it is really us.” Coyote: “It is only through our misconception of them that we can truly be, and only through their misconception of us that their otherwise invisible presence comes into relief. It’s like each is the negative of the other’s photograph. They come together as we fall apart and vice-versa, and by virtue of this invisible counterThe Book of Symmetries

167

point, both gender and laterality come full circle for the species that has a full knowledge of them.” Roy: “In a fully conscious and deliberate way, by turns, as in the systole and diastole of breathing. We EXPERSONATE them as they impersonate us, and they EXPERSONATE us as we impersonate them. Gender closed inward upon itself is INCEST , Coyote, a thing we are all trained to avoid. And laterality closed outward upon itself is technology, the central spinal hinge of the body placed outside of the body in the realm of the positive doing and thinking of things.” Coyote: “So, we have made a great mistake in our thinking of reproduction, and in telling stories about the birds and the bees.” Roy: “What is truly active in reproduction, what Shakespeare called ‘the beast with two backs,’ is not the man and the woman as we normally fancy them, but two unlikely counterparts: the male part of the woman and the female part of the man, the ANTI-TWINNING counterparts of our normal gender specifications. With a nod to Shakespeare we may call this ‘equipositioning’: Making the Back with Two Beasts At either end a countenance appears, a social face, anonymous inside where all is one, and conduits decide (perception dulls the mind, conception clears) that somewhere in its past our language lied, tongue matching tongue, the posture in arrears (the sidelong glance, the conduit, interferes); inequus taught his mistress how to ride. The necks entwined, the tails eject like sperm or flags that fly and need no further glory, the sweat of detumescence drinks the loins. “There are no separate bodies,” life enjoins, “no loves but those liquidities confirm, like conduits matching conduits, con amore.” 168 The Book of Symmetries

Coyote: “So, Roy, is the sonnet the veridical ANTI-TWIN of language?” Roy: “In a manner of coupling, yes, otherwise you may think of them as Mother Nature’s crossword puzzles. They are hybrids, like months that happen in between seasons, or artifacts that belong to neither nature nor culture, as Bruno Latour points out in We Have Never Been Modern. Our civilization at this point is incapable of producing either a purely uncontaminated description of the natural or a a technological product that is not in some way a coyote imitation of the natural — an auto-mation.” Coyote: “You humans wouldn’t notice, but deer and horses have almost the same scent:” Late October, “Deerback” More serious than snow, the rank and file of deer, their long coats darkened, face to face with procreation’s hoodwink of the chase make pace to consummate, to mate with style. And something old as treetrunks has the grace to banter with the crimson solar smile and have the deadened crickets wait a while amid the smoke and what the trees erase. We call this half-month “deer bark” for the cough that bucks presume, as though, to scorn a snare the silhouetted wind were sounding off unkindly. “Tell me love is never fair, the times that most engage us never free, joy has no counterpart in ecstasy.” Roy: “What Latour did not point out is that this inability to either comprehend or fabricate the spontaneity of what we call “nature,” or the self-imitation of what we call “culture,” goes all the way through and infects the very species that would like to ‘purify’ itself through such symbolic sleight-of-mind.” Coyote: “You are talking about Soccer Mom and Corporate Dad, The Book of Symmetries

169

the twenty-first century falsifications of what used to be called the middle-class couple.” Roy: “Sure, the male whose masculinity cannot be acknowledged without submerging it in a kind of Group Voice Group Action charade of what an executive used to do and the woman whose maternity cannot be acknowledged without the ad hoc inclusion of a sports team.” Coyote: “I get it. In an age where products work hard to produce people (or else what are all the advertisem*nts about?), what is left for the people to do but reproduce cross-products, a hybridized version of what reproduction was supposed to mean? Metrosexuals.” Roy: “They eat exclusively organic food, believe in exclusively inorganic robots, and live in electronic co-dependency with photonic people who might just as well not be there.” Coyote: “Look, Mr. Wise Guy, if the ANTI-TWINS are as well nigh universal as you say they are — the “other half ” of the human race as necessary for our survival as we are to theirs — then they must have worked this double-or-nothing dumbout magic all through the ages, substitution being one of the oldest things in the book.” Roy: “But not electronically or on a global scale: Cell Phone Monkey Voice God The tapestry of voices making small unconversations, substitutes for facts; there is no world behind its artifacts, no other-voice convergence after all. Like echoes miming all that air subtracts in die-electric accents that appall unwittingly, electrons make their call in liquid silver lightning cataracts. The succulence of fruit before the rot just hangs around to make you wonder how, like senior citizens at Angkor Wat or fruit flies, or the bugs around a cow; 170 The Book of Symmetries

all cultures are invented on the spot, I’ll bet you think they’re people, don’t you now?” Coyote: “Boy, Roy, wouldn’t Oswald Spengler feel deflated to think that his favorite Faustian culture — you know, the one that sold its soul to the Devil in return for POWER (and keeps repeatedly doing so, nothing like persistence, eh?) — would wind up figuring out the secret of every civilization but its own?” Roy: “Give the man a break, Coyote. He died under house-arrest by the Nazis after trying to get the Pope to excommunicate Hitler and forestall a German-Italian alliance.” Coyote: “Whereas Joan of Arc, Spengler’s ANTI-TWIN in several respects, died in a much worse way, but wound up with the Pope’s blessing — a battlefield promotion, no less, to SAINTHOOD ! Roy: “She could as well have been a Greek oracle, or a Roman sibyl, or . . . Jeanne D’arc Re-Envisioned as a Mayan Princess Presume that mating’s matings are a must, now spring befalls the fall in double time, the sacrament of slime begetting slime bespells allotted ends like fairy dust containing decontainment, make it rhyme, now pollen shingles evergreens with rust and stallions with their heavy necks downthrust bleed power through the earth like slaking lime. We have these other lives, like anti-twins: the one that only thinks it acts, reflection, the other acts so well it never thinks and never has to, missing the connection like gods of other lands exchanging winks or, in the Mayan context, wicked grins.” Coyote: “But why so particular, Roy? Why so many sonnets? It looks like someone is showing off.” The Book of Symmetries

171

Roy: “Warriors do not show off, Coyote. they show brave. And as to particulars, who would want to live in a universe of broad, shallow generalities? ‘Empty idealities,’ as Don Juan called them. Besides, did you ever stop to think of what the world would look like from the standpoint of the sonnet?” Coyote: “You talk as if there were only one sonnet.” Roy: “Sure is, that’s what we mean by the sonnet. There is only one real sonnet, just as there is only one real non-pair of ANTITWINS , plus, of course, a whole lot of cheap imitation “wannabes.” All the most practiced sonneteers keep trying to get that one sonnet down in a purely objectifiable form, and the result is a plethora of sonnets like you wouldn’t believe. All the lovers in the world keep trying to get the ANTI-TWINS down in a purely subjectifiable form, and the result is a lot of mistaken identities. A whole world full of them.” Coyote: “Whereas, of course, the one true sonnet is both amused and exasperated by all the fuss made about it. It is the absolute and most concise condensation of incredible richness and purposeful acuity of all the possible meaningfulness that could exist in the universe.” Roy: “Wow, Coyote, you sometimes surprise me!” Coyote: “Beauty kills!” Roy: “But the best way of killing, as the Native Americans say, is to kill ’em with kindness.” Coyote: “And that’s what God tried to do, at the first moment of Creation: He created the perfect ANTI-SONNET , which we know of as the matter and energy cosmos.” Roy: “You mean like the German physicist Lichtenberg said, ‘Man created God in his own image’?” Coyote: “Don’t be silly, Roy; that was just the Enlightenment talking. I mean like, ‘In the beginning the IMAGE created both Man and God together in its own sweet time.’” Roy: “And then a strange, bearded figure appeared out of the background radiation of the Big Bang and said, ‘LET THERE BE LICHTENBERG .’” Coyote: “You just don’t get it, do you, Roy?” 172

The Book of Symmetries

Roy: “I sure do. The perfect sonnet must be in equilibrium with the rest of the universe in exactly the same way as it is in equilibrium with itself. Thus, in a strange ‘kill ’em with beauty’ way, it becomes a scale model miniature of the universe, but much more perfect than the original.” Coyote: “So how does that square with your definition of Anthropology as the one discipline above all others that trains its students to perceive originality, be alert to originality, define it, codify it, objectify it, and then use it as a weapon against their otherwise derivative colleagues”?” Roy: “Exponentially.” Coyote: “Well then Mr. Kill ’Em With Kindness, I’ve got, as they say in the trade, a BIG SURPRISE for you: The Anthropologist Most anthro-people live by poetry too much, in fact, to do their writing good, they know a thing much better than they should, no heart for loss, no time for victory. The ‘cultural’ are barely understood, the ‘social’ ones make do with apathy, ‘historical,’ they have no history, the excavator’s fame is made of wood. Most anthro-people work without a muse and make their near relations wonder why; if arrogance were bliss they’d win a prize — the editor that cuts them down to size — Oh save their sorry asses from reviews, God help the place they go to when they die.” Roy: “Story of my life.” Coyote: “Yeah, in your terms. You and all the other self-important narcissists.” Roy: “So what, in your terms, is this creation stuff, this ANTISONNET , all about?” The Book of Symmetries

173

Coyote: “Well, I’d better use Albert Einstein’s terms or I’ll get the physicists on my back.” Roy: “Very few physicists, Coyote, have the guts to write a sonnet. I think Oppenheimer could have, before he was disemboweled by Mr. . . . how did he put it? . . . Strawz: As when, in love, the same deft stroke bisects the loins, and makes the man and woman groan with equal passion differently, the tone of bird and frog and cricket interjects the twilight; laboring cicadas own the embryo of sleep that brooks no sex but breeds the firefly’s art, and moss collects its attitudes from molecules of stone. Oh, listen to the night’s acoustic blue protracted conversation, monotone — the nightbird’s clock, alarm of katydid, the catcalls of the owls, the forest’s drone: feel sorry for the ones that never do a thing on earth, and for the ones that did.” Coyote: “Einstein, Roy, we were talking about Albert Einstein.” Roy: “You mean he had the guts to write a sonnet?” Coyote: “Relatively speaking, no. But he had the cat-guts to play a violin. Besides which, he was one of the major articulators of what we could call the matter-energy universe.” Roy: “The ANTI-SONNET that was there at the beginning?” Coyote: “Actually, it came into being in the roaring twenties, just before his confrontation with Niels Bohr; the time of Prohibition just before the Great Depression.” Roy: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but the major difference between a material, or matter-energy universe, and a conceptual, or order and chaos one, is one of expansion on the one hand and meaningful condensation or verbal acuity on the other. Like what they used to call ‘the Fitzgerald contraction’ in physics and ‘plenty of speed but poor control’ in the Charleston.” 174

The Book of Symmetries

Coyote: “Are you referring to F. Scott Fitzgerald, the writer, or to another physicist of the same name?” Roy: “Actually I am referring to Zelda Fitzgerald, F. Scott’s wife. You see, it is all a matter of obviation, as we discussed earlier. A matter and energy cosmos, as Einstein pointed out, makes the equilibrium between matter and energy a function of celerity (c)and the velocity of light (electromagnetic emission), as in the equation E = mc2. Such a cosmos must expand outward, since extension itself, or “space-time,” as Einstein and Minkowski called it, depends for its existence on a velocity, a very large one.” Coyote: “You mean, ‘getting out of Dodge?” Roy: “No, I mean getting into one, or at least, as Zelda would say, ‘On the dodge.’ You see, E = mc2 is by definition a quadratic equation, based on a squared quantity, and a quadratic equation has two possible solutions, placing Einstein into double jeopardy as to the conformation and destiny of his matter and energy cosmos.” Coyote: “As Marilyn Monroe would say, ‘His roots are showing.’ Double Jeopardy The past is future’s dandelion, lest a single puff of air bestir its bubble, expand its universe like Edwin Hubble, control your breathing, keep your thoughts at rest. Brunettes are prodigies at bending double, the long division of the vision quest, twice shriven, twice absolved, and twice confessed, a blonde’s the very nicest kind of trouble, as dandelions go, a perfect gem to force the spectrum into category, decipher it, and code it into rhyme, Diana, long of wit and long of stem, but he who takes a redhead into glory is prisoner of color, not of time.’ Always wondered about the ‘red shift,’ didn’t you, Roy.” The Book of Symmetries

175

Roy: “Better than a Doppelgänger, Coyote. You see, as long as he could rationalize his choice of a positive root for the velocity of light, Einstein and his matter-energy cosmos were out of trouble. Then the universe would behave just exactly as the astrophysicists say it does, sending us messages in ‘fossil light’ from long dead quasars, supernovae, and galaxies (plus the occasional long-legged redhead) far out in the firmament.” Coyote: “But the minute he dropped his guard and intuited that his rationalizations were no more than pipe dreams, a wholly different cosmos revealed itself to him, one in which he would be the fossil and it would be a delight, based on the properties of the negative velocity of electromagnetic emission. In that case, space and time would play inverse roles to the ones we know and love so well; time would take on flesh and substance, as Mikhail Bakhtin pointed out, and space would become responsive to it. And of course, your redhead would give rise to one of her justly famous 45-minute-long chained org*sms, with you hanging on to the bedframe to avoid being ‘thrown.’” Roy: “Ever wonder where those equine metaphors come from? The Russian literary critic and temporal philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin was the first human being to figure out what the inverse of Einstein’s space-time would be like. He called it the chronotope, or ‘time-space,’ and said it was the definitive continuum for the shaping and staging of a literary work.” Coyote: “The perfect antidote to the matter and energy space-time ANTI-SONNET .” Roy: “Yet we know nothing of his passion for horses, first domesticated, they say, in southern Russia. Equipoise We use a kind of leverage, the face, the elbow-joints and knees, the pantomime emotions of the heart, to make sublime the patterned movements that our thoughts erase, to lift the tail and arch the neck of rhyme, 176

The Book of Symmetries

use equine sweep and figure to make pace — the borrowed muscles of the human race forget themselves as language every time. To flay the teeth with pheromones, to mate convolvular the long and rolling gait, the rigid back that liquefies the leather; to sound the eunuch-horn, to make the noun re-verb-erate, to take the wind in tether — what good is Poetry when written down?” Coyote: “Or E = mc2 either? Actually, if the equation is to have any value at all, that is, to accurately describe the matter/energy flux in the universe (the ‘equipoise,’ as you call it), it must be accepted at face value. That is, the negative and positive values of the velocity must be valid at the same time.” Roy: “There is both the physical fact of starlight as it moves through the volumes of space and the representational fact of starlight as it comes together in the formation of the equation. Each of these requires a different vectoring of the stuff of the matter-energy cosmos. The actual phenomenon observed by the astronomer is a hybrid, just like you and me.” Coyote: “It is just as valid to conclude that we receive ‘fossil light’ from distant objects out there in the firmament as it is to say: Starlight Grows Forever Younger as It Ages the Cosmic Expanses around It Extension is expansion; we contract (in subtle ways, when sonnets have their say — this gives us fortitude, it gives us play) the universe, our sullen artifact; no conscious or subconscious blocks our way, the foaming line intends the cataract (you take the word for law, we take the fact) extension is expansion, make my day! The Book of Symmetries

177

But why the starlight moves a thousand ways in manifold suspension, let you guess (astronomers, astrologers confess the infinite, remote, the end of days), and why perfection’s spectrum ends in blue, You know exactly why, and always knew.” Roy: “Always one thing in the context of another, hey Coyote? Never any one thing by itself. Even a sonnet, like an equation, or, for that matter, the self-enclosed world of the laws of thermodynamics, must obey the fundamental axiom of self-reaction and must become an eternal prisoner of that least estimable part of ourselves: the recollecting self. Didn’t anyone around here ever hear of spontaneity?” Coyote: “Sure, Roy, that’s the other kind of SYMMETRY , oneupmanship, the obverse twinning of twinning itself with ANTITWINNING , or what Don Juan calls “the ulterior configuration of the abstract.” Roy: “Leibnitz’s Monadology describes a perfectly self-enclosed perceptual universe for each individual, a world in which even physical motion is an illusion, like the famous “Holo-deck” on the starship Enterprise. Also like the two concurrent spatiotemporal motions necessary to validate the E = mc2 equation, both backward and forward at once, whereas the equation itself remains perfectly static the whole time.” Coyote: “And like that lucid dream your teaching assistant Doug Elfers had about the motion inside of us in relation to that on the outside. Remember? In his dream, Doug saw what Don Juan calls an “ally” leaning against a sports car. The ally jerked its thumb at the sports car and said, “This thing is a perception accelerator. By means of regular, mechanical motions, the car moves the assemblage-point of the driver to the place it will be at when the car arrives at its destination.” Roy: “Holy corroly, Coyote, do you know what THAT means? It means anticipatory intelligence, first knowing, future memory, and the true opposite of the merely recollective intelligence that 178

The Book of Symmetries

our physics and our literary acumen exclusively depends on. It means what Don Juan calls ‘the ulterior configuration of the abstract’ and ‘the somersault of thought into the impossible,’ and what the Tenant in The Art of Dreaming calls ‘flying backward and forward on the NOW energy of time.’” Coyote: “Hey buddy, gimme a break. I don’t even know what ‘assemblage point’ means, and as for sports cars, I usually run from them.” Roy: “Well, in this case, it means something like ‘the anticipating self,’ in Don Juan’s teaching on the Double, you know, that part of our being or acting self that the recollecting self can never catch up with — the part that is always gone by the time you look for it.” Coyote: “Actually, I’m from Missouri — you gotta show me.” Roy: “Well, look: everybody is present at the point of their own conception, otherwise there would have been no conception, and therefore no them. ‘You just had to be there,’ as the saying goes. In that same way, the whole universe had to be there at its point of inception, or origin, but it stands to reason that neither you nor the universe could know what was going on at the time.” Coyote: “So, knowing you are at the point of conception is basically getting screwed, what the Bible calls ‘carnal knowledge.’” Roy: “Close, Coyote, but as Freud would say, ‘no cigar.’ There is another saying that is going to help us out a lot here, and fortunately it is a Jewish one: ‘Just knowing is not enough, you gotta know from it.’” Coyote: “So I wouldn’t know my own conception until I had a conception of it, like a two-way holographic org*sm of myself, and the universe itself had no conception until Einstein wrote his famous equation.” Freud: “Give the mutt a SEE -gar.” Roy: “See? it is all a matter of anticipatory intelligence: first ya gotta be there, and then ya gotta see there. Coyote makes himself up all over again every time he has sex, and the universe comes The Book of Symmetries

179

into being once more every time someone figures out a new origin for it. Coyote: “Actually, I suspect cats. Cats Do, After All, Have Something to Do with Conception; The Only Question Is What Be still, there is no absent source, no mother, no afterbirth, Big Bang precipitate, no child-support, behind-on-payments mate; all sex implies a ratio, with the Other made wholly in the self, inconsummate. All light is made to lie, all voice to smother that genitals but spit at one another, and all we do in bed is masturbat*. The work of cats at night is yet unwritten, and void-of-course conception without meter, the cat-without-a-line presumes no rhyme (you’d think they’d leave a note, at least a kitten); no memory, no word, no worried reader forgets them back into the shape of time.” Roy: “Ever watch a cat play with an object until it disappears, knowing the whole time that it would disappear, and then sit around for a long time disconsolate, wondering where it has gotten to?” Coyote: “Yep. Duh!” Roy: “Well, that was doing the same thing to you that Don Genaro was doing to Carlos when he disappeared his car. (‘See, you dope, you look just like I do at this point — clueless.’) The cat was testing your anticipatory intelligence, and of course it drew a blank. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Look ashamed!” Coyote (looks ashamed): “Actually, boss, I didn’t follow a single one of your examples, and I cannot even imagine the one you are about to give me.” Roy: “Good, because that would be predicting, and predicting is a 180 The Book of Symmetries

sure-fire symptom of a merely recollective intelligence — making the future dependent on the past.” Coyote: “Like un-predicting would be making the past dependent on the future? You’re gonna show me how to do that?” Roy: “Bet on it, Bozo! I am going to show you the secret of the selfmodeling series in mathematics, the most familiar example we have of a future-dependent variable. Remember, Coyote? We have already reviewed its relation to the Golden Section and the problems of resonance.” Coyote: “Sure, the famous Fibonacci numbers, how could I forget? Let’s see, the series begins: 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, or maybe just 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13. . . . Or else, you could start at some later point, like 8, for instance, and go 8, 13, 21, 34 . . . Frankly, I don’t know where the series ought to begin. It seems totally arbitrary.” Roy: “There’s where you’re wrong, Coyote. It is completely determined, once you know the secret. And the secret is very simple: each successive member of the series is expressed as the sum of the two previous ones, so that technically you could begin the series at any point provided that rule is obeyed. In theory, you could begin with any two numbers, provided the third is their sum, and go from there, and, Fibonacci or not, it would still be a self-modeling series.” Coyote: “So you cannot know where the series begins until you get into it.” Roy: “Precisely. The algebraic formula is n + 1 = n + (n-1), where the value of n is a function of what goes before and what comes after it.” Coyote: “I got it! It’s like a rabbit watching its back-track, trying to figure out what comes next from what happened beforehand. Like, for instance, me, so that I don’t be what happens next.” Roy: “Or, in other words, anticipatory intelligence. See, Rabbit is justly famous throughout the whole animal world for making a positive virtue of complete naïveté, its power of having no power at all, like the zero. As in the saying, “The moon is Rabbit’s reflection in his own eye.” Coyote: “And also justly famous for littering. That is, its proverbiThe Book of Symmetries

181

al procreative powers: having children all over the place, which might be thought of as ‘reflections’ of the parents as they mate under the full moon on the high plains at night.” Roy: “Thus Rabbit is as intimately related to the Hindu goddess Kali, ‘The Protector of Children,’ as the Golden Section is to the Fibonacci series, or the ‘golden sectioning’ of the moon. For Kali “watches her back-track” too, like that mysterious quantity n in the Fibonacci formula, a function of what goes before and comes afterward. As the Black Goddess of Time, she stands at the Eternal Present, the intersection of synchrony and diachrony — the presence and the passing of time, striking down offenders with her immense sakti power. Kali’s Rainbow She keeps so many moonbeams in her jar reflection could not calculate its months, nor Rabbit’s children, coming all at once — so many plangents on the same sitar interpolate the passage of her dance. The rabbit moon is Kali’s avatar; no metaphor is what it thinks you are but that it take your word as happenstance the way the shadow moves beneath the rabbit, like Kali’s other art of hoppening — the moon above, the goddess down below; all power flows from manic breach of habit: all kinds of songs there are you cannot sing, all kinds of ways there are you cannot go. Kali is the darsan goddess of double vision and double conception. For her, there is no time interval between ‘the original conception of the universe’ and the present moment, whenever that moment might be.” Coyote: “She is also, by my reckoning, the goddess of motivation.” Roy: “How can you know that?” Coyote: “By watching my back-track.” 182 The Book of Symmetries

Roy: “I don’t quite follow you.” Coyote: “That is my point. I don’t see you coming from where I have just been. Like two steps forward and one step back, you know, like that mysterious n in the Fibonacci formula. Or the place where Kali stands.” Roy: “People always act on the dead certainty of what will happen in the future, even though, and especially because, they are quite uncertain about it. . . .” Coyote: “Whereas the only place where you can be dead certain about anything is the here and now, the eternal present.” Roy: “But that is the only place where I have ever been uncertain about anything.” Coyote: “See, Roy, motivation is not only linked to Kali, the moon, and Rabbit, but to the Fibonacci series and obviation, which is also a self-modeling series. The first two substitutions in the obviation diagram, marked A and B , are like the first two numbers in the Fibonacci series: they are future-dependent variables (motivated from the future) because you can only know how and why they are the way they are when you get to the third term, marked C (synthesis) on the diagram.” Roy: “So, Prince Hamlet could only know why he had acted himself mad (A ) after his very motive was countermanded by Polonius’s “To thine own self be true” at B , and then engaged other actors to stage the “dumb show” at point 0, the synthesis, for Claudius’s benefit, showing that actions speak louder than words.” Coyote: “Thus, even though he did not know what would happen in the future, and was terribly uncertain about it at the time, Hamlet’s decision to “act himself mad” at A was retroactively motivated by the dumb show at C . But C is also the beginning of a new triad, like any other Fibonacci sum. So Hamlet’s effort to “get the goods” on Claudius at C , followed by his inadvertent stabbing of Polonius at D (killing Laertes’s father just as Claudius had killed his, reversing the roles), “sets up” Claudius’s illicit compact with Laertes at E, and thus retroactively motivates the synthesis at C .” The Book of Symmetries

183

Roy: “I get the point. ‘Farewell to yesterday’s tomorrow’ — the present happens, but only and always under the illusion that it was the past that was doing it all along. The real motivation underdetermines the uncertainties of the present moment, and one divines the shape of one’s own intention in that ruse.” Coyote: “Sure, Roy. If you take the trouble to go back and look at the obviation diagram, figure 6, you will notice that the three points of synthesis, C , E , and A (both the beginning and the ending), form the apices of the internal triangle, and that the arrows (of implication) connecting these run clockwise around the inner perimeter of the diagram. Those three points motivate the retroactive (‘backward in time’) provocation of the plot.” Roy: “But only because the forward progression of the action in the drama is represented in the diagram as moving counterclockwise around the outer perimeter of the diagram, according to the larger triangle BDF , whose apices form the anti-motivational (or ‘resistance to free will’) structure of the drama.” Coyote: “In that sense, of course the outer triangle BDF corresponds to the traditional model of determinism, or what is called “fatalism” — prediction from the past in science and predestination in Calvinism. It’s the idea that all things are determined from the past, or at least that the shape of the event, the ‘happening of things,’ forms a kind of inevitable resistance to the exercise of free will.” Roy: “But, of course, Hamlet shows that kind of determinist nonsense to be an illusion, though a necessary one, as it sets the stage (as triangle BDF ‘sets the stage’ for triangle ACE for the kind of underdetermination that allows free will, or the free spirit, to trap itself in its own devices. Two steps forward and one step back; the self-modeling series of human destiny.” Coyote: “Roy, are you familiar with the saying, ‘Memory has nothing to do with the past; its only purpose is to rearrange the future’?” Roy: “I ought to be, I made it up. It takes us, via the Kali two-step, back to our point of origin and forward to the vast holographic knowledge of India: 184 The Book of Symmetries

Himavant As having is the antidote to want, the past is what the future does to change, as all we can remember takes us strange — the passive periphrastic of ‘enchant,’ and memory is like a mountain range where sleeps the snow eternal, Himavant, its vistas blue and changeless, hanging gaunt; all pasts are what the future shall arrange. Each point on the horizon holds a sky as overwhelming as the blue above— how manifold the hologram, existence! How multiplex the concourse of the eye — or is it but some fickle god of love distributing the loneliness of distance?” Coyote: “There is a big problem, Roy, with all accounts of the origin of anything — the creation of the universe, the origin of life, consciousness, rational thought . . . ” Roy: “And that is because it is unable to account for what came before it, and so must compromise itself by trying to be selfcontained, or sui-generis, the way Oedipus did when he murdered his father and married his own mother.” Coyote: “Well, that too, though ‘Sui Generis’ sounds like ‘The Mother Of All Pigs,’ but it is not the one I was thinking about. Anything that takes matters into its own hands, like a suicide, challenges the Creator, especially where life is concerned. But it is also true that any account that attempts to explain the purely phenomenal nature of the universe — its matter and energy, order and chaos, atoms and molecules, even life — is obliged to take for granted the very consciousness that allowed one to be aware of it in the first place.” Roy: “Whereas, of course, any account that attempts to explain the purely numinal awareness of things— what awareness or consciousness is in the first place (what they call the ‘spirit’ or Don The Book of Symmetries

185

Juan’s nagual) — is obliged to take for granted the phenomenal reality. You know, matter and energy and life and all that. That is the most obvious thing about our everyday experience of the world around us.” Coyote: “That explains exactly why the greatest thinkers and philosophers of any age — prodigies like Heracl*tus, the Vedic Hindus, Lao Tse, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein — are able to achieve marvels in the realm of human thought yet are unable to make a consummate statement of their own direction and purpose.” Roy: “They leave that for others. They make excuses and assume that it will be self-evident to the reader, which it almost never is, except in the case of sophists and fools. Even Nietzsche, one of the best, suffered from this kind of trauma: Nietzsche’s Migraine The word denies its suicide in rhyme, each metaphor a sympathetic blur to salve the hurt of language as it were; the night is long, the predator sublime, unsheathed, the claws retract again to fur (absolve the witness, nevermind the crime) like Zarathustra’s laughter, keeping time (to what, besides itself, does pain refer?). Compose yourself; the somber violin, cat’s second favorite form of suicide (it takes a stroke to help the beast unwind), without it take you out, will do you in. How like a brain to think itself a mind? How like a cat to think it even tried?” Coyote: “Wrong animal, Roy. Perhaps Nietzsche’s sneaking suspicion about cats was well founded (dogs, like Prussians, are far more obedient), and perhaps he was the victim of keberebidi sorcery, but in any case something made a mistake. Just as the 186 The Book of Symmetries

dreaming body, or nagual, is the figure-ground reversal of the waking body, or tonal, so the echidna is the figure-ground reversal of the dreamer and the dreamed.” Roy: “What? Come again?” Coyote: “Psychologists have experimentally determined that the echidna’s ‘intelligence’ (perhaps more of a savoire faire) is inexhaustible. It appears the creature is incapable of making a distinction between conscious and subconscious, environment and individual, or, for that matter, one moment and the next. Furthermore, it appears that the echidna brain lacks a hippocampus, the seat of memory, so that instead of acting on recall or recollection, echidnas are doomed to proceed improvisatorily as it were, reinventing the whole world (‘of experience’) anew at every step, and on raw intelligence alone — anticipatory intelligence. They ‘walk forever in the eternal daylight of the now,’ and, as if that were not enough, they also glow in the dark.” Roy: “So you’re saying that the echidna is the antidote to Nietzsche’s migraine?” Coyote: “Ah’m sayin’ that the echidna is the antidote to the whole of phenomenal reality and all that it may inherit; that it not only knows, but embodies the figure-ground reversal that divides our world into two equal halves — any two equal halves. And that it could write a sonnet exponentially better than any of yours, and in between the lines of your own thoughts.” Roy: “Oh yeah? I gotta see it to disbelieve it.” Coyote: “Voila Echidna What time dares not to multiply, divides, itself within itself, as though immortal; interpolated instants form a portal — infinity within — and therein hides time’s secret in disguise, the neo-cortal indefinite echidna; faith abides the salvage-yard of mirror suicides but not the joke without its punch line (chortle) The Book of Symmetries

187

and not the laugh without the joke, perforce, the mirrored sky recedes from blue to blue, the shape of wings that unremembers birds; echidnas mate, and call it ‘undercourse,’ too whimsical for reprimand, and too (as we have seen) indefinite for words.” The One Thing I Keep Trying to Tell You and That You Keep Trying to Tell Me Roy: “About what? About you and I, or about the sonnet, the Antitwins, anticipatory intelligence, Kali, the echidna, Nietzsche, or the figure-ground reversal?” Coyote: “All of them, all of the above. You see, Nietzsche was the foremost philosopher of his time, the one who had figured out his true direction and purpose. Though, by that time, Hegel was dead, and no one else had the ability at conceptual synthesis to know what he meant, much less believe him. He called it ‘the eternal return,’ and everybody thought he meant something like reincarnation on a personal or cultural level.” Roy: “Spengler asserted that each ‘high culture’ had its distinctive conceptual soul, a way of perceiving extension, though they all shared exactly the same cyclical format. And Spengler claimed he got his whole ‘overview’ — something like Don Juan’s seeing — from Nietzsche.” Coyote: “Nietzsche wrote, ‘What is truth? A mobile army of metaphors . . . ,’ and that would have to mean that the essence of meaning in a metaphor referred back to the one who was thinking it. You know, like the One in the mirror who steals your act of looking, but only to see itself.” Roy: “But not the echidna, who needs no prior knowledge of anything, not even of itself. The Daribi use its dormant body for their memory-erasure sorcery. Remember?” Coyote: “Like the zero term, stupor mundi (‘wonder of the world’), as the medievals would say, and closely related to Kali: ‘No metaphor is what it thinks you are / but that it take your word as happenstance.’” 188 The Book of Symmetries

Roy: “Sure. ‘Metaphor is language’s way of trying to figure out what we mean by it,’ like, ‘Who, me? Funny thing you should ask.’” Coyote: “So metaphor, or what we would like to think of as ‘meaning,’ is the not-doing figure-ground reversal of language, just as technology is the figure-ground reversal of human intention and action, and the echidna is the figure-ground reversal of memory and all it implies — the entire library of texts, clay tablets, equations, recorded formulas, memory-clips, and back-tothe-beginning, think-it-up-all-over-again analytic procedures that every civilization relies upon.” Roy: “Thus, conceptual or ‘analytic’ sophistication for most people means taking the grounding metaphors or analogical underpinnings of their religion, art, and science both literally and figuratively, so that fact and fantasy confirm each other, as in the sonnet. All facts are bizarre departures from the norm; all norms are bizarre departures from the fact.” Coyote: “And that has the adverse effect of fixing the perception of a single individual, or a whole civilization, within a single figure-ground reversal matrix that will rule them their whole lives. What Don Juan calls ‘the axis of perception’ defines the comfort-zone of everyday life, human mental and physical routines. He calls it ‘the here and there,’ that which is proper and more familiar to us as against what is comparatively alien or other, given that all our words and significant concepts come in pairs, and that we use our very imaginations to hold the figure-ground reversal in place.” Roy: “But it is we who are like that, not the world around us which has figure-ground reversals of its own. Like that river called the Swift Run that used to flow by my house, and told me its name was: Shadow-Walker This current named itself so long ago the memories have memories, the trace of ancient waterfalls, the carapace The Book of Symmetries

189

of shadows moving through a glass too slow for eye to catch them or the light efface the netherworlds of depth that liquids know the trees of autumn blanching row on row, the upright posture of the human race. “I am not like you, do not live or think as custom has us mate in different styles, nor love in any pattern made by ink, or colored figures that the sun beguiles to fructify the water as they sink; I have forgotten loves, and secret smiles.” Coyote: “Babes in the woods, Roy, shame on you! You were not taught to think that way, much less feel that way. If challenged to put it into words, you could only reflect upon it and never go with the flow. It’s a dam good thing you human beings invented names, otherwise you would be speechless!” Roy: “We are all slaves of the figure-ground reversal format we were born to, and it rules our conceptual ability every day of our lives. That is the whole challenge of what Don Juan calls ‘power,’ and what we call Coyote Anthropology and what Nietzsche called Die Ewige Wiederkunft, or the eternal return. The being that could teach itself to take control of that ability to ground the figure and figure the ground — that is, to underdetermine the play of perspectives that control our movement, orientation, and emotion in the world around us (what Aristotle called ‘the active subject’) — that being would have no limitations of any kind whatsoever. Even the life/death figure-ground reversal would invert upon itself. As I once put it in a sonnet, ‘There are no more excuses for existence . . . uncomplicated gods invented distance.’” Coyote: “So, the reverse perspectives in Byzantine paintings took them halfway there, and the figure-ground reversal masterpieces of M. G. Escher advanced the viewer’s control by another quarter-turn.” Roy: “Why do you say that, Coyote?” 190 The Book of Symmetries

Coyote: “Because they only demonstrate the possibilities, like a sleight-of-hand performance, whereas if the viewer could fully incorporate the underdetermination of figure-ground reversal within their sensorium, as Aristotle might put it, there would be no need for objectification anymore. Nietzsche went mad in the end, more or less like Hamlet. The Byzantine perspectives fell victim to iconoclasty riots, and M. C. Escher emerged as the true heir of Jan Vermeer, the greatest of all Dutch interior painters. Figure-ground control was hard work for these Magians and Faustians.” Roy: “But it was easy for the ancient Mayans, who used animal powers, just as we do in our sonnets. Just as Hamlet dramatized Shakespeare’s intuition of anticipatory intelligence (each of the three cross-cutting axes of an obviation —‘to anticipate and dispose of ’ — is a figure-ground reversal in and of itself), so the jaguar, called balam by the Mayans, gave them the precept for the independent invention of the zero-term.” Coyote: “The not-doing figure-ground reversal of number, or as you like to think of it, quantity, an anticipatory mathematical anomaly invented, as far as we can tell, only twice in human history: once in ancient India and once in Mexico. Though something of a conundrum in it self, it enables place value systems in mathematics. As they say in India, ‘Even the leopard has its spots.’” Roy: “Sure, but look closely at the jaguar’s spots. At first approximation, they look like our zero figure, enclosing an empty space. But on closer inspection they are more like Greek omega signs, meaning ‘the end.’ But in the final analysis, they look most like cowrie shells, which served the Mayans as their glyph for the zero, the nothing that was really something: Balam for George Mentore Deny the gods, invent some better law, gigantic feline essence of the owl! The Book of Symmetries

191

He has the deeper throat, the darker scowl, the jungle-shaking gutteral, the JAW . When all the shades of night are crying fowl he lights the lamps of jade and loosens craw, the hunter that his victims never saw, the JAGUAR , liquesces on the prowl. They did not need their gods in olden times, no matter what our evolution thinks, but took his passion, redefining crimes from glancing at his spots, from sudden fright invented ZERO in the sudden night, the scare that wasn’t there, the missing lynx.” Coyote: “Well, Roy, the jaguar may have given the Mayans their nothingness, as you say, but it was a Coyote who gave the Aztecs their language. Surely you will have heard of Nezuauacoyotl, ‘Hungry Coyote,’ the great Toltec poet who was also ruler of a city-state: In hungry times did Nezuauacoyotl bespeak the slain, the truth of the atlatl, the slurrogate of speech, the sly coatl, the serpent of the word, the sacerdotal. The Mayan language took away its rattle and jazzy Aztec made it almost total, the tonal of the times is anecdotal, the snake of language takes the word to battle. However deep the throat or dry the throttle the Aztecs made an Empire epiglottal, they made an age of copper show its mettle and made persuasion sing like Aristotle; the snake-in-talons brought them there to settle, the Pope of mountains, Popocatepetl.” Roy: “It was just that same swift, sure control over an inner faculty 192

The Book of Symmetries

that can only be objectified with great difficulty; the underdetermination of perspectival figure-ground reversal that continues to strike awe and wonder in archaeologists, Castanedans, and all those who would try to make sense of Meso-American civilization. Don Juan said that the pyramids of ancient Mexico were envisioned as ‘gigantic not-doings’ to help the warrior contemplate the full implications of the second-attention, that part of us that acts in advance of recollective conventionality — the anticipatory intelligence of the Mayan long-count.” Coyote: “The so-called Mayan calendar was actually the temporal opposite of anything we know by that term; it used omens to ‘unpredict,’ that is, to certify the present via shrewd observations anticipated from a phantom future position. In that sense, the whole layout and emphasis of Meso-American culture can be treated and understood as a gigantic manipulation of the axis of perception — a not-doing of all we are familiar with as modern times, socio-political agendas, science, technology, ethics, and social relationships. It was the city upside-down.” Roy: “Second-attention reality was the same thing in both cases: the fundamental thing that drives or motivates us as human beings and makes life worthwhile. But it takes an opposite form in the two civilizations. In our modern, right-side-up cities, the power of second-attention — the essence of metaphor, meaning, love, sexual being, action, and perhaps the nature of time itself — is treated as necessary but incidental to our true aims and goals. For us, sex, love, and reproduction belong to the private sector, our non-public lives. Music is a form of entertainment, and metaphor and insight serve as hypotheses or heuristics to aid in understanding the hard facts of science. For us, the secondattention is ‘subjective’ (that means soft and squishy and iffy) and of passing interest to the businessman or scientist. When ‘persuasion’ does not work and goodwill goes by the board, they use the implicate imperative, the electronic command-structure of the computer (wise in the way that Caesar was wise), to intimidate people into doing their jobs. (A modern democracy has no slaves and needs none.)” The Book of Symmetries

193

Coyote: “For them, the Meso-Americans, in their upside-down cities, it was quite the reverse: they were not ‘bleeding-heart liberals’ but open heart specialists, devoted practitioners on the sacerdotal level of the famous one-way Aztec open-heart surgery. Aortal ventriloquists, TAKE HEART ! For them, the cosmos was not made of spatial intervals, but moments in time — a kind of time that obeyed no distinctions between phenomenal levels, the so-called natural and social discriminations that mean so much to us. For them, the so-called calendar was dictionary, encyclopedia, almanac, and Bible all rolled into one.” Roy: “The joke that brings the library down! They used omens to divine (not define) future events and happenings. They unpredicted, used the future to forecast the present instead of using the past to estimate probable and improbable futures. We use facts, observations, and experiments to prove the way things always were and always will be. For us, the second-attention is and always will be the ultimate frontier of knowledge, something scarcely to be realized in anyone’s lifetime. For them it was proof-positive of the sum of all knowledge as an achieved quantity and of the effective internalization of the underdetermined perceptual figure-ground reversal within the human psyche. Or, if you will, the subliminal obviation of the axis of perception.” Coyote: “So the ‘city upside-down’ belies comparison with the metropolitan aggregations of other high civilizations in that it was not only a not-doing inversion of the Greek polis, the Roman urbs, the Islamic medina, but a mere disguise for the fact that Meso-American civilization could orient its structures in any way it wanted to. The not-doing that shows they had perfectly incorporated the concept of not-doing.” Roy: “The comparison is not unlike that of Hegel’s contrast between the two kinds of infinity: the bad infinity of the mathematicians, so remote that no one could ever count up to it, and the good infinity of the perfect proportion perfectly realized, like Georg Cantor’s epigrammatic proofs of the transfinite numbers. Or the perfect moment, the one statement that says it all because it underdetermines all others, the perfect sonnet.” 194 The Book of Symmetries

Coyote: “When Western thinkers try to make sense of the perfect underdetermination of things, they tend to over-literalize. Like the object of the Large Hadron Collider, the most expensive scientific project ever conceived. This is supposed to be something called ‘the God particle,’ a particle so small that it underdetermines all the physical laws of the universe, and so, in a de facto sense, is God.” Roy: “But when Meso-American adepts chose to depict the underdetermination of their universe, they did so in a way that was both over-funny and over-serious at once, like the way in which Don Juan and Don Genaro taught Carlos. Look at the famous Dresden Codex, currently on display in Vienna. The human figures depicted in the text are in fact Genaro-like caricatures, comical impersonations of what Mr. Average would look like while doing those things. But the scenes or situations in which they are acting are the most deadly serious ones that that culture could conceive. Don Juan equates the super-serious expersonations with impeccability, the ulterior configuration of the abstract, and ‘the way of the warrior.’” Coyote: “They expressed what we would call a metaphor in terms of its extremes rather than its means (what a ‘meta’ is ‘for,’ so to speak). So the Nahuatl (Aztec) metaphor for metaphor itself was in xochitl in cuicatl, literally “flower and song” but figuratively, on its own scale, ‘visual image and acoustical continuity,’ meaning ‘everything that takes place between these two extremes.’” Roy: “Take, for instance, the marigold, honored as a mortuary flower both in pre-contact Mexico and pre-contact Austria.” Coyote: “I cannot even imagine pre-contact Austria.” Roy: “Nor should you. I have enough trouble with post-contact Austria. Marigold Do not in vengeance smite the butterfly, the featherwork belies the feather-crafter and marigold’s the crown of human laughter. The Book of Symmetries

195

Do not becloud the deadly crystal’s eye, do not deny the bat his morning rafter, his shriek that makes decryption of the sky, make mordant of the evening’s purple dye, the alcohol of love the morning after. Do not pretend to know the Mayan heart, contrive a metaphor of heart’s defiance, the ways of hemoglobin mask an art, the calendar’s astrologies a science; the whims of sorcery are feather-light, and soft the owl that does its job at night.” Coyote: “Sometimes the most beautiful symmetries are also the most deadly.” Roy: “The code name for Hitler’s dreadful Night of the Long Knives was kolibri, the German word for ‘hummingbird.’” Coyote: “I have never yet heard anyone make proper sense of the ancient Mayan honorific for hummingbird: Lord of the Black Sun of the Fifth World.” Roy: “That is because solar eclipses are so rare. And besides, you don’t ever, ever want to provoke that awesome-but-dreadful (the Germans would say abscheulich) micro-macro power to work its scale-change magic on you. You know — one moment it is a tiny loving heart, drinking joy from the morning glories, and in a flash it turns inside-out into a tornado and walks the land in devastation. Lord of the Black Sun of the Fifth World Invisible, shot through with eye and wing, the flower-taker’s heart, the gnat of light that makes each thing its opposite, the right that knows no left but makes the distance sing; Dark Lord of Eclipse, Jeweler of Flight and Masquerade of Color, BEAR THIS THING : THE WORLD IS GONE , the sun puts on its ring of gold and black, the land espouses night. 196 The Book of Symmetries

Reflect the dark obsidian heart of man in blue cenotes going down, take height for depth, reverse the heavy charge of earth, Horizon-in-Your-Heart, the wind’s delight, re-weaver of the daylight’s masterplan, UNTANGLE DARKNESS — BRING THE SUN TO BIRTH !”

Out of This World Coyote: “The fact that the sun and moon cut out equal-area circles in the sky is no cosmic accident by a long shot, and the fact that their mutual occlusion in the solar eclipse is so rare— the solar corona, the sun’s luminous energy-aura, shines forth upon the firmament — gives a highly privileged point of vantage to the earth and all its creatures.” Roy: “It is related to the symmetry of the earth, the moon, and the sun; to the symmetry of all living creatures to one another and to the earth itself; to the underdetermination of equilibrium, or balance; and to the curious fact that Wittgenstein noted toward the end of the Tractatus that ‘the eye does not lie within its own field of vision.’” Coyote: “Beyond that, it is related to what Goethe called the Erdgeist, the ‘Earth-Spirit’” or super-consciousness of the globe upon which we all dwell: the fact — well known to the ancient Mayans, the Chinese, and probably the people of Stonehenge — that the Earth itself is a sentient being.” Roy: “One that is capable, according to Don Juan, of feeling and expressing all the emotions that a human being could possibly feel, plus a great many more that are hidden from our empathy within the multiplex planes or levels of its consciousness.” Coyote: “It could see more colors in the RAINBOW than the rainbow itself could see. Rainbow (Chel) O feathered serpent of the atmosphere some iridescent eagle drew your arc, The Book of Symmetries

197

some agate-eyed pit viper lit the spark; you make the heart feel happy to be here. Uncoil the sun.’ Stay sudden in the dark, outplume the birds, go silent like the deer, collect the scent of flowers and appear surprisingly, make eyebrow’s question mark. Light’s introspection matches Mayan art in grinning upside-down the world below, makes sacrifice of storm, and sometimes twins the crescent fantasy where thought begins its artificial intercourse; they start from nowhere, end in chaos, steal the show.” Roy: “Edge of the sun in the edge of the storm: the fractal patterning of light and darkness, confirmation and doubt, turmoil and tranquility. The rainbow itself does not lie within its own field of vision — you have to have the sun at your back.” Coyote: And that, in turn, brings us to the most profound of all Wittgenstein’s insights, the gem of the Tractatus. The one that makes sense of this whole book, the totality of human or animal cultural experience, and the central question of all great religions: ‘The meanings of this world must lie outside of this world.’” Roy: “Well, they sure as hell do a good job of lying inside of this world, so why stop there?” Coyote: “Ya gotta stop somewhere.” Roy: “Ready to call it quits, Coyote?” Coyote: “Ready when you are . . . might as well head back to the Big Sky Country: West Texas To be forgotten in the way things are like history or lifetime, rearrange perspective inside-out, to know the strange as intimacy, close, the way a star becomes two distances that looks exchange — 198 The Book of Symmetries

a single currency of near and far, the empty dot that was a railroad car — ‘here’ to itself alone, like open range unfenced by the horizon, anyplace, dumbstruck and flattened down by too much sky. Some animal or bird, I know not which, reflects its cloudscapes in a vagrant ditch unflattered by the wind along its face, and infinite the color of its eye.”

The Book of Symmetries

199