Saintly Stories

Burroughs and Revelations
2001-10-22 - 2:25 p.m.

before/after
strangely non-functional guestbook

Reading more Burroughs is a treat.

So many of the concepts he pushes out are ones I've already reasoned out myself. Its refreshing, like finding out I'm not alone.

Then I'll read some of his homoerotic imagery, and it just about puts me off my lunch. I simply do not like to read about, rectal mucus and jism in the same sentence. Or the same page.

Or really, at all, in the same context. The term, "rectal mucus" just makes me want to retch.

So I skip those parts. I always go with what interests me anyway.

Like reading the Book of Revelations, some of the annotated versions I perused (in addition to the good ole' KJV) highlighted that the Whore of Babylon (christianity, misogynistic to the bitter end) and her "proginey" were the main feature of the whole "story".

Not me. I dig the seven seals. The horseman are cool. The two prophets that get killed and raised.

The last time through, I was compelled by two parts. One:

10:1	And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
10:2	And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,
10:3	And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
10:4	And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

So, if this is a revelation, what can't you reveal?

I suppose this runs straight into the question, 'do you really believe this stuff?'

Let me say that I don't really believe it. It falls into a curious file in my head, where a lot of my spiritual beliefs go. A sort of a dead file. The items in there get compared to reality every once in a while, looking for a match, but as far as out-and-out faith, with a script this beautifully mangled, I read the whole thing, and never come across a question like that.

The second passage I like is this:

13:10

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Still mulling that one over. Does this mean, that at the Apocalypse, Saints will roam the Earth like the LAPD on a high-strung PCP vacation of mayhem? I don't know, and frankly, it hadn't occured to me until just now. I simply liked how it sounds.

An idea had been ruminating in my head, as a result of this "war on terrorism", which is this: have everyone meet with their parents, and swear to them that they will stop killing other people if they will swear to their children that they will do the same. In this manner, war is stopped.

Of course, there are those that take kindness for weakness, and with this covenant comes a collorary: anyone who kill after this remarkable day, get turned upon by anyone and everyone near him, to swiftly take him down in the fastest manner possible, preferrably close at hand by an angry mob, upset that someone would disturb the peace.

So this passage appeals to my war-time sensibilities. Plus, I liked the tension between the two statements. "killed" and "patience of saints".

I take what I like, and leave the rest, paying attention only to what interests me.

Much like Burroughs. Just because I don't like some of the things he wrote, doesn't mean I discard the body of work.

People need to see the good. So many focus on the faults, for a reason to stay close-minded, to secure their little world from invasion and high-jacking by the thoughts of others.

Oh no, where will my mind go?

Unfortunately, they don't realize the amalagam existance we all live, the apportionment of other people in ourselves, the continuity of the ego, the early life fix from somewhere else.

All these things make their argument pointless.