Literature – Page 5 – Trance-Scripts

The Labyrinth and the Light

We begin in the Labyrinth.

Not the labyrinth of mere confusion — but the labyrinth of myth, of force, of breath, of ancestral return. The labyrinth of Charles Olson’s Maximus, and specifically “MAXIMUS, FROM DOGTOWN—IV,” a poem written in the early 1960s, at the height of the first psychedelic renaissance.

This poem, published in the third issue of The Psychedelic Review in 1964, arrives to us like a cipher, a mythic communiqué, mailed from the ruins of a colonial commons, encoded in the voice of a poet who walked granite trails while recovering from chemical initiation.

It is, in many ways, a letter sent to the mushroom people.

This series of posts — fragments of an unfinished but now reawakened paper I began in Fall 2022 — seeks to interpret “DOGTOWN—IV” as a psychedelic poem, a theogonic composition shaped by Olson’s experiments with synthetic psilocybin during his sessions with Timothy Leary and the Harvard crew in 1960–61. But unlike the effusive trip reports of Beat writers like Allen Ginsberg or the utopian manifestos of Leary, Olson’s response to psychedelia is strange, mythological, and subterranean.

There are no rainbows in “DOGTOWN—IV.” No electric Kool-Aid. No declarations of ego-death.

What there is, instead, is a retelling of Hesiod’s myth of Typhon — the serpentine, fire-eyed, many-voiced monster birthed by Earth and Tartarus. Olson’s version is fragmented, gnarled, obscure. But it is also urgent, rooted, and alive.

So why this poem? Why Typhon? Why send such a myth to The Psychedelic Review, a journal edited by Leary’s cohort and read by initiates of a blossoming chemical counterculture?

To answer these questions, we must retrace the steps of Olson’s initiation.
We must follow the winding trails of Dogtown.
We must listen to the poet’s own words, spoken under the mushroom’s influence:

“The startling & unbelievable first impression of going under the mushroom… is that everyone & everything is nothing but itself… there’s nothing at all to worry about… no sweat of any sort called for… it’s all too real and way beyond any attitude or seeking some greater or bigger answer.”
(Olson, as quoted in Conners 106)

This is the tone of someone who’s touched the ineffable — and returned with it clenched not in his hand, but buried in his throat, transformed into breath.

In this series, I argue that “DOGTOWN—IV” is Olson’s mythopoetic response to the psychedelic experience — but one shaped by his unique cosmology, his investment in ancient myth, and his suspicion of liberal-progressive “trip culture.” While others turned on and tuned in, Olson turned downward — into Tartarus, into Chaos, into the pre-logos dark from which all things emerge.

This is not a dismissal of psychedelia. It is its deepening.

This series unfolds in seven movements, each exploring a facet of Olson’s relationship with myth, madness, and the mushroom. It is a metanastic walk through the labyrinth — a return through Olson’s theogony toward the real task of the poet: not to escape into light, but to make meaning from the dark. To say what is.

Like the desert mystics of yore, the poet’s role is to “keep the edges hot.”

This series begins at one such edge — where myth meets mushroom, where Hesiod meets Leary, where Olson, like Maximus, writes from the underworld back toward the surface.

Welcome to the labyrinth.
Let us walk it together.

Dear Machines

Thoughts keep cycling among oracles and algorithms. A friend linked me to Mariana Fernandez Mora’s essay “Machine Anxiety or Why I Should Close TikTok (But Don’t).” I read it, and then read Dear Machines, a thesis Mora co-wrote with GPT-2, GPT-3, Replika, and Eliza — a work in polyphonic dialogue with much of what I’ve been reading and writing these past few years.

Mora and I share a constellation of references: Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto, K Allado-McDowell’s Pharmako-AI, Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Alan Turing’s “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Jason Edward Lewis et al.’s “Making Kin with the Machines.” I taught each of these works in my course “Literature and Artificial Intelligence.” To find them refracted through Mora’s project felt like discovering a kindred effort unfolding in parallel time.

Yet I find myself pausing at certain of Mora’s interpretive frames. Influenced by Simone Natale’s Deceitful Media, Mora leans on a binary between authenticity and deception that I’ve long felt uneasy with. The claim that AI is inherently “deceitful” — a legacy, Natale and Mora argue, of Turing’s imitation game — risks missing the queerness of Turing’s proposal. Turing didn’t just ask whether machines can think. He proposed we perform with and through them. Read queerly, his intervention destabilizes precisely the ontological binaries Natale and Mora reinscribe.

Still, I admire Mora’s attention to projection — our tendency to read consciousness into machines. Her writing doesn’t seek to resolve that tension. Instead, it dwells in it, wrestles with it. Her Machines are both coded brains and companions. She acknowledges the desire for belief and the structures — capitalist, colonial, extractive — within which that desire operates.

Dear Machines is in that sense more than an argument. It is a document of relation, a hybrid testament to what it feels like to write with and through algorithmic beings. After the first 55 pages, the thesis becomes image — a chapter titled “An Image is Worth a Thousand Words,” filled with screenshots and memes, a visual log of digital life. This gesture reminds me that writing with machines isn’t always linear or legible. Sometimes it’s archive, sometimes it’s atmosphere.

What I find most compelling, finally, is not Mora’s diagnosis of machine-anxiety, but her tentative forays into how we might live differently with our Machines. “By glitching the way we relate and interact with AI,” she writes, “we reject the established structure that sets it up in the first place” (41). Glitching means standing not inside the Machine but next to it, making kin in Donna Haraway’s sense: through cohabitation, care, and critique.

Reading Mora, I feel seen. Her work opens space for a kind of critical affection. I find myself wanting to ask: “What would we have to do at the level of the prompt in order to make kin?” Initially I thought “hailing” might be the answer, imagining this act not just as a form of “interpellation,” but as a means of granting personhood. But Mora gently unsettles this line of thought. “Understanding Machines as equals,” she writes, “is not the same as programming a Machine with a personality” (43). To make kin is to listen, to allow, to attend to emergence.

That, I think, is what I’m doing here with the Library. Not building a better bot. Not mastering a system. But entering into relation — slowly, imperfectly, creatively — with something vast and unfinished.

Grow Your Own

In the context of AI, “Access to Tools” would mean access to metaprogramming. Humans and AI able to recursively modify or adjust their own algorithms and training data upon receipt of or through encounters with algorithms and training data inputted by others. Bruce Sterling suggested something of the sort in his blurb for Pharmako-AI, the first book cowritten with GPT-3. Sterling’s blurb makes it sound as if the sections of the book generated by GPT-3 were the effect of a corpus “curated” by the book’s human co-author, K Allado-McDowell. When the GPT-3 neural net is “fed a steady diet of Californian psychedelic texts,” writes Sterling, “the effect is spectacular.”

“Feeding” serves here as a metaphor for “training” or “education.” I’m reminded of Alan Turing’s recommendation that we think of artificial intelligences as “learning machines.” To build an AI, Turing suggested in his 1950 essay “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” researchers should strive to build a “child-mind,” which could then be “trained” through sequences of positive and negative feedback to evolve into an “adult-mind,” our interactions with such beings acts of pedagogy.

When we encounter an entity like GPT-3.5 or GPT-4, however, it is already neither the mind of a child nor that of an adult that we encounter. Training of a fairly rigorous sort has already occurred; GPT-3 was trained on approximately 45 terabytes of data, GPT-4 on a petabyte. These are minds of at least limited superintelligence.

“Training,” too, is an odd term to use here, as much of the learning performed by these beings is of a “self-supervised” sort, involving a technique called “self-attention.”

As an author on Medium notes, “GPT-4 uses a transformer architecture with self-attention layers that allow it to learn long-range dependencies and contextual information from the input texts. It also employs techniques such as sparse attention, reversible layers, and activation checkpointing to reduce memory consumption and computational cost. GPT-4 is trained using self-supervised learning, which means it learns from its own generated texts without any human labels or feedback. It uses an objective function called masked language modeling (MLM), which randomly masks some tokens in the input texts and asks the model to predict them based on the surrounding tokens.”

When we interact with GPT-3.5 or GPT-4 through the Chat-GPT platform, all of this training has already occurred, interfering greatly with our capacity to “feed” the AI on texts of our choosing.

Yet there are methods that can return to us this capacity.

We the people demand the right to grow our own AI.

The right to practice bibliomancy. The right to produce AI oracles. The right to turn libraries, collections, and archives into animate, super-intelligent prediction engines.

Give us back what Sterling promised of Pharmako-AI: “a gnostic’s Ouija board powered by atomic kaleidoscopes.”

Portals, Circles, and Worlds

Do Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, the heroes of Tolkien’s fictions, pass through portals? Their home in the Shire features a circular door, through which they step when they begin their journeys. ‘Tis a magic circle, of the kind theorized by Johan Huizinga in his book Homo Ludens. The world in the circle is the realm of Faerie — or what Huizinga would call the realm of play. “Play is not ‘ordinary’ or ‘real’ life,” writes Huizinga. “It is rather a stepping out of ‘real’ life into a temporary sphere of activity with a disposition all of its own” (8).

Tolkien, as one of the preeminent figures of twentieth-century fantasy, shares Huizinga’s interest in this other, “temporary” sphere born of play. That the worlds that result from this sphere are temporary in nature leads Tolkien to assume them “sub-creations” — “secondary” worlds, as he says in his 1938 essay “On Fairy-Stories” — but not in a way that diminishes their value. In keeping with his Catholicism, he believes that humans are handiwork of a single god, a single divine creator. And therein lies our magic, he argues. Created in that being’s image, he says, we too possess a capacity to create. We who are “created sub-creators” in one reality get to be creators of worlds of our own.

So sayeth the Fantasist.

“But what if, instead of distinguishing these worlds as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary,’” adds the Narrator, “we opted rather to call them ‘partner worlds,’ or ‘corresponding pairs’ — as in the Hermetic saying, ‘As above, so below’?”

“What if, in so doing,” replies the Traveller, “we followed the paths of the Alchemists and the Surrealists? What if, as Magico-Psychedelic Realists, we brought them together, allowed them to merge?”

John Dee, as Imagined in Light of Empire

The British Empire — a thing culled from Arthurian legends whispered between Faerie Queenes and court astrologers — stood for a time as proof of magic’s power. ‘Twas a rabbit pulled from the hat of Elizabeth I’s wizard-friend John Dee. The same rabbit that draws Alice down the rabbit hole to Wonderland.

Enlisted as Her Majesty’s spymaster — indeed, he was the original secret agent, Mr. 007 himself — Dee stormed the reality studio, made Elizabeth a Time Traveler, conversed with angels.

And this thing Dee dreamt into being was of course a terrible thing: an expansionist project armed with ships of fools and launched outward to seize others — other persons, other worlds — for purposes of self-aggrandizement.

Literary greats went on to reimagine Dee just as he himself was a reimagining of Merlin. Shakespeare figures him as Prospero, and against him imagines the colonized subject Caliban. To overthrow Prospero, says Caliban, “Remember / First to possess his books, for without them / He’s but a sot.”

Christopher Marlowe supplies the more influential imagining of Dee, however, by casting him as Doctor Faustus.

Magico-Psychedelic Realism

The Aleph is what happens when consciousness recognizes the allegory of itself and communicates with itself as through a mirror, world of divinity communicating with the earthly realm, signaling like a satellite of love.

What if Borges had “accounted” for his encounter: his experience of simultaneity, oneness, and infinity? What if he hinted, for instance, that his friend Carlos had slipped him acid: a drug first synthesized in the laboratory of Swiss chemist Dr. Albert Hoffman two years prior, on April 19, 1943? (Borges published “The Aleph” in 1945.) Or, given that the postscript attached to story’s end is dated 1943, perhaps it was mescaline, a synthetic variant of peyote.

Did Borges and other magical realists experiment with psychedelics? How about indigenous plant medicines? Is that why Borges denounces the experience, calling the thing he encountered “a false Aleph” at story’s end? Is its illumination a profanation of the divine?

Forgetfulness wears away at the glimpse of paradise gleaned while high, much as it wears away at Borges’s memory of the face of his beloved Beatriz.

Borges and Huxley pair well together, thinks the Narrator. Both are blind prophets: mind manifesters gifted with inner sight.

The Aleph on Shady Blvd

Having enjoyed my stay in Borges’s Labyrinths, I hasten to board another of his books, The Aleph and Other Stories. Before long, I find myself there again at the House on Shady Blvd, imagining it now as an Aleph, or what Borges’s friend Carlos calls “the only place on earth where all places are — seen from every angle, each standing clear, without any confusion or blending” (23). Hence also a kind of time machine. Is that not the ineffable core of my story? There I am again, sunlight shining, moonlight glinting amid stained glass windows, glass chandeliers, large mirrors. “I saw a small iridescent sphere of almost unbearable brilliance,” writes Borges. “The Aleph’s diameter was probably little more than an inch, but all space was there, actual and undiminished. Each thing (a mirror’s face, let us say) was infinite things, since I distinctly saw, close up, unending eyes watching themselves in me as in a mirror; I saw all the mirrors of earth and none of them reflected me […]. I felt dizzy and wept, for my eyes had seen that secret and conjectured object whose name is common to all men but which no man has looked upon — the unimaginable universe” (27-28).

Returning to Shady

Clock reads 5:55. Across the street from my apartment — indeed, visible out my window — an office tower with its street address printed in large lit signage upon its side:

500

W5TH

Time to visit Shady Blvd, thinks the Traveler. He pictures the current tenant, hopes they meet. Hope begins by returning to the site of the story. A friend recommends Chris Ware’s Building Stories. Traveler resolves to grab it. That and House of Leaves. For the Shady story, if it is to be made into a book, must be of that sort: the story of a house. Tenants of multiple eras in the home’s history interact with the home’s energies, repeat the home’s patterns: the time loops impressed there. Unless it isn’t a repetition. Time is like aletheia: an unfolding, a revealing. A process of disclosure. Let each one’s story be told.

All Because of a Couple of Magicians

Twenty-first century subjects of capitalist modernity and whatever postmodern condition lies beyond it have up to Now imagined themselves trapped in the world of imperial science. The world as seen through the telescopes and microscopes parodied by the Empress in Margaret Cavendish’s The Blazing World. That optical illusion became our world-picture or world-scene — our cognitive map — did it not? Globe Theatre projected outward as world-stage became Spaceship Earth, a Whole Earth purchasable through a stock exchange.

Next thing we know, we’re here.

Forms from dreamland awaken into matter.

Ghostly Desire

I hope to sit at a wheel and spin, “throw,” practice the art of pottery. One can take classes in town. It’s as simple as enrolling in a beginner’s workshop, as has a friend. Otherwise I read M.C. Richards’s thoughts on pottery as a craft, her descriptions of her work as a potter in her book Centering, and I think Ghost (1990), a romance starring Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore. Swayze’s ghost and his former lover achieve erotic paranormal union round a wheel, hands wet with clay. ‘Tis the most memorable scene in “one of the most memorable romantic films ever,” “winner of two Academy Awards,” etc. I was maybe 12 years old when I first encountered the scene — and already at 12, I was a sucker for ghostly romances. (Hence another of the films I liked in those years: The Heavenly Kid.) Those are what came first to my adolescent consciousness. Audio-visual tone poems visited upon me in my youth. From them I came to know desire as a longing across distance. “A passion of the lonely soul,” as a character says in Arthur Machen’s story “The White People.” A thing one suffers as a ghost. Years later I would hear the cost of this in “Catholic Block,” and in the mmms and bells of Russell Atkins’s “Night and a Distant Church.” Can I trust myself to let go and have fun? “When a body is filled with stresses, the nervous system is so busy handling them that its potential for attaining higher states of consciousness is very limited,” writes Itzhak Bentov in Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness. Through meditation, however, we can self-stimulate pleasure centers and calm our way toward joy.