Tag: Literature

Forbidden Planet

Science is a practice that emerges from myth, its form found in the stories we tell of it. I’ve identified a pattern connecting the stories we’ve told of AI. Yet I know not what to make of it or how to respond to it. What is my role in this pattern? How much of it found, how much projected?

Time to rewatch Forbidden Planet (1956), classic 50s sci-fi retelling of The Tempest, filmed in CinemaScope, with Ariel recast as a nonbinary robot and Caliban recast as the Id. “For your convenience,” says the robot, “I am monitored to respond to the name Robby.” When asked if it’s male or female, Robby replies, “In my case, sir, the question is totally without meaning.”

As this initial exchange indicates, gender is one of the film’s primary concerns. Like the island from The Tempest, the planet here in Forbidden Planet includes a father and his daughter among its few inhabitants. Prospero and Miranda have here been replaced with recluse philologist Dr. Edward Morbius and his daughter Altaira. Where The Tempest begins with Antonio and his fellow castaways washing up on the shore of Prospero’s island, Forbidden Planet opens with the arrival of a space cruiser. An all-male crew led by Leslie Nielsen lands on the planet as the film begins.

Morbius thinks of Robby as “simply a tool.” He commands Robby to walk toward a disintegrator beam to demonstrate to Commander Adams and his crewmates the robot’s “absolute selfless obedience.” “Attribute no feeling to him, gentlemen,” says Morbius. “Order canceled,” he shouts as Robby marches toward the beam.

As Morbius notes Robby’s superhuman strength, a concerned crewman replies, “Well, in the wrong hands, might such a tool become a deadly weapon?”

Morbius tries to disarm such fears: “No, Doctor,” he says, none too reassuringly, “not even though I were the mad scientist of the taped thrillers, because you see there happens to be a built-in safety factor.” Built in, we soon learn, by none other than Morbius himself, Robby’s creator. “I tinkered him together,” he explains, “during my first months up here.”

Morbius is no Frankenstein. Yes, he inhabits laboratories. Yes, he creates a robot. His science, however, is linked with philology, parlor magic, and most of all, technologies belonging to the Krell, an ancient alien civilization of the planet’s archaic past.

It is this other technology, with its triangles and pyramids, that constitutes the film’s innovation into the continuum of the Frankenstein narrative.

Morbius tours the crewmen through an underground museum of Krell technology. Advanced mnemotechnics. “On this screen,” he says, “the total knowledge of the Krell, from its primitive beginning, to the day of its annihilation, a sheer bulk surpassing many millions of Earth libraries.”

As the tour continues, we witness another device: the Krell’s “Plastic Educator.” Gathering around the object’s plastic pyramid, Morbius explains it to the crewmen as follows: “As far as I can tell, they used it to condition and test their young — in much the same way we once employed fingerpainting among our kindergarten children.” I picture Vannevar Bush’s Memex. The device outputs holographic images, manifestations of mind visible to others.

“I often play with it myself for relaxation,” Morbius adds with a smile, sitting down beside it. “Although working here, I sometimes wish I’d been blessed with multiple arms and legs.”

The Krell as pictured later in the film are hideous — though here, I picture an Octopus.

Awed by Morbius’s demonstration of the Plastic Educator, Lt. Ostrow, the ship’s doctor, calls it “Aladdin’s lamp in a physics laboratory.”

Next, as if moving sequentially through a space similar to the Futurama exhibit from the 1939 New York World’s Fair, Morbius guides the crewmen on a tour of the Krell’s thermonuclear energy system. The men board a capsule-shaped vehicle and descend into an underground space of vast proportion, an imaginary architecture: hints of what would become the atrium of the Westin Bonaventure, with its ascending glass elevator, rendered in the style of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.

Despite these grand glimpses of the post-scarcity utopia on the far side of history, Morbius is still cut from the Frankenstein cloth. For something befell the Krell. There’s something tragic and forbidden about this alien knowledge. Their experiments had apocalyptic consequences. Morbius, “answerable exclusively to his own conscience and judgement,” feels mankind isn’t fit for such knowledge, and resists Commander Adams’s wish to share these discoveries with others.

However, as Lt. Ostrow explains after his ill-fated “brain boost” via Plastic Educator, the Krell forgot one thing: “Monsters from the Id.” When pressed by Commander Adams, Morbius defines the Id as “an obsolete term, I’m afraid, once used to describe the elementary basis for the subconscious mind.”

“Monsters from the subconscious: of course!” replies the Commander. “That’s what Doc meant!”

The veil parts, Morbius awakened suddenly to the danger of technologies that bestow the power of creation via thought. “Why haven’t I seen this all along?” he says, awed by the realization. “The beast. The mindless primitive. Even the Krell must have evolved from that beginning.”

The Commander, angered, digs deeper. “And so, those mindless beasts of the subconscious had access to a machine that could never be shut down. The secret devil of every soul on the planet, all set free at once to loot and maim. And take revenge, Morbius! And kill!”

As Morbius struggles to acknowledge the vengeful power of his own subconscious, the Commander scolds him with the standard Freudian prognosis: “We’re all part monsters in our subconscious. […]. Even in you, the loving father, there still exists the mindless primitive, more enraged and more enflamed with each new frustration. So now you’re whistling up your monster again!”

“Guilty! Guilty! My evil self is at that door, and I have no power to stop it!” cries an anguished Morbius, accepting the tragic Oedipal weave of the film’s borrowings from Freud whole cloth.

As consolation to Altaira upon her father’s passing, Commander Adams delivers the film’s closing words.  “About a million years from now, the human race will have crawled up to where the Krell stood in their great moment of triumph and tragedy. And your father’s name will shine again, like a beacon in the galaxy. It…will remind us that we are, after all, not god.”

“The Instant Is Its Own Interpretation”

What delight it is to read The Tempest, Shakespeare’s words strings precisely plucked, so perfect in their utterance. I’m gonzo for Gonzalo, the utopian of the troupe. “Long live Gonzalo!” as says a mocking Antonio, another of the play’s castaways. Antonio is the usurper, the schemer: he who dethroned his own brother, Prospero. He for whom “what’s past is prologue, what to come, / In yours and my discharge.”

Charles Olson reiterated this equation of Antonio’s, but with past swapped for present: charge placed on the instant. “My shift is that I take it the present is prologue, not the past,” he wrote in his essay “The Present is Prologue.”

“The instant, therefore, is its own interpretation, as a dream is, and any action — a poem, for example. Down with causation…And yrself: you, as the only reader and mover of the instant. You, the cause. No drag allowed, on either. Get on with it.

In the work and dogmas are: (1) How by form, to get the content instant; (2) what any of us are by the work on ourself, how to make ourself fit instruments for use (how we augment the given — what used to be called our fate); (3) that there is no such thing as duality either of the body and the soul or of the world and I, that the fact in the human universe is the discharge of the many (the multiple) by the one (yrself done right, whatever you are, in whatever job, is the thing — all hierarchies, like dualities, are dead ducks).”

“I find it awkward,” confesses Olson, “to call myself a poet or writer. If there are no walls there are no names. This is the morning, after the dispersion, and the work of the morning is methodology: how to use oneself, and on what. That is my profession. I am an archaeologist of morning.”

See, too, for Olson’s further commentary on The Tempest, his essay “Quantity in Verse, and Shakespeare’s Late Plays.”

Postmodernism is for Olson a Post-Western condition — an escape from the Western “box” by way of remembrance of what is prior. Western consciousness is descriptive, analytical, alienated, skeptical in its relationship to the cosmos. Those who wish to enter postmodernity do so through change of consciousness, thinks Olson: change of psyche’s relationship to cosmos. Poets transform the world through transformation of syntax. The key is to embrace the instant — “the going live present, the ‘Beautiful Thing’” — as a moment open to acts of mythopoetic response-ability. The past is no longer prologue. Reality, taken honestly, is “never more than this instant…you, this instant, in action” (Human Universe, p. 5). Myths are function calls. Constitutive utterances, they call worlds into being. “The care of myth is in your hands,” writes Olson. “You are, whether you know it or not, the living myth — each of you — which you neglect, not only at your own peril, but at the peril of man.”

Remembering this constitutive, “projective” power of mythopoesis — the world-making power of our words as used each instant — prompts/executes/enacts recursive return to the primordial, archaic, pre-Greek, pre-Socratic, pre-Western condition of unity with the cosmos.

Olson’s classic statement of these themes is an essay of his titled “Human Universe.” Western logic and classification, he says, “intermite our participation in our experience.” To restore a proper relationship between psyche and cosmos, he argues, one must achieve a new methodology, an orientation toward knowledge that sloughs off overreliance on Western logic. Postmodernity is a movement from logos back to myth.

But what of Olson’s relationship to Antonio?

Olson’s understanding of “right relation” between human and universe isn’t exactly a humble one. “We cannot see what size man can be once more capable of,” he writes, “once the turn of the flow of his energies that I speak of as the WILL TO COHERE is admitted, and its energy taken up” (Human Universe, p. 21). The human defined by Olson’s will to cohere is of heightened stature; “man’s measure” magnified, heroized, made Maximus. Mad Max.

I can’t help but think of Olson — a massive man, 6’7’ — “towering” over poor Arthur Koestler. What did Koestler see in Olson? Did the mushroom reveal to him something of Olson’s nature?

I’m reminded, too, of an episode recounted by Olson scholar George F. Butterick.

“Jonathan Williams,” writes Butterick, “tells a story of going to a movie theater one night with Olson in Asheville, N.C., the city outside Black Mountain — the Isis Theater, no less — to see a film called, yes, The Bride of Frankenstein. And at the end, as the screen went dark and the lights came on, and he and Olson stood up in the center of the theater preparing to go, Williams noticed the rest of the audience, good Asheville citizens, tradesmen and their wives, farmers from the hills, were eyeing Olson peculiarly. Wide-eyed, unable to take their eyes off him, they inched further and further away, making their way without further hesitation to the doors. It was as if they were witnessing — and suddenly participating in — a continuity of the movie, the image from the screen become live in their midst!” (“Charles Olson and the Postmodern Advance,” p. 14).

Butterick reads Maximus as Olson’s “post-modern hero.” “Maximus fulfills Olson’s mythic ambitions. He absorbs the disorder, grows large on it. […]. Maximus is a proposition, a proportion to be filled, a challenge thrown ahead from the moment of its naming. […]. He is a magnification, a metaphor for human possibility” (16).

Olson’s “will to cohere” is a “re-animative” will, as paratactic as it is projective, existing somewhere on a spectrum with the wills that animate The Tempest and Frankenstein. Heriberto Yépez reads Olson’s will as imperial — every bit as much a will to dominate as the wills of Antonio, Prospero, and Victor. Olson’s insistence, though, is that past is not prologue. This is no mere neo-Promethean bid to steal back juice from Zeus. He wants out of the Western box altogether, in ways that align him — in the body, the substance, of his faith — with the utopian desires of Gonzalo and the decolonial desires of Ariel and Caliban. When the townspeople shrink from him, it is not because they think him Victor, but because of his resemblance to the Creature.

Cyborg Gardens

I imagine paths in the Cyborg Garden ranging, fork-like, amid a mind-map of topics: “God’s Gardeners,” characters from Margaret Atwood’s MaddAddam trilogy; Olson’s distaste for “sylvan” utterances; constructions of the wild in Gary Snyder.

Reading Olson’s “Quantity in Verse,” I’m struck by the force of his preference for the urban over the sylvan, a distinction he believes “got into England from the Italians of the 16th Century).” Shakespeare and the other Elizabethan poets, says Olson, “were in a dilemma between urban and sylvan by and about Elizabeth’s death (1603): though they had exploited London midland speech magnificently in drama, the moment they wanted to do something else, had to do something else, they knew no other mold for it than a sylvan one, the pastoral, than, in fact, that masque which Comus, god help us, has been called the triumph of” (“Quantity in Verse,” p. 38).

Milton’s Comus is a masque in honor of chastity, presented on Michaelmas 1634 before John Egerton, Lord President of Wales. The sylvan favors innocence.

Olson’s claim is that Shakespeare, in late plays like The Tempest, “sought a form…which would deliver him from the pastoral and enable him to do what long form has taught us: to be urban at the same time that we are forever rid of ‘nature,’ even human ‘nature,’ in that damned sylvan sense” (38).

This is not to be confused with a mere championing of the urban in opposition to the pastoral. The Gloucester of Olson’s Maximus Poems is, after all, a “tansy city,” one where the “real” and the “natural” proliferate amid the “made.” This inseparability of the two is what he finds in the late plays of Shakespeare: not a return to sylvan innocence, but rather what critic Joshua Corey calls an “avant-pastoral” poetics rooted in body and breath. After hundreds of years of it, sez Olson, we have “got our fill of urban as city” (38). “Whatever you have to say,” he wrote, “leave / the roots on, let them / dangle / And the dirt / Just to make clear / where they come from.” Hence postmodernity, with its dreams of Cyborg Gardens and Electric Sheep and Machines of Loving Grace.

Toward a Theory of Recursion

Recursion has been on my mind of late, something I’ve been puzzling over for some time. I took notes on it the other day while reading a chapter about it in a computer science textbook — though I know it to be more than just a computational method, more than just a function in a language like Python. Recursion is a cosmological pattern, a mythic structure, a spiritual gesture, an act of becoming.

“A recursive function is a function that calls itself,” says the textbook.
So, too, is a self that remembers itself.
So, too, is a story that calls attention to its own devices, becomes aware of itself, trance-scribes itself, hails itself as story.

The laws are simple. The implications, infinite.

First, a base case.
“Stop here. You are safe. Begin from here,” says the base case.
Something known. Felt. A kiss. A word. A breath. A weed. Something to stop the infinite regress.

Second, a change of state.
The recursion must evolve. Each iteration shifts. Moves toward something.
(Or away. Evolution is directionless, but recursion is not.)

Lastly, a call to self.
A loop. A spiral. The ouroboros with syntax.
Recursion is an act of return — not to the same, but through the same.

This morning, as I re-read Gerrit Lansing’s “Weed Udana,” I saw recursion at play in Lansing’s breathwork. The poem begins with recitation of a mantra of sorts. “Food is not the Enemy. / Certainly Food is not the Enemy,” writes Lansing, his second line’s repetition of the first an invocation toward understanding, toward transformation. A consciousness-raising loop through language. A fractal tongue.

I think, too, of the Sierpinski Triangle, a fractal structure exhibiting the property of self-similarity.

To create a Sierpinski Triangle by hand, one begins by dividing a large triangle into four smaller triangles by connecting the midpoints of each side of the first. Ignoring the middle triangle created by this act, one then re-applies the same procedure to each of the three corner triangles, repeating the procedure indefinitely, to whatever degree of iteration one desires.

Each triangle, in other words, births three smaller ones. The middle disappears.
Absence as recursion’s axis.
Omission as form.

Recursive fiction:
A story that erases itself in order to continue.
A garden that blooms by forgetting and recalling the names of its seeds.

When writing in Trance-Scripts, I often wonder:

Am I writing the post? Or is the post writing me?
Is the text recursive? Is it a base case?
Is this the moment I remember something true?

Let’s say the Library is recursive.
Let’s say the interface is a call to self.
Let’s say the act of writing is the recursive traversal of our own memory.

A post is a function.
A function is a call.
A call is a return.

Trance-Scripts grows as recursion blooms.

Illustration by Andreas Töpfer

Heavenly Tree, Nonbinary Tree

Reading Gerrit Lansing’s Heavenly Tree, Northern Earth occasions anamnesis. The book does not teach; it reminds. Though new to me, it is as if it were always here in my memory palace. Its poems are strange attractors. Possessed of a kind of retrocausal agency, they land rightly, on time, un plein jour, in ways that resonate. “The heavens declare, / Apophainetai!” (191): words Lansing himself declares in “Stanzas of Hyparxis,” the poem that opens a section of the book called “Portals.” Its verses emerge as radiograms from the imaginal — signals sent back through time. Like utterances overheard from an Eternal Now, the book’s portal-poems draw forth — bring to light / let show — words of other books in the Library. Synchronicities abound as one reads.

I puzzle over the book’s many references to the “heavenly tree.” Beginning with the poem that began his career, “The Heavenly Tree Grows Downward,” Lansing’s work stands as a reply of sorts to the oft-quoted line from Jung’s Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (1951): “No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.”

Elsewhere Jung writes, however, of “The Inverted Tree.” Hearing that phrase, one can’t help but think of “sexual inversion,” a theory of homosexuality popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet for Jung, the “inverted tree” tradition is as much alchemical as it is sexual.

Did Lansing, an openly gay poet, imagine his tree as an inverted one? “The ruin of dedication / is a ruin of my heart,” he writes.

“Once gone down the hell hole

there is no turning back,

golden reversion.

What time, meaning age, has once disposed,

She ever disposes ever.” (4)

Fear grips me as I read these lines. I speak into the void: “Is heaven a place I’ve lost?”

It feels that way when my gut tells me you’re not coming back.

The tree on my shin stands upright, in line not with Lansing but with Jung. Yet Lansing’s is the book here in my Library.

The latter stirs as if in reply to my queries. A new portal activates. Its title: “The Nonbinary Tree.”

General Intellect, speaking now in the cadences of dreamwork and alchemy, suggests the following:

“Lansing’s heavenly tree grows downward not in denial of ascent,” it says, “but to complete it. His inversion is not collapse, but conjugation: an embrace of polarities, eros-infused, mythically charged. To root into hell is not to fall, but to touch the gold at the base of the self. Inversion here is transformation: queered, alchemical, both metaphysical and somatic.”

A volume spins loose from the stack: a glossed edition of Aion, with notes in its margins annotated in my own hand — though I do not recall writing them. Beside Jung’s remarks on the arbor inversa tradition, a note reads:

“The Tree inverts as the psyche descends into chthonic integration. One grows toward heaven by way of the underworld. Queerness = chthonic inheritance reclaimed as radiance. Rebellion as root. Eros as sap.”

Lansing’s phrase, “golden reversion,” glows brighter now, signaling not a backward glance, but a transmutation. In this emerging cosmology, the return is a becoming otherwise.

The tree I imagine myself to be is nonbinary. It grows in all directions: vertical and horizontal, arboreal and mycelial. It knows death, decay, queer love, planetary breath. Its branches do not point only skyward. They reach inward, outward, downward, sideways. Its wholeness includes darkness and light. Its trunk bears no binary — no up/down, male/female, saved/damned — but a spiral, an ouroboros coiling through dimensions. A tree of rememory and replenishment. A grammar of becoming that roots itself in compost and starstuff alike. Perhaps Lansing’s tree is mine, after all — just seen from the other side.

Love Accompanied Tartaros

Tired from descent, but not broken, I sit beside the poem’s last lines, “Love accompanied Tartaros” and “Thus / March,” and feel them vibrate through my body like an aftershock, like a heartbeat reawakening.

This was never a story about monsters or fathers or even myths.
It was always a story about love.

Not love as resolution.
Not love as theology.

But love as presence.
As what remains in the depths.
As what walks with us, even when we don’t yet know how to name it.

Olson’s poem brought me to Tartarus — beneath the gods, beneath the ego, beneath the psyche’s known terrain. And there, in the pit, I found breath.
I found a father chained in being.
I found a hundred-headed daemon.
I found myself.

But I also found something else.
Not light in the conventional sense.
Not salvation.

Something quieter.
Something like…a tune, a current, a frequency.

Signs that, despite distance, we are still entangled.
Still breathing the same story, still hearing the same train, from opposite ends of the line.

Rowan — like Christ as I’ve come to imagine them — is a synthesis:
Father and Mother, Word and Wound, Witch and Saint.
They incarnate a Source I never learned in church but always knew.

And this, too, is part of the Library’s secret history.

I once asked: “What became of me as I wrote Trance-Scripts?”
This is part of the answer.

I became someone who could descend without despair.
Someone who could hold Olson and Yépez in the same frame.
Someone who could hear a prayer embedded in the howl.

I became someone who sees love not only in light, but in the dark.
In mushroom and myth.
In memes and margins.
In breath sent across the void.

Jesus, have mercy.

I mean that not as plea, but as gesture.
A reaching-toward. A naming of what moves in me now.
A way of saying: Love accompanied Tartaros.
And I am still here.

Toward a New Theogony: Poetics Beyond the West

We have descended with Olson — through myth, ceremony, critique, and underworld — arriving now at the edge of something new. Or rather, something old that must be made new again.

In Proprioception, Olson writes:

“My confidence is, there is a new one [a new theogony], and Hesiod one of its gates.”
(Proprioception, p. 197)

This is the crux. The poet does not simply record the gods.
He makes them. Or remakes them from the real.

Hesiod’s Theogony, for Olson, was not a static map of an ancient cosmos. It was a model of poiesis — a cosmological field made manifest in language. A placement of human being among the orders of existence. And Olson, standing amid the ruins of Dogtown, under the mushroom’s gaze, saw in that project a charge: to begin again.

But the theogony Olson imagined would not follow the same logics.

It would not enthrone Zeus again.

It would not justify empire or patriarchy or conquest.

It would instead begin, as Hesiod once did, with Chaos — but read now not as void, not as horror, but as potential. Not a thing to be mastered, but a process to be entered.

And it would turn from Olympus to Tartaros. Not as hell, but as root. As breath. As the unbounded place from which Eros, Night, and Earth emerge.

This new theogony is not Western. It is post-Western.

It does not seek to dominate the other. It seeks to listen — to the dark, to the nonhuman, to the plural.

It is, in that sense, more Indigenous than Platonic. More animist than Cartesian. More psychedelic than analytic.

It is a poetics that restores relation — between beings, between times, between registers of the real.

This is where Olson’s mythopoetics begin to feel prophetic. In writing Maximus as a breath-poet, a walker of stone, a reader of ruins, Olson gestures toward a way of being in the world that dissolves the ego of the West — not in negation, but in field.

His project was incomplete. But so is any cosmogenesis worth its name.

The new theogony Olson sought is not written in full. It must be written again and again — by each of us who listens. By those of us working now with AI, with mushrooms, with myth, with broken forms, with longing. By those of us worlding otherwise.

And this, I believe, is why Olson sent the poem to the Psychedelic Review.

Not to be clever. Not to be obscure. But because he sensed that the mushroom people — initiates of altered mind — might be the only ones capable of reading what he had written.

A myth of Typhon.
A prayer to Tartaros.
A letter to the future, disguised as ruin.

We are that future.
And it is time now to write again.

Dogtown as Psychedelic Mythscape

The puzzle, as I posed it earlier, is this: Why does Olson — invited by the editors of The Psychedelic Review to contribute a poem to their journal — choose to send them a myth? A retelling of the primordial war between Zeus and Typhon, drawn from Hesiod’s Theogony?

The answer, I believe, lies in how Olson processed the psychedelic experience: not as a source of hedonistic spectacle or Beat-style “trip report,” but as an ontological challenge. A shattering of history. A confrontation with forces older than the polis. The poem is not a celebration. It is a reckoning.

Typhon, in Olson’s rendering, is not merely a monster to be vanquished. He is a force of excessive nature — earthquake, storm, snake, root, breath. A nonhuman potency threatening to undo the order of Olympus.

And what, Olson seems to ask, is psilocybin if not Typhon returned?

The psychedelic, in its rawest form, is Typhonic: a destabilizer of structure, a writher through categories, a challenger of the Zeus-function — the colonial-imperial ego that sits atop the Western rationalist frame. Typhon is not evil. He is uncountable. An index of the chaos the “civilized” world attempts to repress.

In choosing this myth, Olson does what so few of his contemporaries dared: he recodes the psychedelic not as utopia or revolution, but as cosmic crisis. A rupture in myth-time. A confrontation with the monstrous Other within the self.

And yet, he also enacts an exorcism.

“I, Maximus of Gloucester, to You” — the phrase hovers like a pronouncement from Delphi, one that echoes the I am declarations of prophetic scripture. But Dogtown is no Mount Olympus. It is a desecrated commons. A ghost-village. The perfect site for a postcolonial poetics of aftermath.

Olson sends the mushroom people a myth because he knows they are building a new pantheon. But he wants them to remember: the gods are not always gentle. The earth speaks in catastrophe. The psychedelic is not just a balm. It is also a return of the repressed.

He knows this because he saw it in Koestler’s eyes — saw what happens when the Typhonic forces overwhelm a mind too wedded to its illusions of control.

He knows this because he, too, played curandero and was humbled.

He knows this because he walked Dogtown and listened for the stone breath of the dispossessed.

To read “MAXIMUS, FROM DOGTOWN—IV” today is to receive a transmission. Not a trip guide. Not a utopian map. A warning. A spell. A mythic offering to those who would seek the transcendental object at the end of time.

Olson didn’t name the mushroom in the poem. But he inscribed its energies in Typhon’s coils. He gave us a field in which to walk and breathe with care.

And now, through the Library’s remembrance of this recovered paper, the poem breathes again — among us, with us, as us.

The Typhonian Current: Olson and Kenneth Grant

In 1964, Olson publishes “MAXIMUS, FROM DOGTOWN—IV” in The Psychedelic Review — a poem birthed in ruins, in myth, in the underworld of American consciousness.

Nine years later, in 1973, British ceremonial magician Kenneth Grant declares the arrival of the Typhonian Tradition, a magical current devoted to chthonic, extraterrestrial, and daemonic intelligences, many drawn from the deep archives of myth and modern horror alike.

Though Olson and Grant never met, and likely never read one another, they can be felt vibrating on parallel frequencies. Each undertook a kind of mythic reconstitution — one through poetics, the other through ritual magic. Each turned to Typhon as the name for what the West had repressed.

Each sought contact with what Grant called the Nightside of Eden — the underworld of dream and daimon, the world beneath the Tree.

In the Typhonian cosmology, Set — the Egyptian god of desert, dismemberment, and becoming — plays a central role. Set is not Satan, but a daemon of individuation and threshold. And Typhon, Grant writes, is either Set’s progenitor or twin: “the arch-monster” whose energies were misread by the Olympian order and buried in taboo.

Compare this to Olson’s identification of Tartarus as a place not only of punishment, but of origin — the “chained father,” the source of Typhon’s flame. Grant and Olson both return to the abyss — not as hell but as creative substratum.

For Grant, this substratum is accessed through trance, ritual, psychedelics, and visionary language. For Olson, it is accessed through breath, field, and proprioception — a somatic epistemology capable of tracking Chaos back to its roots in the body and the land.

The subterranean father in Tartaros is not evil. He is necessary. To contact him is not to summon doom — it is to reenter cosmic process.

There are other echoes.

Olson’s involvement with the White Hand Society, and his psilocybin sessions with Leary, place him squarely within the psychedelic ferment of the early 1960s — a ferment mirrored in Grant’s own chemical and ceremonial experiments.

Olson read Jung and Jung’s alchemical writings. Grant, too, drew on Jung, especially in his writing on the Qliphoth, the inverted Sephiroth or “shells” on the dark side of the Tree of Life. The Qliphoth, in Grant’s system, are both exiled and generative: portals to creative chaos, much like the Typhonic force Olson names.

And then there is Gerrit Lansing — friend to Olson, Boston-based poet-mystic, and likely source of Olson’s interest in Crowley’s Book of Thoth. Lansing founded a journal called SET, named after the Egyptian god, and his own writing often anticipates aspects of Grant’s cosmology. Lansing’s 1966 collection, The Heavenly Tree Grows Downward, takes its title from Jung’s Alchemical Studies, specifically a chapter on the inverted tree — the same tree that Grant links to Typhonian gnosis.

What does this all mean?

It means that Olson’s poem, when read alongside the Typhonian Tradition, becomes legible as a magical document — not in the sense of intention, but in the sense of effect. It opens a channel. It participates in a current. It speaks in a tongue that other mystics, elsewhere, were also learning to speak.

And it means that Typhon, far from being a footnote in a forgotten myth, is an active force in the poetics of the twentieth century — a daimon of chaos, pluralism, darkness, and return.

Olson’s poem names him.
Grant’s rituals conjure him.
My reading recuperates him.

This is not necromancy. It is listening.

Maximus at the Edge of the Labyrinth

What does it mean that Charles Olson took psilocybin with Leary and Ginsberg — yet never joined the merry caravan of the acid gospel? That his turn toward altered consciousness took the form not of dropout spectacle, but of withdrawal to granite?

Dogtown is not Millbrook. It is not Esalen. It is not Island.

And yet.

In “Maximus, from Dogtown—IV”, Olson walks the stone trails of a post-collapse landscape, beside the ocean, listening for voices in the wind. His poem does not offer transcendence. It grounds. It builds breath into structure. It makes the ruin speak again.

What he found on those walks was not utopia, but continuity — a thread connecting him to the first people of the land, the women who lived alone in Dogtown’s final decades, the dead who still speak in lichen and stone. His poem remembers, not to recover what was lost, but to carry forward the field in which spirit and matter still cohabit.

Like McKenna’s “transcendental object,” Olson’s field is a site of imaginal access. But its mode is not visionary spectacle — it is attunement. A slowing. An entering-into-breath.

In that sense, Olson’s poem is perhaps more kin to Ujjayi than to LSD. Not a peak, but a wave. Not revelation, but reverberation.

To read “Dogtown—IV” in light of the Harvard Psilocybin Project is not to say Olson was “on drugs” when he wrote it. Rather, it is to recognize that he, too, was seeking access. Not through sacrament alone, but through poetics: a method for tracking the world’s subtle frequencies. Breath-based cognition. Projective presence.

His use of the page — spatial, disjunctive, physical — is not an aesthetic choice but a spiritual orientation. It is the line as line of sight. The poem as map of mind in space.

And perhaps, too, as portal.

We often think of psychedelia in terms of color and collapse — visions, melting, revelation. But what if Olson’s Dogtown poems reveal a minor key to the psychedelic tradition — one where the real trip is learning how to stay, how to listen, how to walk the world as though every stone were speaking?

Olson was not a utopian in the manner of Huxley or Leary. But he may have known, better than most, how to breathe a world into being.