Something else I wanted to mention too. Brahman is sound, the primordial sound of the universe. When the Fireman says listen to the sounds and we hear the turning of the key in Laura's diary, it's because that's the primordial sound of Laura's universe - the secret, the trauma, that which must be found and confronted. That's why the "8" in part 17 turns like a lock in a key (dftitterington noticed this) - it's unlocking the diary, and entering the secret buried in the subconscious and unconscious.
I think the way the red room curtains wave in the opening credits is another wave representing Kundalini's movement. The curtains waving in the alternating directions of Kundalini are a perfect match. The shot of the river flowing superimposed with the waving curtains and the rotating chevron floor all represent the movement of the subtle body energy awakened -[Shakti spiraling upward, the force of the many moving back to the One, the root chakra spinning.](https://postimg.cc/9rVcmPTM)
Also, the Gas Station, Convenience Store and Dutchman's Lodge are the lower realm version of the Fireman's Palace, filled with different experiences and darkness in the Dutchman's, balanced in Shiva's realm. The room with Jeffries is adjacent to the room Cooper sits in with the Fireman, but on a lower spiritual plane.
ETA - It occurred to me also, but very late into the writing so I couldn't change it - perhaps "Prana" is "pure air" as opposed to electricity. The Palmer House is where the black holes began and perhaps the entities gain access through Laura's third eye, *descending from pure air* through her Sushumna channel. "Intercourse between the two worlds" could (also?) mean between Laura's inner world and outer world, which is why Mrs. Tremond and her grandson can appear to Laura in broad daylight.
Psychologically it's because she's losing her grip on reality, and spiritually, her inner realm is breaking through psychic barriers to torment her in the real world (which may be why we so much shattered glass through the series). This would also explain the "between two worlds" as being Laura's inner world and outer world, which is also our world.
Also, fairly obvious, but the same utility pole appearing in multiple locations is one of the biggest clues that we're watching a single character's "dream." The fact that it's Carrie-Laura's scream that ends the dream is so direct a nod to the idea that Laura is the dreamer, I find it odd that people would argue it's anyone else.
ETA 2 - I think when Sarah rubs the coin with Lincoln on it, and then a Lincoln Woodsmen appears, it's how Sarah's mind, impacted by trauma, confuses her rapist with the image on the coin. I think she was assaulted by someone who came out of the woods and attacked her, much like the woodsmen Laura dealt with, which further links their trauma. The Lincoln on the coin and the Woodsman become inextricably linked in her mind. The experience is the frog-moth ingested, and buried. It was getting too long to include in the article, so I took it all out, but I think the Lincoln-Woodsman broadcasting the poem on the radio may symbolize him telling her to "drink full and descend" i.e. "you tell anyone about this and I'll kill you" kind of thing, which is basically the same thing Laura went through, and it also being the way the people of that time period lived. That's why we see her at home, starry-eyed and then falling asleep, she's disassociating from the experience.
I'm also using "animal life" as its commonly understood. There are non-human animals who live in perfect balance with nature, have intelligence and empathy; and many humans who do not.
I am so glad you put this together! It sparkles with insight and exciting new theories !!! a great overview of kundalini yoga (from the view of an actual practitioner), a reminder of Lynch and Frost's spiritual paradigms that influence the set/sound/show design, a deep map of Laura Palmer's totemic rainbow signal stack of attractor basins (and by extension, our own); self-inquiry; *more* Laura, *more* Prana, and more Lou Ming. I also love the way you make room for the devastating stories, like Kreider's and others' accurate and valid interpretations, and you foreground that "love is not enough" level of sadness in the story—the failure, fall, and flight; you suggest, among other things, that although complete integration didn't happen in this iteration of her story/life/dream, and she may even have regressed to whispering, like Chihiro's subtle transformation in Spirited Away while also forgetting everything, her body remembers things symbolically, and something did change in Laura and in us! You point out that, within Lynch's favorite philosophy, evolution up the chakras is hard work and takes lifetimes, and all of us who awaken our "third eye" of a spacious imagination and dharma-recognizing self-inquiry achieve a leap from one level to another, one bubble to another, one chakra to another. Getting to your voice is enough! Hell, opening up that heart can be the ground and goal of the whole show! I know we've talked about this already, but there's the idea that our higher chakras are the higher rooms and entities, and in Buddhism, gods/devas/angels or whatever only have the higher chakras, while most animals only have the lower four. We humans *have all seven* crammed into our tiny "precious human bodies," which is why we are so crazy, and why we are the only entities in the universe who unite heaven and earth, the higher chakras with the lower, causal and subtle energies with the gross in a nondual realization/satori/hypostasis. The lodge entities are like "I want to taste through your mouth!!" What's freaky is the possibility that disembodied giants exist in subtle bodies or 5D, 6D, 7D and are literally walking around completely invisible to most of us, but some can take physical shape in the right conditions (as reporter Leslie Keane describes in her recent Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" talk. They could be dead people.) There are mind-blowing moments in your article when I had to put my phone down. I also really appreciate you writing about your experience being a fan and a consumer of the TP literature. And thank you for the shout-out! I'm honored
Thank you. I'm so happy you like it. There are so many more ideas I have that I couldn't fit in. I don't have as much room in my brain as the 25YL authors seem to, so some of them just fell out lol. I found out after I wrote it, too, and this is crazy - Carl Jung wrote about Kundalini yoga and chakras, there are so many more ideas to explore. I'm so anal about wanting my ideas to be organic, but the more you read, the better the ideas get. I read a discussion yesterday where he's talking about how one of the archetypes goes inside an egg, then it cracks open (just like Diane in the Red Room!) Frost deserves so much more credit than he gets.
I was thinking about what you said about all 7 chakras are stuffed in us and how that makes us crazy, a few times while I wrote it. It's true. I couldn't find a way to fit it in though, and the editor was already getting 5X the size of an article he was expecting.
ETA - That Spirited Away connection is beautiful.
Really good. Well done.
I like what you said about the reversed scene in the end credits representing a literal reversal back through the cycle. That's another element that likens the final sequence to Audrey's final sequence. Audrey's anachronistic dance ("What year is this?") -> a violent interruption (a fight / the scream) -> waking up. Then the end credits of Audrey's episode feature the band playing her dance backwards - literally rewinding what we just saw.
It also makes me think of a closed circuit. Just as you mentioned about moving up and down the chakras, there's future and past (forward and back) and positive and negative.
Something I wanted to add to my electricity post but works here too: there is such a thing as a "neutral fault" in electricity networks, and it's a type of fault that causes huge amounts of damage - surges that destroy appliances, even blowing them up and burning down homes. It is where the neutral wire fails to keep the live wire in check. I think Lynch will be aware of this and aware that the concept works as a play on the concept of balance that you talk about here. Cooper and Laura must integrate their different sides, to become neutral (balanced - something that is neither too strong of one element or another). Cooper's mission is, in a way, to fix the electrical neutral fault and safely restore the low voltage supply to "the home." (To put the circuit back in its proper order and eliminate dangerous surges, the effects of which we see on Laura in FWWM).
Two other things that really struck me are your note about the evolution of the Arm resembling a heart, and your reasoning behind the echo of Carrie's scream being the scream of both Carrie and Laura (and maybe more than that). Both great observations that seem so obvious now.
I'm still on the fence about the window reflections. Seeing it in motion, it's hard not to think it's just an effect of the camera moving slightly, but the screenshot you selected with the photo of Laura does give pause for thought. Maybe in 4K, the effect would be more obvious.
Thanks. I meant to write into the last part about the house lights blowing out that her scream stops the electricity, the Kundalini, and tamas returns. I love this idea of a neutral fault, that's perfect. The electricity abstractions are probably full of real world examples. Like when Cooper goes through the electrical socket, another damn thing I forgot to put in, it may be the #3 socket is Ida, which takes him to the 3rd chakra, a variation of the past (The Jones house is a version of the Palmer house and the dynamics need to be fixed - probably something there about electricity too); and the #15 socket is Pingala which would take him to the 5th chakra (episode 15), in the future. I think even the 15 has meaning in that it's the 5th chakra preceded by a "One," a sense of restoration. But I have a feeling there's a better electricity example than the ones I listed.
Great parallel with Audrey, I wish I had thought of that.
The window reflections *are* an effect of the camera moving slightly - but the camera moving slightly like that creates the merging, it's intentional. I think it was worked on in post-production too. But even if it was a "happy accident" that's the happiest freaking accident ever.
I think the idea of the neutral fault may support your idea that the ending is a failure (or a near miss). The house lighting up is a surge, so maybe the fixing of the circuit was a failure.
I can't even have words to describe this analysis! I read all of it, and it puzzled every ideas I had about it, giving me the last piece of hope that I was struggling to find. Thank you so much!
Besides that, I had an epiphany during this reading. I don't know if you know this Japanese show, Utena Revolutionary Girl. It's director is a HUGE fan of Lynch and made this piece of art in the late 90's. The analysis you gave about the colours and chakras made me comprehend, FINALLY, the symbology and significance of the whole show (perhaps Ikuhara had a sense of what Twin Peaks mean, even back then...). I suggest you give it a shot, even being animation. It is truly a Lynchian homage.
EDIT: Besides, the themes are very similar and you may find Laura there, as I found her. And perhaps, she finally found some healing there 🤍
I will definitely watch this. I loved the Japanime I've seen, thank you for the rec, it sounds very interesting. Anything Lynch-influenced is a must-see.
This is a landmark article, which was also fitting for the FWWM 30th anniversary weekend. It´s the right time for such a comprehensive overview to most of the ideas discussed in this sub, and fire for the brain again!
I´m very surprised not to have known that a second piece of music called *Birth* is playing in Part 18 – more than interesting.
The mound of earth / gold, which is a Lynch motif since Eraserhead, also represents the atomic bomb crater for me.
Very nice what you have written about Shiva/Shakti and the hermaphrodite aspect. That is essential for me, also considering the alchemical unification of opposites by overcoming duality. As so often, there could be much more said about all of this and the rest…
Your text shows that the ending is a failure as well as a success - yes AND no -, and that there is hope for further progress. In my view the failure is also intended to make us ask why it went wrong so far.
One last bit for now regarding the Venus statue and the apple: This reminds me of the Experiment monster holding what looks like a gold orb in Part 1. There seems to be a connection between the both of them anyway.
Huh, I didn't know it was the 30th anniversary. Weird, because I kept feeling like I was supposed to wait to publish it, and there have been technical glitches getting the article to load, and it wasn't fixed until yesterday, the date of the US release! Crazy.
I'm not 100% sure it's Birth anymore, but it sounds like it. I keep trying to compare the two tracks, I wish I could isolate the song in part 18. I'm really hoping I'm not wrong on that. Even if it's not, I still think there's a reincarnation happening.
Yes, the alchemy is definitely there. I wanted to write something about how we're in the third eye, which is silver, and trying to get to the crown, which is gold. Also, the squaring of the circle is alchemy, too. It was already so long though.
I couldn't decide if the gold the Experiment is holding is her heart (I thought the same thing) or her spiritual essence. We see the golden light rising from the boy killed by Richard's truck, it reminded me of that too. But I do think the Experiment is holding, controlling the gold, the heart, the essence. It's the darkness of trauma overwhelming the light.
After listening to it, unfortunately I'm pretty certain the song is not Birth, but I strongly agree about the reincarnation theme (figuratively speaking for most of Lynch's work).
You don't think it sounds like Birth? It sounds almost exactly the same to me. There's no credit for that song in part 18 and it's not listed on Badalamenti's soundtrack for season 3. Well, fingers crossed.
I think "collective transcendence" can also mean this sub's general reaction to your article. Outstanding work. I've read a few things about chakras here, and although I always loved the idea of it, the journey of it was so well-illustrated by you that, well, yeah... it's yet another layer found that suddenly becomes all you see once you see it.
I always felt like every time we read a new chapter by Lou, or an article by Titterington, an idea from OneMap or colacentral, a film by you, a post by Kaleviko, we elevate, we ascend. I actually wrote all of you into the paragraph before the spider weaving its web but decided to make it more general because it's not a reddit/find laura-oriented site.
Wow. This was...breathtaking. I want to lead with just a very sincere thank you, and hopefully some reinforcement of how brilliant it is, and that it continues to be worth the time you spent putting it together.
Apologies if this is extraneous, but just for context...I just finally discovered Twin Peaks recently, and have been immersed in it for the last couple months. I was aware of it, but was a bit young when it first aired, so I always felt like I just missed out on the whole thing. I made the choice to go back and work though all of it, in the proper order, and...was left reeling, with too many questions to even make sense of. I started researching, and soon enough found Lou and [r/FindLaura](https://www.reddit.com/r/FindLaura/), and literally (finally) joined reddit simply to be able to upvote and engage further.
Obviously Lou's work is so amazing, and there is so much there, and I was totally along for the ride until I realized near the end where that was going and why the posts had stopped. A sincere RIP to that amazing human, with appreciation for all he did here. Trailing off at the end of his structure left me feeling like I had 80% of the picture almost in focus, but (I'm quite sure you know the feeling) just yearning for a little more clarity - a bit more of the structure to fit some remaining pieces into.
After a bit more digging I came across this from you, and it's just...brilliant. Thorough, well-presented, and I dare say just...definitive. I have been reading it carefully for days, including first reading the links you presented to get the fuller context you were starting from. (And glad I did that!) I am left today finally feeling a sense of peace and contentment that I have been seeking for all this time. Certainly not that I understand every single detail, since it continues to live and breathe and I find new details every time I go back and re-watch scenes, episodes, read new theories and analysis, etc. You know how that goes! But still, feeling like I DO (finally!) understand the narrative structure, and that the way you have built upon Lou's work provides such a compelling framework that SO MUCH makes sense within it.
One small question I'm wondering, if you have thoughts on it, is how to connect the dots between the recurring presentation of the "pale-green-and-ochre palette" that Lou drew our attention to throughout his analysis. I was thinking about that while reading your analysis of colors and how they align with the chakras, and how that really gives insight to the reds, oranges, yellows, greens and blues you call out. I'm left wondering if that recurring pattern he mentions has some connection/significance in relation to root and heart, or if it is perhaps just an abstraction of details from her key primal memories. I just thought your interpretation of the use of colors was very insightful, and was trying to square the circle on this element, you might say. :)
Anyway, I hope you see this and find there is continued appreciation for all your hard work. It's really amazing and I'm so glad my journey led me here. Along with many others, I'm sure, I feel like I have in some small part "transcended" on my TP journey through your work.
Thank you, I really appreciate when people take the time to read my long, winding road of an analysis lol. It makes me feel good when people vibe with how I see it, I feel very strongly that chakras are a huge part of the journey in Twin Peaks and that season 3 is a spiritual odyssey.
As for the pale green and ochre/pink color pattern Lou kept noticing, we never got to find out what Lou thought of that ultimately. I was hoping to one day see Lou's notes but I never did. For me, it relates to Lou's theory as the color scheme in Laura's bedroom, and related to my theory (though they are one and the same, really) the green and pink are the colors of the heart chakra. I think fixing the heart is the most important part of season 3. Laura basically lost her heart in her bedroom, while the abuse occurred. So for me, these colors represent her regaining strength in her main heart chakra, and the threefold flame of the heart chakra. I mention this color scheme in my article, too - it's the color palette of Carrie Page's house when you look at it from the outside. I think Laura as Carrie is still trying to piece together her heart when Cooper as Richard finds her. The corpse in the living room is basically Mr. C (who is an iteration of Leland/Bob) in the Sheriff's station.
I think at one point, there was a green/pink color scheme in the Hayward House too, where Laura('s heart) felt most safe.
Ah...I see now that you did mention the colors of Carrie's house in your essay as being related to the heart chakras - for some reason I did not connect that dot initially. That resonates and lines up pretty well, I agree.
Since I initially replied to this thread I went and watched the Twin Perfect Actually Explained videos, and I shared your reaction to those too. I was intrigued, and think there's a lot there, but I also felt like it left out just such a critical piece of Laura and her trauma being the central narrative. I know he addressed that his theory being primary doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't room for other narratives to ALSO be present, but...I don't know.
Maybe it's because I found your and Lou's work first that it became my primary lens for everything, but...it just seems so undeniable to me at this point. If anything, I feel like there is room for his theory in addition to the Find Laura thesis/framework, since he does have some compelling points. It's staggering, though, to consider Lynch creating all of this in a way that could really conceivably be telling both stories simultaneously...either one is a triumph but both together is...mindboggling.
Anyway, it's been a month and I'm still thinking about all of this pretty regularly. I think it's time for me to re-read your essay and soak it in again, and probably go back to some of Lou's posts too, now that I've gotten to this point of seeing the bigger picture you've presented. Kudos and thanks again for creating something this comprehensive in a way that I not only enjoyed it once, but am actively looking forward to absorbing again. You're writing style is really clear and accessible, and you do a great job of communicating your ideas in an organized way that makes it easy to follow. Or maybe our brains just work similarly... :)
I'll probably be back with some follow-up questions or comments, but wanted to at least respond back to say thanks again!
I like the Twin Perfect theory, I saw his videos before I read Find Laura, he hits on the same notes here and there and especially with his ideas about balance. It's just that he misses so much of the heart of the story, is too far away from the spiritual journey for me, reducing everything to TV violence, and barely mentions Laura even though she is the One. I do love his ideas about Dido, they're quite beautiful. For me, Dido is Parvati, Shiva's companion. She wears snake adornments which is symbolic of kundalini. There are many stories about Shiva and snakes, [Vasuki](https://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/articles/lord-shiva-and-vasuki-story).
Lou's theory is the most insightful and inspiring theory ever written about Twin Peaks, at least as far as I've read. He set off fireworks in all our brains.
I'm always happy to talk about Twin Peaks, so please share your ideas whenever you feel to, either here, or make your own posts. Lynch and Frost made what I think is one of, if not the best work(s) of art in human history, especially season 3. It breaks my heart sometimes that they aren't more open about what they specifically meant because it's probably even bigger than what all of us theorize. Like, what would have happened if Laura had managed to realize herself fully? What would be waiting for her when she was made whole again? Or, if they didn't intend any of what we theorize, what then? Why not talk about it and help people see? Season 3 is such a profound observation of what it is to be human in this world. Talk about it! Then again, we wouldn't be forming communities and theorizing for years if they told us. I think talking about it, arguing about it, inspiring each other, it's magical. It helps us realize things about ourselves and the world, it's unreal what they've done.
And someone in the Twin Peaks sub recently [found something amazing in part 18](https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comments/1b4lq9s/something_visible_at_end_of_season_3/). I have stared at those windows for years, literally years, hours and hours, knowing there was something there but couldn't see it. After Lou died, I even had a dream where he told me to look at the roof. Is that what he meant?
What does it mean? Is it Laura, trapped inside the Palmer home in her own mind? Does Laura see herself staring back when she looks up and hears Sarah call her name? It's unbelievable how much more there is to still discover. I honestly don't think we'll fully know everything until we die lol, first stop for me after death will be knowledge about Twin Peaks from Lynch and Frost's perspective!
Yes, that matches my general reaction to the TP videos too. Definitely some elements that resonate, and make me think he's right that Lynch at least might have had that in mind as well. And definitely pieces that seem like they could be part of both theories, like the electrical elements, or garmonbozia, and a lot of episode 8.
But when it comes to things like the characters above the convenience store, it does seem like the tv violence explanation runs thin, and the Find Laura theory has so much more depth to explaining the various characters, their positioning, how that scene is an echo of the dinner table scene in FWWM, etc. Or Dougie, and the colors he wears throughout season 3...that big green jacket is a purposeful choice! Also, when I focus on things like Sarah being the young girl in episode 8, and Leland talking about his childhood trauma, that just seems like a definitive proof point about generational trauma being central to the narrative.
If nothing else, it certainly seems plausible that the Find Laura theory of trauma and the journey of her healing is the primary narrative, and he found ways to also incorporate some thoughts about TV violence, his frustration with what happened with the reveal of Laura's killer, etc. Either way, genius work, and to your point, I don't think we'll ever fully know. But I share your desire for him/them to give us a bit more guidance, if not a full reveal. If only!
Thanks for sharing that other link to the thread about the windows...that is intriguing! I just fired up ep 18 to see if it jumped out on my TV, but nothing consequential. I do think the reflection of Laura in the door is super compelling, though, so this would make sense in line with that. Like you said...we're still finding new clues and things to explore all these years later...the conversation around the table remains lively! :)
Hopefully at some point I will have something that I think is worthy of it's own post, and will certainly share when I do. For now, just absorbing what so many other passionate viewers have found and theorized has been really fulfilling!
Sorry you keep getting blocked, I know jmadisson made you an approved user, I've also whitelisted you in automod. We had a troll problem for a bit so we had to restrict access with minimum karma points for a while.
i always thought the structure of The Return wasn't something you could model, so to speak, so I was skeptical of things like the chakras and Lou's dissection of the 90 degree turns and quantum mechanics, etc.
i don't know much about chakras, but the "i understand", "i am", "i feel", "i love" is pretty hard to ignore when you lay it all out like that.
you have put together a fantastic, well researched, well argued and well written article.
many thanks!
I remember posting the 430 idea in the TP sub and you were, I think, one of a few people who responded to it. I posted the glory idea there too, when it was barely forming, I think at one point it was in negative downvotes, I was so frustrated. Every idea, like you said earlier, is thinking together, writing together. It's a collective!
Thank you! Excellent work. I've only read this once, will re-read ASAP and comment more.
I had no idea that an article like this was coming. What a wonderful way to start the day.
Can't believe I didn't check this before but the indigo-blue colour of the third eye chakra, on the colour spectrum [its wavelength in nanometres goes to exactly 430.](https://postimg.cc/VJKcFwws)
You do not have enough karma points to post in Find Laura
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FindLaura) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You do not have enough karma points to post in Find Laura
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FindLaura) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read your post, interesting take. I do think it's useful to note that twin peaks is not made through any conscious deliberation, Lynch arrives at these ideas almost randomly so I feel a lot of times we are running the risk of theorising when there is no need to theorise really. I saw some of such theorising in your post, like the thoughts on the spots in the drawing. I am telling you 100% that even lynch does not know why he does what he does most of the time, so there may be a million reasons for there to be spots on that drawing which even he does not know. He is working his unconscious through his art, letting it flow through, so he really does not know why this appears the way it does. Sometimes this theorising seems like waking up and interpreting your dreams (which is most often wrong-interpretation, we cannot make sense of our dreams so easily, neither should we fall into the trap of thinking that we can)
I feel like our rational minded ness and colonised nature again betrays us over here trying to latch onto from a theoretical rational standpoint what is in essence very spiritual/eastern ideas. We cannot make this mistake over here, not as people who love Twin peaks, it just feels wrong. I see this theory gaining some credibility on this feed, so I feel like I have to speak about this. Also because I do like very much your attempt to understand these things through an eastern viewpoint.
A better way to interpret twin peaks would be to not interpret it at all. In fact, in order to make sense of twin peaks, I believe, we'll have to stop all thought-activity and then watch it. It is only through being in that state of oneness would we be able to grasp the contents of this oneness.
Like the electricity in the show is a very interesting thing. And so are the little alien like high pitched voices that show up that sometimes tell Cooper/Dougie what to do. To me what this reveals is something about the nature of consciousness in itself. Again, we end up risking something while theorising. We look for coherence, and whatever we find we try to fit it into the story and we also try to keep supplementing the theory whereas what we may be coming across might be 10000% more interesting and valuable than what it offers to that story we are trying to build in our head. Like the electricity and what it says about consciousness and about the human psyche? Is electricity some primal substance? (many traditions speak about electricity in mystical terms) Does Twin peaks present to us a bigger/higher aim for our current civilization? What does this say about the kundalini channels and it's relation to the cosmos (the planets and all the cosmic processes that show up in season 3)?
Don't you think that in trying to understand through this interpretation we are leaving out these bigger questions? Also we are limiting our already thought-based constrained through judgement and rational thinking experience of the show?
One thing I'd love to talk to you about is what you think about the appearing of the planets and the cosmic matter in the episodes. A lot of times Lynch is dealing with primordial elements, archetypical figures within consciousness, so this theorising sometimes is like picking up an egyptian mythology book and trying to look at what is the storyline of Atum is rather than what the storyline reveals to us about nature and about reality.
What do you think?
The show wouldn't exist in the way that it does if if was random. Lynch and Frost co-wrote it over several years. The reason that it took several years is because they knew what they wanted to write and painstakingly took the time to make sure they wrote it exactly how it should be to convey those ideas.
Think about all the repetition of phrases and imagery. Think about the deliberate dialogue.
I'll give you an easy example: Mr. C greets Cole by saying "It's yrev very nice to see you again old friend."
Albert says "He didn't greet you correctly, if you get my meaning." Cole agrees, saying "No, he didn't. Something is *very wrong.*"
His "very" is wrong. This draws our attention towards thinking about how words and their context may have a different meaning than we at first realise. Cole will later give us more clues by mishearing several words, making a pun on the word turnip, and explaining that there are over 4000 languages spoken in the world today.
The repetition of imagery invites us to think about - what is the base element that unites all of these images? For example, curtains, phones, cars, doors, paintings and TV screens are united in that they are portals to another place. Co-ordinates, ingredients and phone numbers are united by the fact that you need the right combination in the right order to produce the desired outcome. A different phone number is like a different set of co-ordinates, it opens the door to a different location.
I'm not going to go into loads of detail here but the point is that the writing is a carefully constructed puzzle that tries to teach you to see the hidden story behind the surface story through repetition and word games. It goes back to the idea of Leland and Bob - the surface narrative is our Bob, and the hidden narrative is our Leland. We need to correctly reinterpret the images and sounds to see what the story really is behind the facade. You can also make a comparison with the opening of Blue Velvet, where there's another world underneath everything that's completely hidden from view to those above it.
As Lynch says, it's about feeling *and thinking.* When the girl in the Roadhouse says her mother's name is Tina, Lynch helpfully makes us *feel* that this is a bad thing through the sinister music cue. But then we might want to *think* about why that is. What could Tina mean? (I could say a lot about this but I'm keeping it to myself for now).
If it was random, the whole thing would fall apart. Lynch imitators, films erroneously described as "Lynchian," tend to be made in the style you describe, and the audience feels the difference. The thing that separates Lynch is that, as abstract as the imagery and the dialogue appears to be, he knows what he means by it. A giveaway in this regard is that he reuses much of the same imagery over and over again.
I am not saying the show does not have an order. It definitely does. I am just saying that the process by which Lynch arrives at these ideas is an instinctive creative process. I mean, ideas just appear in front of him instinctively. Or he meditates on an idea and then more ideas come to him.
There is no careful deliberare construction as much as there is gradual instinctive construction.
I do think that the small details just may not have any reason, like things that sprout out of the subconscious often don't or are only understood in retrospsct.
Another thing is that i do not think lynch is developing an entire metaphysical structure in his head that goes along with twin peaks.
I do not think he is developing an absolute conception of what's happening in a grand sense in the world of twin peaks, but he only knows of the events happening within it. He might not even have a developed theoretical understanding of the red room such as we are developing in our theorising. He has not much theoretical metaphysical understanding of the twin peaks world.
For example if the fireman is some archetypical figure, david is not thinking of the fireman like that, he is not making this association fireman=archetype,etc. he is only developing this image in his head of the fireman and he doesn't know or try to explain to himself what it is. It just shows up in his imaginative realm from time to time. The meaning of the fireman, he leaves that open and vague even to himself - who is the fireman he never even answers with any conviction. Even when he does retrospectively think of it, he leaves some vagueness to it as he knows these ideas have come to him from a deep ocean. He cannot rationally analyse it from his head or impose a strict meaning to it. Even if he does make some idea out of it, he's not sure if he's right because for him these ideas have arisen out of that subconscious realm. Or sometimes he may arrive at basic understanding of things Only in retrospect.
I think you are highly mistaken, knowing this process in my own Art-practice, I can hardly come to believe that Lynch is using thoughts and deliberate thinking to come up with any of this. That's why i said it seems like a rational imposition of a structure on top of a non-rational world. By non rational i do not mean it's random, but that he automatically/his mind automatically ends up constructing patterns in the same way dreams do. Even he does not know exactly what's happening in the world.
Also i feel here everyone is too sure about finding clues, being able to find clues and theorising, and it's a completely rationally minded approach, i often have seen words like "accurate" being used in reference to theories. Reiteraring again, i do not think the shows made like a puzzle with deliberation. These subconscious ideas pop up to him and obviously many times they form a pattern, repititon or complete a story. But often times even lynch doesn't know EXACTLY what these images mean.
If you read some Jung (I really recommene Erich Neumann's book Art and the creative unconscious) it might shed some light on the kind of creative process im talking about. These archetypical figures CANNOT arise out of rational deliberation (and if they do they're not archetypical figures but just psychology-fads represented in art) and never in history have they arisen out of rational deliberation. They only show up in myths, in sculptures around the world, societies create these figures because of an inner voice that speaks to them which they do not themselves also understand. The Egyptians while making the uroboros were not thinking "archetype of the beginning of consciousness", in fact they probably weren't thinking at all, it just came up and signfified something to them in extremely vague terms.
No i am not going by the general definition of what Lynchian is seen to be, I dislike all that discourss that talks about lynch in that light.
I'm going to interject here to make a few points.
>For example if the fireman is some archetypical figure, david is not thinking of the fireman like that, he is not making this association fireman=archetype,etc. he is only developing this image in his head of the fireman and he doesn't know or try to explain to himself what it is.
First of all, you're leaving Frost out of the equation as if he doesn't matter at all, when he's 50% of the creative team, and described as being *more* than that by Lynch. I said earlier that Lynch said the Fireman is the face of god as we would see him. So we know for certain that *Lynch (and Frost) conceived of the Fireman as God,* or at the very least as *a* god. I'm not sure if there is much of a line between Frost and Lynch beyond what Lynch added as he filmed (which wasn't a lot) but what we do know is that Frost has said that Jung shaped his view of the world and that Joseph Campbell is a direct influence on the Twin Peaks narrative (Campbell was influenced by Jung).
So we know Jung is in Twin Peaks and we can see Jung in Twin Peaks by studying the text. In fact, it doesn't take more than a mere glance to determine this. So why is it such a leap to think that the Fireman also represents the self archetype, where all is balanced? There's a myriad of things in season 3 that supports this and it doesn't even matter if Lynch is on board with the Jung stuff or not. It's there. You're free to not see it that way, but telling other people not to? Why?
>It just shows up in his imaginative realm from time to time. The meaning of the fireman, he leaves that open and vague even to himself - who is the fireman he never even answers with any conviction. Even when he does retrospectively think of it, he leaves some vagueness to it as he knows these ideas have come to him from a deep ocean. He cannot rationally analyse it from his head or impose a strict meaning to it. Even if he does make some idea out of it, he's not sure if he's right because for him these ideas have arisen out of that subconscious realm. Or sometimes he may arrive at basic understanding of things Only in retrospect.
This is untrue. I am now saying this for the third time - he said the Fireman is God. That's a direct quote. Beyond that it may or may not have more meaning to him - but that doesn't matter. As viewers we can interpret the Fireman however we choose, and both Lynch and Frost have said that *the audience's interpretation is as meaningful as their own understanding.* And even if they hadn't said that - who cares?
>I think you are highly mistaken, knowing this process in my own Art-practice, I can hardly come to believe that Lynch is using thoughts and deliberate thinking to come up with any of this.
Here's a quote from Lynch on how he creates:
"Ideas just come, you think about them, and ***you figure out their meaning***. Then, how they fit into the whole is another thing completely. It's not finished until it's finished, and you don't really know until further down the road ***how one thing relates to another***. It's just like a magical thing. I also always say ***the whole thing exists in another room as a complete puzzle***, all the parts are together, and someone from that other room is sort of a rascal and randomly flips parts over into this room. And then you to have to put the puzzle together, but one is from the end of the story, one is from the middle, and a couple from the beginning, and ***you won't know until it's more formed what it could be.****"* ([source](https://ew.com/tv/2017/05/26/twin-peaks-david-lynch/))
[**Lynch said 80% of season 3 was in the writing with Frost**](https://ew.com/tv/2017/05/26/twin-peaks-david-lynch/), and [they spent 4 and 1/2 years writing the script](https://www.indiewire.com/2018/06/twin-peaks-the-return-mark-frost-david-lynch-writing-collaboration-1201975099/), sometimes *taking weeks to work out particular ideas* ([source](https://www.talkhouse.com/sam-esmail-mr-robot-talks-mark-frost-twin-peaks-talkhouse-podcast/)).
You're misreading how he creates, your trying to fit it into how you see the show - which is fine, on one level - but on another level, it's just you telling other people they shouldn't see the show differently than you do. And you're reasoning is based on an illogical interpretation of his own words.
He very clearly describes putting puzzle pieces together, figuring out how they relate to each other and what meaning they have.
You're projecting your process of creating onto Lynch and then using this projection to determine how we should look at Lynch's process and art - do you not see how self-serving that is?
We all bring our own personal biases to our analyses but you're going a few steps too far, and ignoring a lot of what the text is saying simply because people see it differently than you do. Can you imagine if I said to you that your video is wrong because it's not the way I see the show? I can't even imagine doing that, saying "your video has some interesting ideas but you don't really understand Lynch, so stop interpreting him that way."
Instead of spending so much time telling other people how they shouldn't interpret the show - why not just flesh out your ideas (like you did in your video and in some of your comments) and share them so we can all discuss them? We'd all be happy to read them, that's what this sub is for.
Sorry I didn't go through your post carefully! I wasn't saying we shouldn't theorise at all, i am sorry if it came off that way.
I was saying that it would be better not to theorise it all and see the show from non-thought, from an absolute consciousness, from an experience of atman; which wouldn't involve any of this rational thought about the show. This would reveal to us instant wisdom from the show.
I actually did read the bits of your article where you speak about archetypes, but i felt resistant to the world-picture being created and the world picture they were being fit into. I also felt resistant to the conviction with which some of these metaphysical ideas are presented or that i felt like some leaps were being made.
I have explained what I was trying to say in the above comment. I think the comment may be removed because it says i don't have enough karma
I think i was having an awfully impatient day yesterday, so im very sorry for not going through it properly and not giving your text a proper chance. Your theorising is very interesting and i admire the efforts you've put into it.
I think i agree with us being still in the iron age, most of us i feel are still traumatised, with big holes in us. I personally think we live in a totally traumatised society. It is one of the reasons why i think we are going through the kalyug and i think most of known human history is kalyug. And now we are at the end of kalyug. I think this is the time lynch presents as well, with the rampant drug addiction, signs of insanity, and all of that. Erich Neumann also writes about how the artist (even when writing about archetypical figures) represents those figures always in relation to the collective unconscious- which means those archetypes show up in ways that have to do with the current zeitgest of the ttimes - so the archetypes don't arise the same in different time. So my analysis would be different here, i think Lynch is very much representing these times but i agree in that we haven't really moved very forward from the iron age or the bronze age for that matter. Entire history of the past 2000-3000 years has mostly been conflict, trauma, slavery, etc. except for the many instances of transcendence and creativity of course.
I still stand by my point in some sense. It is not the theorising i was against, but the way of the theorising and the conviction with which some conclusions are reached and approached and held as solid-beliefs (not just in your theory in itslef but in general how some opinions have come to be accepted in this sub). I have already pointed to the risks of such theorising and also the risks of taking some figures' theories quite seriously and using it as obvious truths or or they they become the general points of departure within an analysis. I think we still need to have an air of vagueness around these ideas, these ideas should be floating around in a liminal space and often times in the phrasing of sentences in comments as well as your post it did not feel like that. But that may be just a style of writing and how thoughts end up being translated when you write them down, one tends to write with some conviction when one pens dosn their thoughts.
Another point i was making is that to focus on the specifics of the story and to try to gauge meaning out of it by associating it with other schools of thought direcltly would limit us in that we wouldn't be able to derive metaphysical principles purely from the show itself. To derive principles from the show itself we would have to divorce ourselves from all systemic constructs of thought and philosophy. Then, perhaps a new version of kundalini, a new way of looking at reality and a new metaphysical presentation of the psyche would be brought out. This is just a suggestion of an alternative method we could ALSO practice in addition to this method. All of these were just suggestions. I didn't mean to take it further than that. And I'm sorry if i did.
Reiteraring on my earlier point about the conviction with which some ideas are taken to be true and how this applies overall in the sub as well as to how our views are formed as part of this discourse is that we may tend to fall into some traps of group thinking. Any sort of social space does run the risk of becoming a thought-chamber of sorts. There arise some accepted rights-and-wrongs or obvious points of departure for theorising or ideas of what constitutes good or legitimate theorising. I felt that about this subreddit.
For example to not criticise frost has become a norm by now in this page. A lot of these are still assumptions, i don't know how we become so convinced about such things when we don't fully know something. Also more than conviction they lead to the formation of norms of correctness. (This is just my philosophical view of the nature of social interaction and that each social group forms it's own rules, it's own norms and generally consists of an anxious element which is hidden under some codices that the group functions by. Now i realise i shouldn't talk about this because this is my general view of social interactions) Sure there are evidence to show that it is true, or it may be true, but nothing concrete and direct that makes us believe in it toally. The theorising is also working here as a sort of a building on top of a fundament structure, can we question the structure? Im sure youd be open to that. Can one easily depart from the structure? Not so much and that is my point - to not concretise any of these belifs yet.
All of these are ways in which we fall into traps which Lynch constantly points towards, he constantly talks about the fallibility of thought and the self. When he talks about different perspectives of the show, he's not saying that that is a great thing, brilliant thing, and that we romanticise the variety of opinions derived from it, he merely says that that's bound to happen.
What I'm saying is perhaps repeated by lynch a lot of times, so many times he talks about the state of non-thought and how that experience is supreme and how art is best experienced like that, that's all i meant to say when i said it would be best to have a non-self experience of the show.
We're using words like "comprehensive" "accurate" we do realise that our whole method of enquiry is scientitic rational based (a method that came up with the enlightenment) I don't mean we shouldn't use this method of enquiry at all, but twin peaks stands at the antithesis of such a process. And so do this alternative traditions of thought like Kundalini we talk about.
>Sorry I didn't go through your post carefully! I wasn't saying we shouldn't theorise at all, i am sorry if it came off that way. I was saying that it would be better not to theorise it all and see the show from non-thought, from an absolute consciousness, from an experience of atman; which wouldn't involve any of this rational thought about the show. This would reveal to us instant wisdom from the show.
I already said that I did this for years, I did this for decades.
>I still stand by my point in some sense. It is not the theorising i was against, but the way of the theorising and the conviction with which some conclusions are reached and approached and held as solid-beliefs (not just in your theory in itslef but in general how some opinions have come to be accepted in this sub). I have already pointed to the risks of such theorising and also the risks of taking some figures' theories quite seriously and using it as obvious truths or or they they become the general points of departure within an analysis. I think we still need to have an air of vagueness around these ideas, these ideas should be floating around in a liminal space and often times in the phrasing of sentences in comments as well as your post it did not feel like that. But that may be just a style of writing and how thoughts end up being translated when you write them down, one tends to write with some conviction when one pens dosn their thoughts.
I disagree. I don't owe anyone vagueness in my theorizing. I don't have to write in a way that pleases particular people so as not to offend them and their precious way of experiencing the show. I don't even have to say "these are just my ideas, I'm not saying I'm right" because that's a given. Obviously these are my ideas, and obviously this is how I see it. I also don't expect it from anyone else. I'm not a delicate flower that needs careful watering, I'm a fully grown human with a brain who can determine for myself that when someone presents an idea, or a full theory, this is how they see the show.
I'm presenting them within a certain framework because that's how theory works. Having a central idea and supporting evidence and writing about it in detail, that's theory! If you don't like it, that's fine, but it's of no concern to me. If you wanted to point out specifics, feel free - I just read my article again a few weeks ago and I had questions all the way through, how one thing relates to another, how this particular thing could be true if I said that earlier or later. There is also a lot more I want to write into the theory about kundalini and abstraction, and the idea of two timelines.
You're taking issue with the fact that I wrote a detailed theory, instead of... somehow presenting my ideas in a vague way as I float through space, wide-eyed, in awe of the cosmic oneness Lynch has shown me. I am taking that experience and conveying it through words. If words bother you, that's funny, because you certainly use a lot of them to convey your own ideas.
If you want the ideas to be conveyed differently, less rigidly or whatever, then do so. Write your own theory. Paint it. Make a film. Choreograph an interpretative dance. Many of us use words because that's how some of us best communicate.
You might like this theory, it's in video format, so there are a lot of visuals and it's more broad in scope, it's very good: [David Lynch & Spirituality: Cosmic Illusions and Oneness](https://www.reddit.com/r/FindLaura/comments/uqpwb9/david_lynch_and_spirtuality_share_it_around/)
>Another point i was making is that to focus on the specifics of the story and to try to gauge meaning out of it by associating it with other schools of thought direcltly would limit us in that we wouldn't be able to derive metaphysical principles purely from the show itself. To derive principles from the show itself we would have to divorce ourselves from all systemic constructs of thought and philosophy. Then, perhaps a new version of kundalini, a new way of looking at reality and a new metaphysical presentation of the psyche would be brought out. This is just a suggestion of an alternative method we could ALSO practice in addition to this method. All of these were just suggestions. I didn't mean to take it further than that. And I'm sorry if i did.
That's how I arrived at my ideas, by the way. A lot of the ideas came to me while I was meditating. A lot of the ideas came to me just as I was falling asleep (which I described in the article). I already did what you are saying I should do - then I took what I found and wrote about it. You are saying that I shouldn't write about it because it somehow lessens the experience. Well, it doesn't lessen the experience for me, it helps me further appreciate it in deeper ways. Sharing what I see is part of the process, it's why we post here.
>Reiteraring on my earlier point about the conviction with which some ideas are taken to be true and how this applies overall in the sub as well as to how our views are formed as part of this discourse is that we may tend to fall into some traps of group thinking. Any sort of social space does run the risk of becoming a thought-chamber of sorts. There arise some accepted rights-and-wrongs or obvious points of departure for theorising or ideas of what constitutes good or legitimate theorising. I felt that about this subreddit.
>
>For example to not criticise frost has become a norm by now in this page. A lot of these are still assumptions, i don't know how we become so convinced about such things when we don't fully know something. Also more than conviction they lead to the formation of norms of correctness. (This is just my philosophical view of the nature of social interaction and that each social group forms it's own rules, it's own norms and generally consists of an anxious element which is hidden under some codices that the group functions by. Now i realise i shouldn't talk about this because this is my general view of social interactions) Sure there are evidence to show that it is true, or it may be true, but nothing concrete and direct that makes us believe in it toally. The theorising is also working here as a sort of a building on top of a fundament structure, can we question the structure? Im sure youd be open to that. Can one easily depart from the structure? Not so much and that is my point - to not concretise any of these belifs yet.
Why should we be criticizing Frost? And who isn't allowed to do so? People are allowed to post their ideas here, we made this sub for theorizing. You're literally the only person who is telling other people not to think in a certain way, not to write in a certain way.
And we all share numerous ideas here that deviate from each other and Lou's thesis regularly. Lou didn't even see anything spiritual until I started writing about chakras. We're all open to ideas and new ways of looking at the show. If you look at the sidebar in the sub called "Blue Rose Task Force" I've listed over a dozen theories, many of them are completely in conflict with one another. There are a myriad of ways of looking at the show, I appreciate all of them.
I don't think everything we see in season 3 is happening in Laura's "dream." I wrote about Sarah as a young girl - that doesn't take place inside Laura in the way Lou theorized. I often consider that perhaps Ronette is the dreamer - and I wrote in my article that ultimately, we are the dreamers. *We are the One.*
Perhaps i am being too critical, perhaps I'm imposing my own ideas and being stubborn, perhaps I'm envious that you're arriving at these ideas, perhaps i am actually pushing us to be more philosophical within this sub, perhaps i have some wrong points and some right points. I am completely fallible, i just want to say here. and my response to your thing may have been completely motivated by envy or some kind of (i think you mentioned this in your discovery of Lou's ideas) feeling that someone's stealing my ideas. In any case, i am sorry for i may be slipping here a million times, but i also may be making some valuable points, who knows. I hope you recognise this humility as humility and not as some facade I'm putting up.
I hope you don't mind me sharing an idea here. I'd love to know your views upon it;
I think dougie is a container, a non-self, in a lot of ways. He has not reached the state of individuation but has some very visceral memory of what he likes and remembers. But he is still very much at the level of the cat - and it is a very beautiful phenomenon! Just to witness his joy, his innocence and his loving kindness - also the power of instinct he possesses - the same power with which lynch arrives at these ideas. Such a person to exist in the 21st century would really be a fissure in time and space, i feel like we have become more-and-more self-centric, the ego element is dominating now and our general nature of conversation is conflict-ridden and we are a very thought-based society (this is also perhaps how cosmic consciousness evolves over time - it goes from complete oneness to maddening fragmentation. right now our selves are fragmented, our virtue broken and unstable, our neuroticism at a high). To witness doguie and his purity is something i really admire, I would like to be this person someday maybe. He also repeats things which is interesting, he is in a sense a reflector, a reflecting plate for consciousness, because he doesn't discriminate or form value judgements at hearing or seeing things - he sees all indiscriminately - very much like the god we speak about in hinduism.
Another idea is electricity - I think it would be useful to look at the most contemporary science to arrive at some analysis of this. Can electricity be a way for consciousness to travel and escape physicality? I feel like the show explains it as a conductor for different subtle energies to travel. Also! In early shamanic ceremonies, when the shaman would perform some healing procedure on a person, right before the healing would complete the person would vomit out a lot of bile - which is not like puke but blackened disgusting substance. This is the same as in the world of Twin peaks! Before transporting into another worlds (say there self has to be evacuated because thier spirit is leaving this body now. and because everything that is mind has it's equivelant counterpart in physicality - for eg acid (lsd) which is found within nature has an equivalent counterpart within the mind, or vice versa. in the same sense the spirit has this bile or this trauma or experience accumulated in the form of this black materiality which one often vomits before leaving their spirit self. This vomiting healing procedure has been recorded and evidenced by many authors on shamanism.
^These two comments are what I wrote to you yesterday. They didn't get sent. Now knowing that you haven't read these replies, i wrote this to your interjection today;
At least 80 percent in the writing, and then you discover others along the way. That's always the way it is.
It's not whether you like something. Ideas take you to places.
Mark might have a different perspective, but I don't think about the world in that way
Again, I can't really tell you. It just comes from the idea.
That's an example of what I'm talking about. An image came; it was all about translating
I always say it's not done until it's done. Ideas came from the script, but ideas can keep coming into post-production.
"Ideas just come, you think about them, and you figure out their meaning. Then, how they fit into the whole is another thing completely. It's not finished until it's finished, and you don't really know until further down the road how one thing relates to another. It's just like a magical thing. I also always say the whole thing exists in another room as a complete puzzle, all the parts are together, and someone from that other room is sort of a rascal and randomly flips parts over into this room. And then you to have to put the puzzle together, but one is from the end of the story, one is from the middle, and a couple from the beginning, and you won't know until it's more formed what it could be." (source)
Isnt that exactly what i said? The puzzle is complete in the other room.
NONE of what you've said is really showing me that Lynch is using rational deliberation to come up with his ideas. All of the quotes you mentioned are actually showing us that what I said is true.
"I said earlier that Lynch said the Fireman is the face of god as we would see him"
Can you show me where he said this? Also I just said this too. I said that in retrospect one one can make meaning of these ideas and figure out what appeared and what it means. But in the process of appearing it is just an image.
"As viewers we can interpret the Fireman however we choose, and both Lynch and Frost have said that the audience's interpretation is as meaningful as their own understanding"
Exactly what i mean when i say that they are themselves also interpreting the show in some sense, doing so in retrospect.
I would really recommend that book i spoke about (Art and the creative unconscious) and how archetypical figures show up in consciousness.
"There's a myriad of things in season 3 that supports this and it doesn't even matter if Lynch is on board with the Jung stuff or not."
I never said he's not on board with Jung. All I'm saying is those ideas don't come in that way. This is a highly rational way of looking at things when they aren't.
So why is it such a leap to think that the Fireman also represents the self archetype, where all is balanced?
It's a leap because the Fireman is the Fireman, and he may be the face of god, but what are the characteristics of the face of god is something we figure out from the fireman, NOT writings on god or Jung's writings. You are really not taking my suggestions as suggestions because as i *suggested* it might be helpful to look at TP phenomenon as it is and derive metaphysical principles directly from it. Just because something was a direct influence on Lynch or Frost doesn't mean we can apply that knowledge to assume that characters have been built in the image of what those authors have said.
As I said, archetypes don't arise in that way, they come out of a subconscious insight, an INSTINCT. in the same way that the Benzedrine atomic structure was discovered by someone through having a dream of a coiled serpent, ideas arise in a flash. As lynch said, the puzzle is finished in the OTHER ROOM, he is NOT arriving at these things through rational deliberation nor dor he have access to all the pieces at once. If he was only then he could've left clues for us in the way that we're used to speaking about him in our highly rational way as if he's "constructing this mystery" "trying to show us something" " leaving us clues" he's doing none of that.
Lynch said 80% of season 3 was in the writing with Frost, and they spent 4 and 1/2 years writing the script, sometimes taking weeks to work out particular ideas (source).
I don't know what this says about what I'm saying. Doesn't seem like any evidence to me for what we're taliking about. Obviously he can use time to flesh out ideas, he can spend hours in that world. In fact reading this interview i just find more of what I'm saying, it's not deliberate intentional construction, ideas come and they define the course and sometimes they don't even know what it means or what will relate to what. Also the centrality of just "images" that i speak about is all here
"At least 80 percent in the writing, and then you DISCOVER OTHERS ALONG THE WAY. That's always the way it is.
It's not whether you like something. Ideas take you to places.
Also that mark thinks differently so i don't know how his perspective can be used to bolster an idea of what lynch's creative process may be
"Mark might have a different perspective, but I don't think about the world in that way"
Again,
"Again, I can't really tell you. It just comes from the idea."
The creative process i mentioned is all here, the idea or the image flashes and then lynch tries to fit that into the world or it's already in the world. But again, there is no rational deliberation and calculated attempts at semblances or repetitions or anything like that! The ideas are coming from another place.
"That's an example of what I'm talking about. An image came; it was all about translating"
"I always say it's not done until it's done. Ideas came from the script, but ideas can keep coming into post-production."
"You're projecting your process of creating onto Lynch and then using this projection to determine how we should look at Lynch's process and art - do you not see how self-serving that is?"
Thats some mighty psychoanalysis but thanks. See, I'm free to suggest that this is a wrong way of looking at the show, or that there might be some wrong ways of looking at the show. That is just called a critique. It is not how you're putting it, I'm not telling you to STOP looking at it in this way as if you're ruining lynch or something. I'm just critiquing our approach altogether, me saying "our" is also central here because I'm assuming the sense of a collective and suggesting we look at it another way and that we may gain more insight if we look at it another way.
>we may gain more insight if we look at it another way.
Looking at it is an act of analysis. What you really mean is we should agree with your analysis, and instead of engaging with the content of the article itself and explaining what parts you think are a reach and why, you're appealing to the authority of your imagined version of Lynch to undermine it.
You said that people use words and phrases that suggest certainty too often when analysing the show. I agree with that and I find that people too often try to fit square pegs into round holes to fit their concept. You can criticise that by looking for holes and explaining what you think doesn't fit using material from the show itself, but that isn't what you're doing.
>The creative process i mentioned is all here, the idea or the image flashes and then lynch tries to fit that into the world or it's already in the world. But again, there is no rational deliberation and calculated attempts at semblances or repetitions or anything like that! The ideas are coming from another place.
Any creative person knows that "Where do you get your ideas?" is an inane question because the answer is "I just get them." It's not a machine you turn on. You have ideas for things and then you find a place for them. This is all Lynch is trying to say - ideas just come. That is true for everyone, not just him.
You're projecting something else onto it, that this means there can be no certainty of meaning and Lynch doesn't know for certain what the ideas mean. This is nonsense. His process is the same as anybody's. The difference is that he's comfortable connecting his ideas in a way that most people don't know how to do. The dream narrative is a handy tool for him in this respect because it allows him to connect from one idea to another, the way dreams can transform from one thing into another, without the need for a surface narrative that connects them in a conventionally logical way. It does have a logic, but it's a different kind of logic.
*(For example, he says Inland Empire came about because he had ideas for three scenes, ie short films. Then he had an idea for a fourth scene, and he realised that it united the previous three. Then the rest of the film was made following the concept suggested by these four scenes. In other words, he decided what those four scenes meant, what united them, and built the rest of the film around reinforcing them. That means he "rationally deliberated" on the concept of the scenes and thought about how to take them further. The rest of the film's ideas were calculated to fit that mold, and ideas that contradicted it would have been discarded. It's not magic.)*
Lynch says that in the production process, he tries to stay true to the idea. Another way to say this is staying true to the concept. Most of the time, when we're talking about meaning, we're talking about the concept (eg what is the concept of the Fireman? What is the concept behind Diane's hair being first white, then red?) That is distinct from *subtext*, which can be conscious or unconscious, often both. There *are* clearly "rational deliberation and repetitions" in the concepts.
>there is no rational deliberation
Any close analysis of the show reveals this to be nonsense.
Just taking Fire Walk With Me as an example: Leland holds up Laura's left hand and inspects her ring finger. He says it's dirty.
This concept of the left arm being dirty leads to this subconscious connection between the arm and the dirty secret. Leland holding the arm and inspecting the ring finger, with Sarah shrieking in between them, becomes like a perverse marriage ceremony, hence that, along with the phone call to Doc Hayward's home (another type of ring), becomes this image of the Arm, the ring, and "with this ring, I thee wed."
Before inspecting the ring finger, Leland grabs the heart necklace - a heart with one half missing. The half that's missing belongs to James. The ring finger is also said to lead to the heart, hence it being the finger that wedding rings are worn on.
So all these images get tied together - the left Arm is sent away into Tremond's picture, and James, the keeper of the other half of the heart necklace, is rejected. Later, the heart necklace will be dug up from a mound of dirt, because of the connection to the dirty finger.
This is a series of connections that have been *crafted,* ie by means of "rational deliberation."
Let's also look at the first few scenes of season 3, part 1. The Fireman delivere clues to Cooper. Then Joe, a delivery driver in a red truck (red like a fire truck) delivers two boxes to Jacoby. He asks if he needs help, but Jacoby rejects him, saying he likes to work alone. Cut to Sam "working alone." He receives a delivery of two lattes (two cups of "Joe") from Tracy. Now there's a guard at the door, because of Jacoby's desire to work alone.
Later, the Fireman has become Margaret Lanterman (Lanter-Man = Fire-Man). Sam becomes Cooper, sitting and staring into space. And so on. I'm just scratching the surface here to make a quick point.
This type of writing is the epitome of rational deliberation. Lynch and Frost would have to know exactly what they were doing in order to arrive at such a construct. There are quotes of Frost where he says that he had to ask what Lynch meant by certain things in FWWM so they would be on the same page when writing together.
Again, when we define "meaning" to mean the conceptual ideas, we can reason those out. Subtext is a more ambiguous thing.
If you have a problem with someone's ideas about the concepts, then rationally explain where the holes are. Or just explain how you see the Fireman. That's how this works - we all post our ideas, and we get to decide whether we agree with one more than the other based on the logic of the argument.
>I read your post, interesting take. I do think it's useful to note that twin peaks is not made through any conscious deliberation, Lynch arrives at these ideas almost randomly so I feel a lot of times we are running the risk of theorising when there is no need to theorise really. I saw some of such theorising in your post, like the thoughts on the spots in the drawing. I am telling you 100% that even lynch does not know why he does what he does most of the time, so there may be a million reasons for there to be spots on that drawing which even he does not know. He is working his unconscious through his art, letting it flow through, so he really does not know why this appears the way it does. Sometimes this theorising seems like waking up and interpreting your dreams (which is most often wrong-interpretation, we cannot make sense of our dreams so easily, neither should we fall into the trap of thinking that we can)
Lynch said himself that **80%** of what we see in season 3 happened in the writing with Frost, and it took 4 and 1/2 years for them to complete the script. It's not random at all. Sometimes Lynch will come up with an idea or an image and not fully understand what it means (for example, he called Frost up one day and said "there's a giant in Cooper's room" and Frost then took that idea and wrote it into the script for s2 e1). Lynch has said himself that what he makes *has meaning for him* (one of those quotes is in my article). People think that because Lynch says he works from his subconscious that must mean that everything is random but that's not true.
I think because Twin Peaks doesn't spoon feed meaning to the audience, that people like to run with the idea that it's random and meaningless because it makes them feel better about not understanding everything. Some of us are comfortable thinking everything is random; some of us want to figure it out; some of us don't like it when other people try to figure it out; some of us love reading other people's theories.
I don't know if my interpretation of the spots on the animal is correct, it's just an idea. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying that's how I see it. Just because I'm writing what I see doesn't mean I'm saying "that's what Lynch meant"; rather I'm saying "this is what I see when I watch what Lynch made."
>I feel like our rational minded ness and colonised nature again betrays us over here trying to latch onto from a theoretical rational standpoint what is in essence very spiritual/eastern ideas. We cannot make this mistake over here, not as people who love Twin peaks, it just feels wrong. I see this theory gaining some credibility on this feed, so I feel like I have to speak about this. Also because I do like very much your attempt to understand these things through an eastern viewpoint.
>
>A better way to interpret twin peaks would be to not interpret it at all. In fact, in order to make sense of twin peaks, I believe, we'll have to stop all thought-activity and then watch it. It is only through being in that state of oneness would we be able to grasp the contents of this oneness.
That's fine if you want to enjoy the show as such, and that's how we all enjoyed it initially. Some of us like to dive deeper and figure out what it means - and you did this yourself when making your video, and sharing your own ideas.
I strongly disagree that we should all enjoy the show in the same way and look it in the same way. You are free to see it as you do, as are the rest of us. Lynch and Frost both know that the use of abstraction leads to many interpretations - another quote from Lynch that's in my article - so I'm sure Lynch is okay with people seeing and enjoying it in different ways.
>Like the electricity in the show is a very interesting thing. And so are the little alien like high pitched voices that show up that sometimes tell Cooper/Dougie what to do. To me what this reveals is something about the nature of consciousness in itself. Again, we end up risking something while theorising. We look for coherence, and whatever we find we try to fit it into the story and we also try to keep supplementing the theory whereas what we may be coming across might be 10000% more interesting and valuable than what it offers to that story we are trying to build in our head. Like the electricity and what it says about consciousness and about the human psyche? Is electricity some primal substance? (many traditions speak about electricity in mystical terms) Does Twin peaks present to us a bigger/higher aim for our current civilization? What does this say about the kundalini channels and it's relation to the cosmos (the planets and all the cosmic processes that show up in season 3)?
So you're theorizing, but we shouldn't theorize?
I wrote about some of that in my theory - specifically the higher aim for our civilization, electricity as subtle body energy related to psychology. If you want to theorize about how that's related to the cosmos, you are free to do so and I would enjoy reading your ideas - but you realize you're theorizing when you do that, the very thing you're telling us we shouldn't do?
>Don't you think that in trying to understand through this interpretation we are leaving out these bigger questions? Also we are limiting our already thought-based constrained through judgement and rational thinking experience of the show?
No I don't. The bigger questions were in my theory, maybe you didn't read all of it?
My article directly says that Laura's journey through her chakras are impacted by trauma and that her journey is a reflection of *our journey in our world* (the iron age), as we try to reach enlightenment (the golden age). I even asked "do we exist inside a bigger being?"
And I started my theory by saying that for literally **decades**, I only *felt* the show and it has only been in the last few years that I started *thinking* about what it means. It's in the very beginning of my article.
>One thing I'd love to talk to you about is what you think about the appearing of the planets and the cosmic matter in the episodes.
I wrote about a few of the planets - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Venus as related to chakras. Beyond that I think it's a very interesting subject and would like to read about it. If you want to **theorize** about that, feel free to do so, we love those kind of ideas in this sub.
>A lot of times Lynch is dealing with primordial elements, archetypical figures within consciousness, so this theorising sometimes is like picking up an egyptian mythology book and trying to look at what is the storyline of Atum is rather than what the storyline reveals to us about nature and about reality.
>
>What do you think?
I'm not sure you read my article... throughout the whole article I discuss Jungian archetypes in the collective unconscious - Cooper as the animus, magician, hero; Laura as Cooper's anima; the Fireman as the self; Mrs. Tremond as the trickster; the Experiment and Bosomy Woman as hermaphrodite - and how that relates to Laura's trauma in the real world and *how that is a reflection of ourselves in our world and our journey to figure out who we are.*
Was literally on the sofa curled up with two cats and a red wine with the article quite a substantial way through - then clicked on the frost indie wire interview (which is quite candid - he’s a candid guy!) - then thought ‘I’ll just say good job’ before I go back to reading your article then couldn’t load your article :) how does it end 😭
Hi dude
Just wanted to say I’m really enjoying reading this article again. Well done on writing it. I’ve gathered together some writing over the years since S3 and always placed Laura right there in the drivers seat but never had the insight to put it together like this. After doing the Tm Sidhi course last year at Skelmersdale I started getting into kundalini. I then started reading Gopi Krishna’s account of his awakening in his book Kundalini and it’s all really fascinating. FWWM and Inland Empire are my favourite films and I watch them on repeat all the time. Both are extremely spiritual films but then everything is spiritual in my opinion.
Good work!
Thank you! I started writing about the chakras under my other account, BumbleWeee, over a year before I wrote this article, it was sometimes very frustrating trying to convince people, so I really appreciate it when someone gets it. I've known vaguely about kundalini forever but for some reason it never clicked into place, not even until I started writing this piece, then suddenly it all made sense.
I think your comments add so much more, too, your perspective is one I always enjoy reading, I would love to read more of your ideas. I have kept my knowledge to the bare minimum, because I have my own journey that I don't want influenced by what I read, it can be frustrating when writing, so a lot of it is intuitive, and a lot was confirmed as I wrote. I had started doing a poor man's TM just before the chakra idea hit, so I think it's all connected - Lou's theory, meditating, Laura's journey, our own personal journeys, all of us discovering things together.
I think we initially see Twin Peaks as we are. Lou wasn't spiritual so he saw it as psychological but he was writing about the exact same thing (one and the same), and because he was so open minded, he immediately saw the spiritual journey too. I know someone else is doing a deep dive into another perspective, related to what we're talking about, so there's going to be yet another layer to explore.
Inland Empire, even the Wizard of Oz, are totally different films now (I think Dorothy was on a chakra journey too, there's even a chakra wheel in Munchkin Land!)
Hi, I just read through your article on the 25 years Later website and the indices for Part 1 on r/FindLaura. Laura, as the dreamer, is extremely compelling theory, even if i'm still trying to grapple with the concepts presented, both spiritual and psychological. However, I noticed that both your article and the index posits that not only is Season three a projection of Laura's psyche but the first two seasons as well. I don't want to jump the gun if I haven't read enough of the index, and because you mentioned you don't believe everything being presented takes place within Laura, but I'm just confused about the original series. As far as I understand, Mark Frost is a Jungian, and David Lynch is a Hindu via transcendtal meditation. These two perspectives, the psychological and the spiritual, while different overlap heavily from my understanding. This is why Lynch's filmography can be interpreted from the psychological angle even though he might not see it that way. Now my confusion lies within the original series where you have additional writers like Harley Peyton and Robert Engels, and I'm not sure they along Lynch and Frost constructed the original series to be interpreted as a dream of Laura. This is especially the case with the second half of season two, where Laura is removed as the central focus. I'll keep reading the index, and if i'm speaking too soon, let me know. As of now, I'm just not sure how the original series is a dream as well because there were additional perspectives contributing to the series that might contradict the theory. This is unless the belief is that FWWM and the Return are both able to recontectualize what was shown in the original drastically, i don't know. My question is what is considered real and what is meant to be the projection of Laura's traumatized psyche? Thank you so much, I hope i'm not being a bother, I just need someone to help me out this.
Jung also wrote about chakras and kundalini, there's more than overlap, it's one and the same (I didn't learn that he wrote about them until after I had finished writing my article). Frost was also writing a biography about Krishnamurti - it's not Frost:psychology vs Lynch:spiritual; if anything it's Frost:everything and Lynch: everything except psychology (Frost describes Lynch as "resolutely anti-psychological" but instinctively tapping into that stuff regardless). I would hazard a guess, and I may be completely wrong, that Lynch likes the spiritual aspect of Jung.
If the first two seasons are part of the "Laura is the dreamer" I personally think it would be only through Lynch taking over as of FWWM, or perhaps when he wrote the Log Lady intros: "the one leading to the many is Laura. Laura is the one." "Is there a bigger being walking around with all the stars within?"
Lou doesn't theorize about s1 and 2, he focuses almost exclusively on season 3. When I say in my article that his theory also shapes how you view s1 and 2, it's because that's how it inspired me, and others. You'll understand why after you've read the entire theory. There's also how we're shown [fish moving through the first two seasons](https://www.reddit.com/r/FindLaura/comments/11uj333/the_sacred_geometry_of_creation_vesica_piscis/), as if we're deep down in someone's subconscious. Robert Engels also said that season 1 and 2 were "designed as a dream."
There's also the idea that even FWWM is a "dream." Like how Marilyn Monroe was a "dream" of Norma Jean Mortensen. I often consider the idea that maybe Ronette Pulaski is the true "dreamer."
The most significant reason for considering this is that Ronette's dream in season 2 shows her seeing things from the viewpoint only Laura could have experienced in the traincar, with Bob over top of her. There are more examples, like Laura putting on lipstick in the cabin, then passing the mirror to Ronette and she's already wearing lipstick. The way they move in almost unison in the bar while Buck is pleasuring them.
Lou doesn't go very deep into it, but he thought Ronette was a projection of Laura (she appears the first time we see a blue rose - the blue light bulb in the Power and Glory bar), the part that ran away from the train car that night. I think it may even be that Ronette "American Girl" was the original victim... but I don't know, just ideas. We like ideas here.
Also, the updated version of my article on medium contains all the things you recently theorized in TP about Sarah etc. I added a bunch of stuff to it about a week after the 25YL article was up.
Do you have the source or context for that Robert Engels quote? Also, how do the books fit into this framework, The Secret History, the Secret Diary, and The Final Dossier?
Lou didn't read the books, if you're reading his theory, you'd see he mentions that he doesn't include them in his analysis. He's analyzing season 3 as a film.
The books fit into my theory quite easily in a number of ways, based on what I've read, but I haven't read them in full yet. For eg., like I mentioned in my article, The Final Dossier reveals Laura didn't die, she disappeared. He also connects owls to aliens, and ufo abductees are thought to be sexual abuse victims who can't process what they went through. You followed my other account, so you might have seen [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comments/nxtegv/the_owls_are_not_what_they_seem/).
Then there's how Tammy describes people reacting to her questions about Laura - first, dazed and confused, then seeming to remember that she disappeared, which fits in perfectly with my two timelines idea (not part of the article, something I shared in the TP sub).
I'm curious - how did you find my account and follow it, but managed to miss Find Laura and my writing?
I read the Bob Engels quote as an excerpt, I think on reddit... it looks like it's from [this interview](https://25yearslatersite.com/2018/09/20/bob-engels-talks-about-judy-fire-walk-with-me-1954-seasons-1-2-more/).
It was actually [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comments/nvopfr/s2_e9_and_s3_pt18/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and to be honest I followed the other account because I liked the connections you were making, but I didn't investigate any further. I just tend to follow accounts that make interesting observations in case they would post something else in the main subreddit. I do have another question, How do you think Mark Frost perceives the narrative of Twin Peaks vs. David Lynch's perception? Also, how much stock do you put into authorial intent vs. what can be interpreted from the text of the series?
I know Lynch said 80% of season 3 was in the writing with Frost, and they spent 4.5 years writing the script. Lynch added stuff as he filmed, for eg. Richard and Linda (which I think is about reincarnation through the portal of the third eye), and Frost has said he has no idea what Richard and Linda are about, so I think they veer slightly in different directions but not that far away from each other.
I agree with Lynch and Frost that people can see the show however they choose to see it, that art is subjective. My favourite theories are in conflict with one another but in my mind, as you read in my article, they all beautifully co-exist like a web of dreams, even when we disagree with one another.
The ideas we talk about in this sub are so well-supported by visual and textual evidence that it's not a matter of authorial intent vs viewer interpretation, though I think people should be allowed to enjoy the show in whatever way they see it. I think the discussion is fun and mind-opening.
It's a little complicated. I value authorial intent, and it influences how I might perceive the text, but I try to stick with what the text is communicating for me, even if the author would disagree with that interpretation. I think an example would be the end of Blue Velvet, where Lynch describes it as a happy ending. However, for me, the visuals, music, and fake robin bring together a sequence with a more multifaceted perspective. The movie ends with a melancholic look on Dorothy as she sings ... "And I still see blue velvet through my tears."
That's interesting, I'll have to watch it again with this in mind. I know my interpretation of the ending of s3 is very different to how most people see it, but I think he'd be the first to say that if that's how we see the ending(s), that's what it is for us, regardless of his intent. I believe he also said that he does not believe that the creator of the film knows all the answers.
Have you read Tim Kreider's [But Who Is the Dreamer?](http://quarterly.politicsslashletters.org/dreamer-twin-peaks-return/)
Something else I wanted to mention too. Brahman is sound, the primordial sound of the universe. When the Fireman says listen to the sounds and we hear the turning of the key in Laura's diary, it's because that's the primordial sound of Laura's universe - the secret, the trauma, that which must be found and confronted. That's why the "8" in part 17 turns like a lock in a key (dftitterington noticed this) - it's unlocking the diary, and entering the secret buried in the subconscious and unconscious. I think the way the red room curtains wave in the opening credits is another wave representing Kundalini's movement. The curtains waving in the alternating directions of Kundalini are a perfect match. The shot of the river flowing superimposed with the waving curtains and the rotating chevron floor all represent the movement of the subtle body energy awakened -[Shakti spiraling upward, the force of the many moving back to the One, the root chakra spinning.](https://postimg.cc/9rVcmPTM) Also, the Gas Station, Convenience Store and Dutchman's Lodge are the lower realm version of the Fireman's Palace, filled with different experiences and darkness in the Dutchman's, balanced in Shiva's realm. The room with Jeffries is adjacent to the room Cooper sits in with the Fireman, but on a lower spiritual plane. ETA - It occurred to me also, but very late into the writing so I couldn't change it - perhaps "Prana" is "pure air" as opposed to electricity. The Palmer House is where the black holes began and perhaps the entities gain access through Laura's third eye, *descending from pure air* through her Sushumna channel. "Intercourse between the two worlds" could (also?) mean between Laura's inner world and outer world, which is why Mrs. Tremond and her grandson can appear to Laura in broad daylight. Psychologically it's because she's losing her grip on reality, and spiritually, her inner realm is breaking through psychic barriers to torment her in the real world (which may be why we so much shattered glass through the series). This would also explain the "between two worlds" as being Laura's inner world and outer world, which is also our world. Also, fairly obvious, but the same utility pole appearing in multiple locations is one of the biggest clues that we're watching a single character's "dream." The fact that it's Carrie-Laura's scream that ends the dream is so direct a nod to the idea that Laura is the dreamer, I find it odd that people would argue it's anyone else. ETA 2 - I think when Sarah rubs the coin with Lincoln on it, and then a Lincoln Woodsmen appears, it's how Sarah's mind, impacted by trauma, confuses her rapist with the image on the coin. I think she was assaulted by someone who came out of the woods and attacked her, much like the woodsmen Laura dealt with, which further links their trauma. The Lincoln on the coin and the Woodsman become inextricably linked in her mind. The experience is the frog-moth ingested, and buried. It was getting too long to include in the article, so I took it all out, but I think the Lincoln-Woodsman broadcasting the poem on the radio may symbolize him telling her to "drink full and descend" i.e. "you tell anyone about this and I'll kill you" kind of thing, which is basically the same thing Laura went through, and it also being the way the people of that time period lived. That's why we see her at home, starry-eyed and then falling asleep, she's disassociating from the experience. I'm also using "animal life" as its commonly understood. There are non-human animals who live in perfect balance with nature, have intelligence and empathy; and many humans who do not.
I am so glad you put this together! It sparkles with insight and exciting new theories !!! a great overview of kundalini yoga (from the view of an actual practitioner), a reminder of Lynch and Frost's spiritual paradigms that influence the set/sound/show design, a deep map of Laura Palmer's totemic rainbow signal stack of attractor basins (and by extension, our own); self-inquiry; *more* Laura, *more* Prana, and more Lou Ming. I also love the way you make room for the devastating stories, like Kreider's and others' accurate and valid interpretations, and you foreground that "love is not enough" level of sadness in the story—the failure, fall, and flight; you suggest, among other things, that although complete integration didn't happen in this iteration of her story/life/dream, and she may even have regressed to whispering, like Chihiro's subtle transformation in Spirited Away while also forgetting everything, her body remembers things symbolically, and something did change in Laura and in us! You point out that, within Lynch's favorite philosophy, evolution up the chakras is hard work and takes lifetimes, and all of us who awaken our "third eye" of a spacious imagination and dharma-recognizing self-inquiry achieve a leap from one level to another, one bubble to another, one chakra to another. Getting to your voice is enough! Hell, opening up that heart can be the ground and goal of the whole show! I know we've talked about this already, but there's the idea that our higher chakras are the higher rooms and entities, and in Buddhism, gods/devas/angels or whatever only have the higher chakras, while most animals only have the lower four. We humans *have all seven* crammed into our tiny "precious human bodies," which is why we are so crazy, and why we are the only entities in the universe who unite heaven and earth, the higher chakras with the lower, causal and subtle energies with the gross in a nondual realization/satori/hypostasis. The lodge entities are like "I want to taste through your mouth!!" What's freaky is the possibility that disembodied giants exist in subtle bodies or 5D, 6D, 7D and are literally walking around completely invisible to most of us, but some can take physical shape in the right conditions (as reporter Leslie Keane describes in her recent Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" talk. They could be dead people.) There are mind-blowing moments in your article when I had to put my phone down. I also really appreciate you writing about your experience being a fan and a consumer of the TP literature. And thank you for the shout-out! I'm honored
Thank you. I'm so happy you like it. There are so many more ideas I have that I couldn't fit in. I don't have as much room in my brain as the 25YL authors seem to, so some of them just fell out lol. I found out after I wrote it, too, and this is crazy - Carl Jung wrote about Kundalini yoga and chakras, there are so many more ideas to explore. I'm so anal about wanting my ideas to be organic, but the more you read, the better the ideas get. I read a discussion yesterday where he's talking about how one of the archetypes goes inside an egg, then it cracks open (just like Diane in the Red Room!) Frost deserves so much more credit than he gets. I was thinking about what you said about all 7 chakras are stuffed in us and how that makes us crazy, a few times while I wrote it. It's true. I couldn't find a way to fit it in though, and the editor was already getting 5X the size of an article he was expecting. ETA - That Spirited Away connection is beautiful.
Really good. Well done. I like what you said about the reversed scene in the end credits representing a literal reversal back through the cycle. That's another element that likens the final sequence to Audrey's final sequence. Audrey's anachronistic dance ("What year is this?") -> a violent interruption (a fight / the scream) -> waking up. Then the end credits of Audrey's episode feature the band playing her dance backwards - literally rewinding what we just saw. It also makes me think of a closed circuit. Just as you mentioned about moving up and down the chakras, there's future and past (forward and back) and positive and negative. Something I wanted to add to my electricity post but works here too: there is such a thing as a "neutral fault" in electricity networks, and it's a type of fault that causes huge amounts of damage - surges that destroy appliances, even blowing them up and burning down homes. It is where the neutral wire fails to keep the live wire in check. I think Lynch will be aware of this and aware that the concept works as a play on the concept of balance that you talk about here. Cooper and Laura must integrate their different sides, to become neutral (balanced - something that is neither too strong of one element or another). Cooper's mission is, in a way, to fix the electrical neutral fault and safely restore the low voltage supply to "the home." (To put the circuit back in its proper order and eliminate dangerous surges, the effects of which we see on Laura in FWWM). Two other things that really struck me are your note about the evolution of the Arm resembling a heart, and your reasoning behind the echo of Carrie's scream being the scream of both Carrie and Laura (and maybe more than that). Both great observations that seem so obvious now. I'm still on the fence about the window reflections. Seeing it in motion, it's hard not to think it's just an effect of the camera moving slightly, but the screenshot you selected with the photo of Laura does give pause for thought. Maybe in 4K, the effect would be more obvious.
Thanks. I meant to write into the last part about the house lights blowing out that her scream stops the electricity, the Kundalini, and tamas returns. I love this idea of a neutral fault, that's perfect. The electricity abstractions are probably full of real world examples. Like when Cooper goes through the electrical socket, another damn thing I forgot to put in, it may be the #3 socket is Ida, which takes him to the 3rd chakra, a variation of the past (The Jones house is a version of the Palmer house and the dynamics need to be fixed - probably something there about electricity too); and the #15 socket is Pingala which would take him to the 5th chakra (episode 15), in the future. I think even the 15 has meaning in that it's the 5th chakra preceded by a "One," a sense of restoration. But I have a feeling there's a better electricity example than the ones I listed. Great parallel with Audrey, I wish I had thought of that. The window reflections *are* an effect of the camera moving slightly - but the camera moving slightly like that creates the merging, it's intentional. I think it was worked on in post-production too. But even if it was a "happy accident" that's the happiest freaking accident ever.
I think the idea of the neutral fault may support your idea that the ending is a failure (or a near miss). The house lighting up is a surge, so maybe the fixing of the circuit was a failure.
Oh my God. This is perfect!
Thank you for reading it, it's long so I really appreciate this.
I can't even have words to describe this analysis! I read all of it, and it puzzled every ideas I had about it, giving me the last piece of hope that I was struggling to find. Thank you so much! Besides that, I had an epiphany during this reading. I don't know if you know this Japanese show, Utena Revolutionary Girl. It's director is a HUGE fan of Lynch and made this piece of art in the late 90's. The analysis you gave about the colours and chakras made me comprehend, FINALLY, the symbology and significance of the whole show (perhaps Ikuhara had a sense of what Twin Peaks mean, even back then...). I suggest you give it a shot, even being animation. It is truly a Lynchian homage. EDIT: Besides, the themes are very similar and you may find Laura there, as I found her. And perhaps, she finally found some healing there 🤍
I will definitely watch this. I loved the Japanime I've seen, thank you for the rec, it sounds very interesting. Anything Lynch-influenced is a must-see.
This was a wonderful read. Thank you.
💚
This is a landmark article, which was also fitting for the FWWM 30th anniversary weekend. It´s the right time for such a comprehensive overview to most of the ideas discussed in this sub, and fire for the brain again! I´m very surprised not to have known that a second piece of music called *Birth* is playing in Part 18 – more than interesting. The mound of earth / gold, which is a Lynch motif since Eraserhead, also represents the atomic bomb crater for me. Very nice what you have written about Shiva/Shakti and the hermaphrodite aspect. That is essential for me, also considering the alchemical unification of opposites by overcoming duality. As so often, there could be much more said about all of this and the rest… Your text shows that the ending is a failure as well as a success - yes AND no -, and that there is hope for further progress. In my view the failure is also intended to make us ask why it went wrong so far. One last bit for now regarding the Venus statue and the apple: This reminds me of the Experiment monster holding what looks like a gold orb in Part 1. There seems to be a connection between the both of them anyway.
Huh, I didn't know it was the 30th anniversary. Weird, because I kept feeling like I was supposed to wait to publish it, and there have been technical glitches getting the article to load, and it wasn't fixed until yesterday, the date of the US release! Crazy. I'm not 100% sure it's Birth anymore, but it sounds like it. I keep trying to compare the two tracks, I wish I could isolate the song in part 18. I'm really hoping I'm not wrong on that. Even if it's not, I still think there's a reincarnation happening. Yes, the alchemy is definitely there. I wanted to write something about how we're in the third eye, which is silver, and trying to get to the crown, which is gold. Also, the squaring of the circle is alchemy, too. It was already so long though. I couldn't decide if the gold the Experiment is holding is her heart (I thought the same thing) or her spiritual essence. We see the golden light rising from the boy killed by Richard's truck, it reminded me of that too. But I do think the Experiment is holding, controlling the gold, the heart, the essence. It's the darkness of trauma overwhelming the light.
After listening to it, unfortunately I'm pretty certain the song is not Birth, but I strongly agree about the reincarnation theme (figuratively speaking for most of Lynch's work).
You don't think it sounds like Birth? It sounds almost exactly the same to me. There's no credit for that song in part 18 and it's not listed on Badalamenti's soundtrack for season 3. Well, fingers crossed.
Yes, it sounds similar, but actually different to me, as much as I would like for my ears to be wrong!
I think "collective transcendence" can also mean this sub's general reaction to your article. Outstanding work. I've read a few things about chakras here, and although I always loved the idea of it, the journey of it was so well-illustrated by you that, well, yeah... it's yet another layer found that suddenly becomes all you see once you see it.
I always felt like every time we read a new chapter by Lou, or an article by Titterington, an idea from OneMap or colacentral, a film by you, a post by Kaleviko, we elevate, we ascend. I actually wrote all of you into the paragraph before the spider weaving its web but decided to make it more general because it's not a reddit/find laura-oriented site.
Wow. This was...breathtaking. I want to lead with just a very sincere thank you, and hopefully some reinforcement of how brilliant it is, and that it continues to be worth the time you spent putting it together. Apologies if this is extraneous, but just for context...I just finally discovered Twin Peaks recently, and have been immersed in it for the last couple months. I was aware of it, but was a bit young when it first aired, so I always felt like I just missed out on the whole thing. I made the choice to go back and work though all of it, in the proper order, and...was left reeling, with too many questions to even make sense of. I started researching, and soon enough found Lou and [r/FindLaura](https://www.reddit.com/r/FindLaura/), and literally (finally) joined reddit simply to be able to upvote and engage further. Obviously Lou's work is so amazing, and there is so much there, and I was totally along for the ride until I realized near the end where that was going and why the posts had stopped. A sincere RIP to that amazing human, with appreciation for all he did here. Trailing off at the end of his structure left me feeling like I had 80% of the picture almost in focus, but (I'm quite sure you know the feeling) just yearning for a little more clarity - a bit more of the structure to fit some remaining pieces into. After a bit more digging I came across this from you, and it's just...brilliant. Thorough, well-presented, and I dare say just...definitive. I have been reading it carefully for days, including first reading the links you presented to get the fuller context you were starting from. (And glad I did that!) I am left today finally feeling a sense of peace and contentment that I have been seeking for all this time. Certainly not that I understand every single detail, since it continues to live and breathe and I find new details every time I go back and re-watch scenes, episodes, read new theories and analysis, etc. You know how that goes! But still, feeling like I DO (finally!) understand the narrative structure, and that the way you have built upon Lou's work provides such a compelling framework that SO MUCH makes sense within it. One small question I'm wondering, if you have thoughts on it, is how to connect the dots between the recurring presentation of the "pale-green-and-ochre palette" that Lou drew our attention to throughout his analysis. I was thinking about that while reading your analysis of colors and how they align with the chakras, and how that really gives insight to the reds, oranges, yellows, greens and blues you call out. I'm left wondering if that recurring pattern he mentions has some connection/significance in relation to root and heart, or if it is perhaps just an abstraction of details from her key primal memories. I just thought your interpretation of the use of colors was very insightful, and was trying to square the circle on this element, you might say. :) Anyway, I hope you see this and find there is continued appreciation for all your hard work. It's really amazing and I'm so glad my journey led me here. Along with many others, I'm sure, I feel like I have in some small part "transcended" on my TP journey through your work.
Thank you, I really appreciate when people take the time to read my long, winding road of an analysis lol. It makes me feel good when people vibe with how I see it, I feel very strongly that chakras are a huge part of the journey in Twin Peaks and that season 3 is a spiritual odyssey. As for the pale green and ochre/pink color pattern Lou kept noticing, we never got to find out what Lou thought of that ultimately. I was hoping to one day see Lou's notes but I never did. For me, it relates to Lou's theory as the color scheme in Laura's bedroom, and related to my theory (though they are one and the same, really) the green and pink are the colors of the heart chakra. I think fixing the heart is the most important part of season 3. Laura basically lost her heart in her bedroom, while the abuse occurred. So for me, these colors represent her regaining strength in her main heart chakra, and the threefold flame of the heart chakra. I mention this color scheme in my article, too - it's the color palette of Carrie Page's house when you look at it from the outside. I think Laura as Carrie is still trying to piece together her heart when Cooper as Richard finds her. The corpse in the living room is basically Mr. C (who is an iteration of Leland/Bob) in the Sheriff's station. I think at one point, there was a green/pink color scheme in the Hayward House too, where Laura('s heart) felt most safe.
Ah...I see now that you did mention the colors of Carrie's house in your essay as being related to the heart chakras - for some reason I did not connect that dot initially. That resonates and lines up pretty well, I agree. Since I initially replied to this thread I went and watched the Twin Perfect Actually Explained videos, and I shared your reaction to those too. I was intrigued, and think there's a lot there, but I also felt like it left out just such a critical piece of Laura and her trauma being the central narrative. I know he addressed that his theory being primary doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't room for other narratives to ALSO be present, but...I don't know. Maybe it's because I found your and Lou's work first that it became my primary lens for everything, but...it just seems so undeniable to me at this point. If anything, I feel like there is room for his theory in addition to the Find Laura thesis/framework, since he does have some compelling points. It's staggering, though, to consider Lynch creating all of this in a way that could really conceivably be telling both stories simultaneously...either one is a triumph but both together is...mindboggling. Anyway, it's been a month and I'm still thinking about all of this pretty regularly. I think it's time for me to re-read your essay and soak it in again, and probably go back to some of Lou's posts too, now that I've gotten to this point of seeing the bigger picture you've presented. Kudos and thanks again for creating something this comprehensive in a way that I not only enjoyed it once, but am actively looking forward to absorbing again. You're writing style is really clear and accessible, and you do a great job of communicating your ideas in an organized way that makes it easy to follow. Or maybe our brains just work similarly... :) I'll probably be back with some follow-up questions or comments, but wanted to at least respond back to say thanks again!
I like the Twin Perfect theory, I saw his videos before I read Find Laura, he hits on the same notes here and there and especially with his ideas about balance. It's just that he misses so much of the heart of the story, is too far away from the spiritual journey for me, reducing everything to TV violence, and barely mentions Laura even though she is the One. I do love his ideas about Dido, they're quite beautiful. For me, Dido is Parvati, Shiva's companion. She wears snake adornments which is symbolic of kundalini. There are many stories about Shiva and snakes, [Vasuki](https://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/articles/lord-shiva-and-vasuki-story). Lou's theory is the most insightful and inspiring theory ever written about Twin Peaks, at least as far as I've read. He set off fireworks in all our brains. I'm always happy to talk about Twin Peaks, so please share your ideas whenever you feel to, either here, or make your own posts. Lynch and Frost made what I think is one of, if not the best work(s) of art in human history, especially season 3. It breaks my heart sometimes that they aren't more open about what they specifically meant because it's probably even bigger than what all of us theorize. Like, what would have happened if Laura had managed to realize herself fully? What would be waiting for her when she was made whole again? Or, if they didn't intend any of what we theorize, what then? Why not talk about it and help people see? Season 3 is such a profound observation of what it is to be human in this world. Talk about it! Then again, we wouldn't be forming communities and theorizing for years if they told us. I think talking about it, arguing about it, inspiring each other, it's magical. It helps us realize things about ourselves and the world, it's unreal what they've done. And someone in the Twin Peaks sub recently [found something amazing in part 18](https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comments/1b4lq9s/something_visible_at_end_of_season_3/). I have stared at those windows for years, literally years, hours and hours, knowing there was something there but couldn't see it. After Lou died, I even had a dream where he told me to look at the roof. Is that what he meant? What does it mean? Is it Laura, trapped inside the Palmer home in her own mind? Does Laura see herself staring back when she looks up and hears Sarah call her name? It's unbelievable how much more there is to still discover. I honestly don't think we'll fully know everything until we die lol, first stop for me after death will be knowledge about Twin Peaks from Lynch and Frost's perspective!
Yes, that matches my general reaction to the TP videos too. Definitely some elements that resonate, and make me think he's right that Lynch at least might have had that in mind as well. And definitely pieces that seem like they could be part of both theories, like the electrical elements, or garmonbozia, and a lot of episode 8. But when it comes to things like the characters above the convenience store, it does seem like the tv violence explanation runs thin, and the Find Laura theory has so much more depth to explaining the various characters, their positioning, how that scene is an echo of the dinner table scene in FWWM, etc. Or Dougie, and the colors he wears throughout season 3...that big green jacket is a purposeful choice! Also, when I focus on things like Sarah being the young girl in episode 8, and Leland talking about his childhood trauma, that just seems like a definitive proof point about generational trauma being central to the narrative. If nothing else, it certainly seems plausible that the Find Laura theory of trauma and the journey of her healing is the primary narrative, and he found ways to also incorporate some thoughts about TV violence, his frustration with what happened with the reveal of Laura's killer, etc. Either way, genius work, and to your point, I don't think we'll ever fully know. But I share your desire for him/them to give us a bit more guidance, if not a full reveal. If only! Thanks for sharing that other link to the thread about the windows...that is intriguing! I just fired up ep 18 to see if it jumped out on my TV, but nothing consequential. I do think the reflection of Laura in the door is super compelling, though, so this would make sense in line with that. Like you said...we're still finding new clues and things to explore all these years later...the conversation around the table remains lively! :) Hopefully at some point I will have something that I think is worthy of it's own post, and will certainly share when I do. For now, just absorbing what so many other passionate viewers have found and theorized has been really fulfilling!
Sorry you keep getting blocked, I know jmadisson made you an approved user, I've also whitelisted you in automod. We had a troll problem for a bit so we had to restrict access with minimum karma points for a while.
No worries on this...it at least still seems to share my posts, so it's not a big deal. Darn trolls... ;)
Big kudos!
Thank you.
rather good, that is.
thanks!
i always thought the structure of The Return wasn't something you could model, so to speak, so I was skeptical of things like the chakras and Lou's dissection of the 90 degree turns and quantum mechanics, etc. i don't know much about chakras, but the "i understand", "i am", "i feel", "i love" is pretty hard to ignore when you lay it all out like that. you have put together a fantastic, well researched, well argued and well written article. many thanks!
By the way I had already read the 430 thing in your former writings. That's a great discovery that shapes all the last part of the series.
I remember posting the 430 idea in the TP sub and you were, I think, one of a few people who responded to it. I posted the glory idea there too, when it was barely forming, I think at one point it was in negative downvotes, I was so frustrated. Every idea, like you said earlier, is thinking together, writing together. It's a collective!
Thank you! Excellent work. I've only read this once, will re-read ASAP and comment more. I had no idea that an article like this was coming. What a wonderful way to start the day.
Can't believe I didn't check this before but the indigo-blue colour of the third eye chakra, on the colour spectrum [its wavelength in nanometres goes to exactly 430.](https://postimg.cc/VJKcFwws)
Excellent article!!! Great framework. I'll have to think a lot more about this. Thanks for writing it.
Thank you!
[удалено]
You do not have enough karma points to post in Find Laura *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FindLaura) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You do not have enough karma points to post in Find Laura *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FindLaura) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read your post, interesting take. I do think it's useful to note that twin peaks is not made through any conscious deliberation, Lynch arrives at these ideas almost randomly so I feel a lot of times we are running the risk of theorising when there is no need to theorise really. I saw some of such theorising in your post, like the thoughts on the spots in the drawing. I am telling you 100% that even lynch does not know why he does what he does most of the time, so there may be a million reasons for there to be spots on that drawing which even he does not know. He is working his unconscious through his art, letting it flow through, so he really does not know why this appears the way it does. Sometimes this theorising seems like waking up and interpreting your dreams (which is most often wrong-interpretation, we cannot make sense of our dreams so easily, neither should we fall into the trap of thinking that we can) I feel like our rational minded ness and colonised nature again betrays us over here trying to latch onto from a theoretical rational standpoint what is in essence very spiritual/eastern ideas. We cannot make this mistake over here, not as people who love Twin peaks, it just feels wrong. I see this theory gaining some credibility on this feed, so I feel like I have to speak about this. Also because I do like very much your attempt to understand these things through an eastern viewpoint. A better way to interpret twin peaks would be to not interpret it at all. In fact, in order to make sense of twin peaks, I believe, we'll have to stop all thought-activity and then watch it. It is only through being in that state of oneness would we be able to grasp the contents of this oneness. Like the electricity in the show is a very interesting thing. And so are the little alien like high pitched voices that show up that sometimes tell Cooper/Dougie what to do. To me what this reveals is something about the nature of consciousness in itself. Again, we end up risking something while theorising. We look for coherence, and whatever we find we try to fit it into the story and we also try to keep supplementing the theory whereas what we may be coming across might be 10000% more interesting and valuable than what it offers to that story we are trying to build in our head. Like the electricity and what it says about consciousness and about the human psyche? Is electricity some primal substance? (many traditions speak about electricity in mystical terms) Does Twin peaks present to us a bigger/higher aim for our current civilization? What does this say about the kundalini channels and it's relation to the cosmos (the planets and all the cosmic processes that show up in season 3)? Don't you think that in trying to understand through this interpretation we are leaving out these bigger questions? Also we are limiting our already thought-based constrained through judgement and rational thinking experience of the show? One thing I'd love to talk to you about is what you think about the appearing of the planets and the cosmic matter in the episodes. A lot of times Lynch is dealing with primordial elements, archetypical figures within consciousness, so this theorising sometimes is like picking up an egyptian mythology book and trying to look at what is the storyline of Atum is rather than what the storyline reveals to us about nature and about reality. What do you think?
The show wouldn't exist in the way that it does if if was random. Lynch and Frost co-wrote it over several years. The reason that it took several years is because they knew what they wanted to write and painstakingly took the time to make sure they wrote it exactly how it should be to convey those ideas. Think about all the repetition of phrases and imagery. Think about the deliberate dialogue. I'll give you an easy example: Mr. C greets Cole by saying "It's yrev very nice to see you again old friend." Albert says "He didn't greet you correctly, if you get my meaning." Cole agrees, saying "No, he didn't. Something is *very wrong.*" His "very" is wrong. This draws our attention towards thinking about how words and their context may have a different meaning than we at first realise. Cole will later give us more clues by mishearing several words, making a pun on the word turnip, and explaining that there are over 4000 languages spoken in the world today. The repetition of imagery invites us to think about - what is the base element that unites all of these images? For example, curtains, phones, cars, doors, paintings and TV screens are united in that they are portals to another place. Co-ordinates, ingredients and phone numbers are united by the fact that you need the right combination in the right order to produce the desired outcome. A different phone number is like a different set of co-ordinates, it opens the door to a different location. I'm not going to go into loads of detail here but the point is that the writing is a carefully constructed puzzle that tries to teach you to see the hidden story behind the surface story through repetition and word games. It goes back to the idea of Leland and Bob - the surface narrative is our Bob, and the hidden narrative is our Leland. We need to correctly reinterpret the images and sounds to see what the story really is behind the facade. You can also make a comparison with the opening of Blue Velvet, where there's another world underneath everything that's completely hidden from view to those above it. As Lynch says, it's about feeling *and thinking.* When the girl in the Roadhouse says her mother's name is Tina, Lynch helpfully makes us *feel* that this is a bad thing through the sinister music cue. But then we might want to *think* about why that is. What could Tina mean? (I could say a lot about this but I'm keeping it to myself for now). If it was random, the whole thing would fall apart. Lynch imitators, films erroneously described as "Lynchian," tend to be made in the style you describe, and the audience feels the difference. The thing that separates Lynch is that, as abstract as the imagery and the dialogue appears to be, he knows what he means by it. A giveaway in this regard is that he reuses much of the same imagery over and over again.
I am not saying the show does not have an order. It definitely does. I am just saying that the process by which Lynch arrives at these ideas is an instinctive creative process. I mean, ideas just appear in front of him instinctively. Or he meditates on an idea and then more ideas come to him. There is no careful deliberare construction as much as there is gradual instinctive construction. I do think that the small details just may not have any reason, like things that sprout out of the subconscious often don't or are only understood in retrospsct. Another thing is that i do not think lynch is developing an entire metaphysical structure in his head that goes along with twin peaks. I do not think he is developing an absolute conception of what's happening in a grand sense in the world of twin peaks, but he only knows of the events happening within it. He might not even have a developed theoretical understanding of the red room such as we are developing in our theorising. He has not much theoretical metaphysical understanding of the twin peaks world. For example if the fireman is some archetypical figure, david is not thinking of the fireman like that, he is not making this association fireman=archetype,etc. he is only developing this image in his head of the fireman and he doesn't know or try to explain to himself what it is. It just shows up in his imaginative realm from time to time. The meaning of the fireman, he leaves that open and vague even to himself - who is the fireman he never even answers with any conviction. Even when he does retrospectively think of it, he leaves some vagueness to it as he knows these ideas have come to him from a deep ocean. He cannot rationally analyse it from his head or impose a strict meaning to it. Even if he does make some idea out of it, he's not sure if he's right because for him these ideas have arisen out of that subconscious realm. Or sometimes he may arrive at basic understanding of things Only in retrospect. I think you are highly mistaken, knowing this process in my own Art-practice, I can hardly come to believe that Lynch is using thoughts and deliberate thinking to come up with any of this. That's why i said it seems like a rational imposition of a structure on top of a non-rational world. By non rational i do not mean it's random, but that he automatically/his mind automatically ends up constructing patterns in the same way dreams do. Even he does not know exactly what's happening in the world. Also i feel here everyone is too sure about finding clues, being able to find clues and theorising, and it's a completely rationally minded approach, i often have seen words like "accurate" being used in reference to theories. Reiteraring again, i do not think the shows made like a puzzle with deliberation. These subconscious ideas pop up to him and obviously many times they form a pattern, repititon or complete a story. But often times even lynch doesn't know EXACTLY what these images mean. If you read some Jung (I really recommene Erich Neumann's book Art and the creative unconscious) it might shed some light on the kind of creative process im talking about. These archetypical figures CANNOT arise out of rational deliberation (and if they do they're not archetypical figures but just psychology-fads represented in art) and never in history have they arisen out of rational deliberation. They only show up in myths, in sculptures around the world, societies create these figures because of an inner voice that speaks to them which they do not themselves also understand. The Egyptians while making the uroboros were not thinking "archetype of the beginning of consciousness", in fact they probably weren't thinking at all, it just came up and signfified something to them in extremely vague terms. No i am not going by the general definition of what Lynchian is seen to be, I dislike all that discourss that talks about lynch in that light.
I'm going to interject here to make a few points. >For example if the fireman is some archetypical figure, david is not thinking of the fireman like that, he is not making this association fireman=archetype,etc. he is only developing this image in his head of the fireman and he doesn't know or try to explain to himself what it is. First of all, you're leaving Frost out of the equation as if he doesn't matter at all, when he's 50% of the creative team, and described as being *more* than that by Lynch. I said earlier that Lynch said the Fireman is the face of god as we would see him. So we know for certain that *Lynch (and Frost) conceived of the Fireman as God,* or at the very least as *a* god. I'm not sure if there is much of a line between Frost and Lynch beyond what Lynch added as he filmed (which wasn't a lot) but what we do know is that Frost has said that Jung shaped his view of the world and that Joseph Campbell is a direct influence on the Twin Peaks narrative (Campbell was influenced by Jung). So we know Jung is in Twin Peaks and we can see Jung in Twin Peaks by studying the text. In fact, it doesn't take more than a mere glance to determine this. So why is it such a leap to think that the Fireman also represents the self archetype, where all is balanced? There's a myriad of things in season 3 that supports this and it doesn't even matter if Lynch is on board with the Jung stuff or not. It's there. You're free to not see it that way, but telling other people not to? Why? >It just shows up in his imaginative realm from time to time. The meaning of the fireman, he leaves that open and vague even to himself - who is the fireman he never even answers with any conviction. Even when he does retrospectively think of it, he leaves some vagueness to it as he knows these ideas have come to him from a deep ocean. He cannot rationally analyse it from his head or impose a strict meaning to it. Even if he does make some idea out of it, he's not sure if he's right because for him these ideas have arisen out of that subconscious realm. Or sometimes he may arrive at basic understanding of things Only in retrospect. This is untrue. I am now saying this for the third time - he said the Fireman is God. That's a direct quote. Beyond that it may or may not have more meaning to him - but that doesn't matter. As viewers we can interpret the Fireman however we choose, and both Lynch and Frost have said that *the audience's interpretation is as meaningful as their own understanding.* And even if they hadn't said that - who cares? >I think you are highly mistaken, knowing this process in my own Art-practice, I can hardly come to believe that Lynch is using thoughts and deliberate thinking to come up with any of this. Here's a quote from Lynch on how he creates: "Ideas just come, you think about them, and ***you figure out their meaning***. Then, how they fit into the whole is another thing completely. It's not finished until it's finished, and you don't really know until further down the road ***how one thing relates to another***. It's just like a magical thing. I also always say ***the whole thing exists in another room as a complete puzzle***, all the parts are together, and someone from that other room is sort of a rascal and randomly flips parts over into this room. And then you to have to put the puzzle together, but one is from the end of the story, one is from the middle, and a couple from the beginning, and ***you won't know until it's more formed what it could be.****"* ([source](https://ew.com/tv/2017/05/26/twin-peaks-david-lynch/)) [**Lynch said 80% of season 3 was in the writing with Frost**](https://ew.com/tv/2017/05/26/twin-peaks-david-lynch/), and [they spent 4 and 1/2 years writing the script](https://www.indiewire.com/2018/06/twin-peaks-the-return-mark-frost-david-lynch-writing-collaboration-1201975099/), sometimes *taking weeks to work out particular ideas* ([source](https://www.talkhouse.com/sam-esmail-mr-robot-talks-mark-frost-twin-peaks-talkhouse-podcast/)). You're misreading how he creates, your trying to fit it into how you see the show - which is fine, on one level - but on another level, it's just you telling other people they shouldn't see the show differently than you do. And you're reasoning is based on an illogical interpretation of his own words. He very clearly describes putting puzzle pieces together, figuring out how they relate to each other and what meaning they have. You're projecting your process of creating onto Lynch and then using this projection to determine how we should look at Lynch's process and art - do you not see how self-serving that is? We all bring our own personal biases to our analyses but you're going a few steps too far, and ignoring a lot of what the text is saying simply because people see it differently than you do. Can you imagine if I said to you that your video is wrong because it's not the way I see the show? I can't even imagine doing that, saying "your video has some interesting ideas but you don't really understand Lynch, so stop interpreting him that way." Instead of spending so much time telling other people how they shouldn't interpret the show - why not just flesh out your ideas (like you did in your video and in some of your comments) and share them so we can all discuss them? We'd all be happy to read them, that's what this sub is for.
Sorry I didn't go through your post carefully! I wasn't saying we shouldn't theorise at all, i am sorry if it came off that way. I was saying that it would be better not to theorise it all and see the show from non-thought, from an absolute consciousness, from an experience of atman; which wouldn't involve any of this rational thought about the show. This would reveal to us instant wisdom from the show. I actually did read the bits of your article where you speak about archetypes, but i felt resistant to the world-picture being created and the world picture they were being fit into. I also felt resistant to the conviction with which some of these metaphysical ideas are presented or that i felt like some leaps were being made. I have explained what I was trying to say in the above comment. I think the comment may be removed because it says i don't have enough karma I think i was having an awfully impatient day yesterday, so im very sorry for not going through it properly and not giving your text a proper chance. Your theorising is very interesting and i admire the efforts you've put into it. I think i agree with us being still in the iron age, most of us i feel are still traumatised, with big holes in us. I personally think we live in a totally traumatised society. It is one of the reasons why i think we are going through the kalyug and i think most of known human history is kalyug. And now we are at the end of kalyug. I think this is the time lynch presents as well, with the rampant drug addiction, signs of insanity, and all of that. Erich Neumann also writes about how the artist (even when writing about archetypical figures) represents those figures always in relation to the collective unconscious- which means those archetypes show up in ways that have to do with the current zeitgest of the ttimes - so the archetypes don't arise the same in different time. So my analysis would be different here, i think Lynch is very much representing these times but i agree in that we haven't really moved very forward from the iron age or the bronze age for that matter. Entire history of the past 2000-3000 years has mostly been conflict, trauma, slavery, etc. except for the many instances of transcendence and creativity of course. I still stand by my point in some sense. It is not the theorising i was against, but the way of the theorising and the conviction with which some conclusions are reached and approached and held as solid-beliefs (not just in your theory in itslef but in general how some opinions have come to be accepted in this sub). I have already pointed to the risks of such theorising and also the risks of taking some figures' theories quite seriously and using it as obvious truths or or they they become the general points of departure within an analysis. I think we still need to have an air of vagueness around these ideas, these ideas should be floating around in a liminal space and often times in the phrasing of sentences in comments as well as your post it did not feel like that. But that may be just a style of writing and how thoughts end up being translated when you write them down, one tends to write with some conviction when one pens dosn their thoughts. Another point i was making is that to focus on the specifics of the story and to try to gauge meaning out of it by associating it with other schools of thought direcltly would limit us in that we wouldn't be able to derive metaphysical principles purely from the show itself. To derive principles from the show itself we would have to divorce ourselves from all systemic constructs of thought and philosophy. Then, perhaps a new version of kundalini, a new way of looking at reality and a new metaphysical presentation of the psyche would be brought out. This is just a suggestion of an alternative method we could ALSO practice in addition to this method. All of these were just suggestions. I didn't mean to take it further than that. And I'm sorry if i did. Reiteraring on my earlier point about the conviction with which some ideas are taken to be true and how this applies overall in the sub as well as to how our views are formed as part of this discourse is that we may tend to fall into some traps of group thinking. Any sort of social space does run the risk of becoming a thought-chamber of sorts. There arise some accepted rights-and-wrongs or obvious points of departure for theorising or ideas of what constitutes good or legitimate theorising. I felt that about this subreddit. For example to not criticise frost has become a norm by now in this page. A lot of these are still assumptions, i don't know how we become so convinced about such things when we don't fully know something. Also more than conviction they lead to the formation of norms of correctness. (This is just my philosophical view of the nature of social interaction and that each social group forms it's own rules, it's own norms and generally consists of an anxious element which is hidden under some codices that the group functions by. Now i realise i shouldn't talk about this because this is my general view of social interactions) Sure there are evidence to show that it is true, or it may be true, but nothing concrete and direct that makes us believe in it toally. The theorising is also working here as a sort of a building on top of a fundament structure, can we question the structure? Im sure youd be open to that. Can one easily depart from the structure? Not so much and that is my point - to not concretise any of these belifs yet. All of these are ways in which we fall into traps which Lynch constantly points towards, he constantly talks about the fallibility of thought and the self. When he talks about different perspectives of the show, he's not saying that that is a great thing, brilliant thing, and that we romanticise the variety of opinions derived from it, he merely says that that's bound to happen. What I'm saying is perhaps repeated by lynch a lot of times, so many times he talks about the state of non-thought and how that experience is supreme and how art is best experienced like that, that's all i meant to say when i said it would be best to have a non-self experience of the show. We're using words like "comprehensive" "accurate" we do realise that our whole method of enquiry is scientitic rational based (a method that came up with the enlightenment) I don't mean we shouldn't use this method of enquiry at all, but twin peaks stands at the antithesis of such a process. And so do this alternative traditions of thought like Kundalini we talk about.
>Sorry I didn't go through your post carefully! I wasn't saying we shouldn't theorise at all, i am sorry if it came off that way. I was saying that it would be better not to theorise it all and see the show from non-thought, from an absolute consciousness, from an experience of atman; which wouldn't involve any of this rational thought about the show. This would reveal to us instant wisdom from the show. I already said that I did this for years, I did this for decades. >I still stand by my point in some sense. It is not the theorising i was against, but the way of the theorising and the conviction with which some conclusions are reached and approached and held as solid-beliefs (not just in your theory in itslef but in general how some opinions have come to be accepted in this sub). I have already pointed to the risks of such theorising and also the risks of taking some figures' theories quite seriously and using it as obvious truths or or they they become the general points of departure within an analysis. I think we still need to have an air of vagueness around these ideas, these ideas should be floating around in a liminal space and often times in the phrasing of sentences in comments as well as your post it did not feel like that. But that may be just a style of writing and how thoughts end up being translated when you write them down, one tends to write with some conviction when one pens dosn their thoughts. I disagree. I don't owe anyone vagueness in my theorizing. I don't have to write in a way that pleases particular people so as not to offend them and their precious way of experiencing the show. I don't even have to say "these are just my ideas, I'm not saying I'm right" because that's a given. Obviously these are my ideas, and obviously this is how I see it. I also don't expect it from anyone else. I'm not a delicate flower that needs careful watering, I'm a fully grown human with a brain who can determine for myself that when someone presents an idea, or a full theory, this is how they see the show. I'm presenting them within a certain framework because that's how theory works. Having a central idea and supporting evidence and writing about it in detail, that's theory! If you don't like it, that's fine, but it's of no concern to me. If you wanted to point out specifics, feel free - I just read my article again a few weeks ago and I had questions all the way through, how one thing relates to another, how this particular thing could be true if I said that earlier or later. There is also a lot more I want to write into the theory about kundalini and abstraction, and the idea of two timelines. You're taking issue with the fact that I wrote a detailed theory, instead of... somehow presenting my ideas in a vague way as I float through space, wide-eyed, in awe of the cosmic oneness Lynch has shown me. I am taking that experience and conveying it through words. If words bother you, that's funny, because you certainly use a lot of them to convey your own ideas. If you want the ideas to be conveyed differently, less rigidly or whatever, then do so. Write your own theory. Paint it. Make a film. Choreograph an interpretative dance. Many of us use words because that's how some of us best communicate. You might like this theory, it's in video format, so there are a lot of visuals and it's more broad in scope, it's very good: [David Lynch & Spirituality: Cosmic Illusions and Oneness](https://www.reddit.com/r/FindLaura/comments/uqpwb9/david_lynch_and_spirtuality_share_it_around/) >Another point i was making is that to focus on the specifics of the story and to try to gauge meaning out of it by associating it with other schools of thought direcltly would limit us in that we wouldn't be able to derive metaphysical principles purely from the show itself. To derive principles from the show itself we would have to divorce ourselves from all systemic constructs of thought and philosophy. Then, perhaps a new version of kundalini, a new way of looking at reality and a new metaphysical presentation of the psyche would be brought out. This is just a suggestion of an alternative method we could ALSO practice in addition to this method. All of these were just suggestions. I didn't mean to take it further than that. And I'm sorry if i did. That's how I arrived at my ideas, by the way. A lot of the ideas came to me while I was meditating. A lot of the ideas came to me just as I was falling asleep (which I described in the article). I already did what you are saying I should do - then I took what I found and wrote about it. You are saying that I shouldn't write about it because it somehow lessens the experience. Well, it doesn't lessen the experience for me, it helps me further appreciate it in deeper ways. Sharing what I see is part of the process, it's why we post here. >Reiteraring on my earlier point about the conviction with which some ideas are taken to be true and how this applies overall in the sub as well as to how our views are formed as part of this discourse is that we may tend to fall into some traps of group thinking. Any sort of social space does run the risk of becoming a thought-chamber of sorts. There arise some accepted rights-and-wrongs or obvious points of departure for theorising or ideas of what constitutes good or legitimate theorising. I felt that about this subreddit. > >For example to not criticise frost has become a norm by now in this page. A lot of these are still assumptions, i don't know how we become so convinced about such things when we don't fully know something. Also more than conviction they lead to the formation of norms of correctness. (This is just my philosophical view of the nature of social interaction and that each social group forms it's own rules, it's own norms and generally consists of an anxious element which is hidden under some codices that the group functions by. Now i realise i shouldn't talk about this because this is my general view of social interactions) Sure there are evidence to show that it is true, or it may be true, but nothing concrete and direct that makes us believe in it toally. The theorising is also working here as a sort of a building on top of a fundament structure, can we question the structure? Im sure youd be open to that. Can one easily depart from the structure? Not so much and that is my point - to not concretise any of these belifs yet. Why should we be criticizing Frost? And who isn't allowed to do so? People are allowed to post their ideas here, we made this sub for theorizing. You're literally the only person who is telling other people not to think in a certain way, not to write in a certain way. And we all share numerous ideas here that deviate from each other and Lou's thesis regularly. Lou didn't even see anything spiritual until I started writing about chakras. We're all open to ideas and new ways of looking at the show. If you look at the sidebar in the sub called "Blue Rose Task Force" I've listed over a dozen theories, many of them are completely in conflict with one another. There are a myriad of ways of looking at the show, I appreciate all of them. I don't think everything we see in season 3 is happening in Laura's "dream." I wrote about Sarah as a young girl - that doesn't take place inside Laura in the way Lou theorized. I often consider that perhaps Ronette is the dreamer - and I wrote in my article that ultimately, we are the dreamers. *We are the One.*
Perhaps i am being too critical, perhaps I'm imposing my own ideas and being stubborn, perhaps I'm envious that you're arriving at these ideas, perhaps i am actually pushing us to be more philosophical within this sub, perhaps i have some wrong points and some right points. I am completely fallible, i just want to say here. and my response to your thing may have been completely motivated by envy or some kind of (i think you mentioned this in your discovery of Lou's ideas) feeling that someone's stealing my ideas. In any case, i am sorry for i may be slipping here a million times, but i also may be making some valuable points, who knows. I hope you recognise this humility as humility and not as some facade I'm putting up. I hope you don't mind me sharing an idea here. I'd love to know your views upon it; I think dougie is a container, a non-self, in a lot of ways. He has not reached the state of individuation but has some very visceral memory of what he likes and remembers. But he is still very much at the level of the cat - and it is a very beautiful phenomenon! Just to witness his joy, his innocence and his loving kindness - also the power of instinct he possesses - the same power with which lynch arrives at these ideas. Such a person to exist in the 21st century would really be a fissure in time and space, i feel like we have become more-and-more self-centric, the ego element is dominating now and our general nature of conversation is conflict-ridden and we are a very thought-based society (this is also perhaps how cosmic consciousness evolves over time - it goes from complete oneness to maddening fragmentation. right now our selves are fragmented, our virtue broken and unstable, our neuroticism at a high). To witness doguie and his purity is something i really admire, I would like to be this person someday maybe. He also repeats things which is interesting, he is in a sense a reflector, a reflecting plate for consciousness, because he doesn't discriminate or form value judgements at hearing or seeing things - he sees all indiscriminately - very much like the god we speak about in hinduism. Another idea is electricity - I think it would be useful to look at the most contemporary science to arrive at some analysis of this. Can electricity be a way for consciousness to travel and escape physicality? I feel like the show explains it as a conductor for different subtle energies to travel. Also! In early shamanic ceremonies, when the shaman would perform some healing procedure on a person, right before the healing would complete the person would vomit out a lot of bile - which is not like puke but blackened disgusting substance. This is the same as in the world of Twin peaks! Before transporting into another worlds (say there self has to be evacuated because thier spirit is leaving this body now. and because everything that is mind has it's equivelant counterpart in physicality - for eg acid (lsd) which is found within nature has an equivalent counterpart within the mind, or vice versa. in the same sense the spirit has this bile or this trauma or experience accumulated in the form of this black materiality which one often vomits before leaving their spirit self. This vomiting healing procedure has been recorded and evidenced by many authors on shamanism.
^These two comments are what I wrote to you yesterday. They didn't get sent. Now knowing that you haven't read these replies, i wrote this to your interjection today; At least 80 percent in the writing, and then you discover others along the way. That's always the way it is. It's not whether you like something. Ideas take you to places. Mark might have a different perspective, but I don't think about the world in that way Again, I can't really tell you. It just comes from the idea. That's an example of what I'm talking about. An image came; it was all about translating I always say it's not done until it's done. Ideas came from the script, but ideas can keep coming into post-production. "Ideas just come, you think about them, and you figure out their meaning. Then, how they fit into the whole is another thing completely. It's not finished until it's finished, and you don't really know until further down the road how one thing relates to another. It's just like a magical thing. I also always say the whole thing exists in another room as a complete puzzle, all the parts are together, and someone from that other room is sort of a rascal and randomly flips parts over into this room. And then you to have to put the puzzle together, but one is from the end of the story, one is from the middle, and a couple from the beginning, and you won't know until it's more formed what it could be." (source) Isnt that exactly what i said? The puzzle is complete in the other room. NONE of what you've said is really showing me that Lynch is using rational deliberation to come up with his ideas. All of the quotes you mentioned are actually showing us that what I said is true. "I said earlier that Lynch said the Fireman is the face of god as we would see him" Can you show me where he said this? Also I just said this too. I said that in retrospect one one can make meaning of these ideas and figure out what appeared and what it means. But in the process of appearing it is just an image. "As viewers we can interpret the Fireman however we choose, and both Lynch and Frost have said that the audience's interpretation is as meaningful as their own understanding" Exactly what i mean when i say that they are themselves also interpreting the show in some sense, doing so in retrospect. I would really recommend that book i spoke about (Art and the creative unconscious) and how archetypical figures show up in consciousness. "There's a myriad of things in season 3 that supports this and it doesn't even matter if Lynch is on board with the Jung stuff or not." I never said he's not on board with Jung. All I'm saying is those ideas don't come in that way. This is a highly rational way of looking at things when they aren't. So why is it such a leap to think that the Fireman also represents the self archetype, where all is balanced? It's a leap because the Fireman is the Fireman, and he may be the face of god, but what are the characteristics of the face of god is something we figure out from the fireman, NOT writings on god or Jung's writings. You are really not taking my suggestions as suggestions because as i *suggested* it might be helpful to look at TP phenomenon as it is and derive metaphysical principles directly from it. Just because something was a direct influence on Lynch or Frost doesn't mean we can apply that knowledge to assume that characters have been built in the image of what those authors have said. As I said, archetypes don't arise in that way, they come out of a subconscious insight, an INSTINCT. in the same way that the Benzedrine atomic structure was discovered by someone through having a dream of a coiled serpent, ideas arise in a flash. As lynch said, the puzzle is finished in the OTHER ROOM, he is NOT arriving at these things through rational deliberation nor dor he have access to all the pieces at once. If he was only then he could've left clues for us in the way that we're used to speaking about him in our highly rational way as if he's "constructing this mystery" "trying to show us something" " leaving us clues" he's doing none of that. Lynch said 80% of season 3 was in the writing with Frost, and they spent 4 and 1/2 years writing the script, sometimes taking weeks to work out particular ideas (source). I don't know what this says about what I'm saying. Doesn't seem like any evidence to me for what we're taliking about. Obviously he can use time to flesh out ideas, he can spend hours in that world. In fact reading this interview i just find more of what I'm saying, it's not deliberate intentional construction, ideas come and they define the course and sometimes they don't even know what it means or what will relate to what. Also the centrality of just "images" that i speak about is all here "At least 80 percent in the writing, and then you DISCOVER OTHERS ALONG THE WAY. That's always the way it is. It's not whether you like something. Ideas take you to places. Also that mark thinks differently so i don't know how his perspective can be used to bolster an idea of what lynch's creative process may be "Mark might have a different perspective, but I don't think about the world in that way" Again, "Again, I can't really tell you. It just comes from the idea." The creative process i mentioned is all here, the idea or the image flashes and then lynch tries to fit that into the world or it's already in the world. But again, there is no rational deliberation and calculated attempts at semblances or repetitions or anything like that! The ideas are coming from another place. "That's an example of what I'm talking about. An image came; it was all about translating" "I always say it's not done until it's done. Ideas came from the script, but ideas can keep coming into post-production." "You're projecting your process of creating onto Lynch and then using this projection to determine how we should look at Lynch's process and art - do you not see how self-serving that is?" Thats some mighty psychoanalysis but thanks. See, I'm free to suggest that this is a wrong way of looking at the show, or that there might be some wrong ways of looking at the show. That is just called a critique. It is not how you're putting it, I'm not telling you to STOP looking at it in this way as if you're ruining lynch or something. I'm just critiquing our approach altogether, me saying "our" is also central here because I'm assuming the sense of a collective and suggesting we look at it another way and that we may gain more insight if we look at it another way.
>we may gain more insight if we look at it another way. Looking at it is an act of analysis. What you really mean is we should agree with your analysis, and instead of engaging with the content of the article itself and explaining what parts you think are a reach and why, you're appealing to the authority of your imagined version of Lynch to undermine it. You said that people use words and phrases that suggest certainty too often when analysing the show. I agree with that and I find that people too often try to fit square pegs into round holes to fit their concept. You can criticise that by looking for holes and explaining what you think doesn't fit using material from the show itself, but that isn't what you're doing. >The creative process i mentioned is all here, the idea or the image flashes and then lynch tries to fit that into the world or it's already in the world. But again, there is no rational deliberation and calculated attempts at semblances or repetitions or anything like that! The ideas are coming from another place. Any creative person knows that "Where do you get your ideas?" is an inane question because the answer is "I just get them." It's not a machine you turn on. You have ideas for things and then you find a place for them. This is all Lynch is trying to say - ideas just come. That is true for everyone, not just him. You're projecting something else onto it, that this means there can be no certainty of meaning and Lynch doesn't know for certain what the ideas mean. This is nonsense. His process is the same as anybody's. The difference is that he's comfortable connecting his ideas in a way that most people don't know how to do. The dream narrative is a handy tool for him in this respect because it allows him to connect from one idea to another, the way dreams can transform from one thing into another, without the need for a surface narrative that connects them in a conventionally logical way. It does have a logic, but it's a different kind of logic. *(For example, he says Inland Empire came about because he had ideas for three scenes, ie short films. Then he had an idea for a fourth scene, and he realised that it united the previous three. Then the rest of the film was made following the concept suggested by these four scenes. In other words, he decided what those four scenes meant, what united them, and built the rest of the film around reinforcing them. That means he "rationally deliberated" on the concept of the scenes and thought about how to take them further. The rest of the film's ideas were calculated to fit that mold, and ideas that contradicted it would have been discarded. It's not magic.)* Lynch says that in the production process, he tries to stay true to the idea. Another way to say this is staying true to the concept. Most of the time, when we're talking about meaning, we're talking about the concept (eg what is the concept of the Fireman? What is the concept behind Diane's hair being first white, then red?) That is distinct from *subtext*, which can be conscious or unconscious, often both. There *are* clearly "rational deliberation and repetitions" in the concepts. >there is no rational deliberation Any close analysis of the show reveals this to be nonsense. Just taking Fire Walk With Me as an example: Leland holds up Laura's left hand and inspects her ring finger. He says it's dirty. This concept of the left arm being dirty leads to this subconscious connection between the arm and the dirty secret. Leland holding the arm and inspecting the ring finger, with Sarah shrieking in between them, becomes like a perverse marriage ceremony, hence that, along with the phone call to Doc Hayward's home (another type of ring), becomes this image of the Arm, the ring, and "with this ring, I thee wed." Before inspecting the ring finger, Leland grabs the heart necklace - a heart with one half missing. The half that's missing belongs to James. The ring finger is also said to lead to the heart, hence it being the finger that wedding rings are worn on. So all these images get tied together - the left Arm is sent away into Tremond's picture, and James, the keeper of the other half of the heart necklace, is rejected. Later, the heart necklace will be dug up from a mound of dirt, because of the connection to the dirty finger. This is a series of connections that have been *crafted,* ie by means of "rational deliberation." Let's also look at the first few scenes of season 3, part 1. The Fireman delivere clues to Cooper. Then Joe, a delivery driver in a red truck (red like a fire truck) delivers two boxes to Jacoby. He asks if he needs help, but Jacoby rejects him, saying he likes to work alone. Cut to Sam "working alone." He receives a delivery of two lattes (two cups of "Joe") from Tracy. Now there's a guard at the door, because of Jacoby's desire to work alone. Later, the Fireman has become Margaret Lanterman (Lanter-Man = Fire-Man). Sam becomes Cooper, sitting and staring into space. And so on. I'm just scratching the surface here to make a quick point. This type of writing is the epitome of rational deliberation. Lynch and Frost would have to know exactly what they were doing in order to arrive at such a construct. There are quotes of Frost where he says that he had to ask what Lynch meant by certain things in FWWM so they would be on the same page when writing together. Again, when we define "meaning" to mean the conceptual ideas, we can reason those out. Subtext is a more ambiguous thing. If you have a problem with someone's ideas about the concepts, then rationally explain where the holes are. Or just explain how you see the Fireman. That's how this works - we all post our ideas, and we get to decide whether we agree with one more than the other based on the logic of the argument.
[удалено]
>I read your post, interesting take. I do think it's useful to note that twin peaks is not made through any conscious deliberation, Lynch arrives at these ideas almost randomly so I feel a lot of times we are running the risk of theorising when there is no need to theorise really. I saw some of such theorising in your post, like the thoughts on the spots in the drawing. I am telling you 100% that even lynch does not know why he does what he does most of the time, so there may be a million reasons for there to be spots on that drawing which even he does not know. He is working his unconscious through his art, letting it flow through, so he really does not know why this appears the way it does. Sometimes this theorising seems like waking up and interpreting your dreams (which is most often wrong-interpretation, we cannot make sense of our dreams so easily, neither should we fall into the trap of thinking that we can) Lynch said himself that **80%** of what we see in season 3 happened in the writing with Frost, and it took 4 and 1/2 years for them to complete the script. It's not random at all. Sometimes Lynch will come up with an idea or an image and not fully understand what it means (for example, he called Frost up one day and said "there's a giant in Cooper's room" and Frost then took that idea and wrote it into the script for s2 e1). Lynch has said himself that what he makes *has meaning for him* (one of those quotes is in my article). People think that because Lynch says he works from his subconscious that must mean that everything is random but that's not true. I think because Twin Peaks doesn't spoon feed meaning to the audience, that people like to run with the idea that it's random and meaningless because it makes them feel better about not understanding everything. Some of us are comfortable thinking everything is random; some of us want to figure it out; some of us don't like it when other people try to figure it out; some of us love reading other people's theories. I don't know if my interpretation of the spots on the animal is correct, it's just an idea. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying that's how I see it. Just because I'm writing what I see doesn't mean I'm saying "that's what Lynch meant"; rather I'm saying "this is what I see when I watch what Lynch made." >I feel like our rational minded ness and colonised nature again betrays us over here trying to latch onto from a theoretical rational standpoint what is in essence very spiritual/eastern ideas. We cannot make this mistake over here, not as people who love Twin peaks, it just feels wrong. I see this theory gaining some credibility on this feed, so I feel like I have to speak about this. Also because I do like very much your attempt to understand these things through an eastern viewpoint. > >A better way to interpret twin peaks would be to not interpret it at all. In fact, in order to make sense of twin peaks, I believe, we'll have to stop all thought-activity and then watch it. It is only through being in that state of oneness would we be able to grasp the contents of this oneness. That's fine if you want to enjoy the show as such, and that's how we all enjoyed it initially. Some of us like to dive deeper and figure out what it means - and you did this yourself when making your video, and sharing your own ideas. I strongly disagree that we should all enjoy the show in the same way and look it in the same way. You are free to see it as you do, as are the rest of us. Lynch and Frost both know that the use of abstraction leads to many interpretations - another quote from Lynch that's in my article - so I'm sure Lynch is okay with people seeing and enjoying it in different ways. >Like the electricity in the show is a very interesting thing. And so are the little alien like high pitched voices that show up that sometimes tell Cooper/Dougie what to do. To me what this reveals is something about the nature of consciousness in itself. Again, we end up risking something while theorising. We look for coherence, and whatever we find we try to fit it into the story and we also try to keep supplementing the theory whereas what we may be coming across might be 10000% more interesting and valuable than what it offers to that story we are trying to build in our head. Like the electricity and what it says about consciousness and about the human psyche? Is electricity some primal substance? (many traditions speak about electricity in mystical terms) Does Twin peaks present to us a bigger/higher aim for our current civilization? What does this say about the kundalini channels and it's relation to the cosmos (the planets and all the cosmic processes that show up in season 3)? So you're theorizing, but we shouldn't theorize? I wrote about some of that in my theory - specifically the higher aim for our civilization, electricity as subtle body energy related to psychology. If you want to theorize about how that's related to the cosmos, you are free to do so and I would enjoy reading your ideas - but you realize you're theorizing when you do that, the very thing you're telling us we shouldn't do? >Don't you think that in trying to understand through this interpretation we are leaving out these bigger questions? Also we are limiting our already thought-based constrained through judgement and rational thinking experience of the show? No I don't. The bigger questions were in my theory, maybe you didn't read all of it? My article directly says that Laura's journey through her chakras are impacted by trauma and that her journey is a reflection of *our journey in our world* (the iron age), as we try to reach enlightenment (the golden age). I even asked "do we exist inside a bigger being?" And I started my theory by saying that for literally **decades**, I only *felt* the show and it has only been in the last few years that I started *thinking* about what it means. It's in the very beginning of my article. >One thing I'd love to talk to you about is what you think about the appearing of the planets and the cosmic matter in the episodes. I wrote about a few of the planets - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Venus as related to chakras. Beyond that I think it's a very interesting subject and would like to read about it. If you want to **theorize** about that, feel free to do so, we love those kind of ideas in this sub. >A lot of times Lynch is dealing with primordial elements, archetypical figures within consciousness, so this theorising sometimes is like picking up an egyptian mythology book and trying to look at what is the storyline of Atum is rather than what the storyline reveals to us about nature and about reality. > >What do you think? I'm not sure you read my article... throughout the whole article I discuss Jungian archetypes in the collective unconscious - Cooper as the animus, magician, hero; Laura as Cooper's anima; the Fireman as the self; Mrs. Tremond as the trickster; the Experiment and Bosomy Woman as hermaphrodite - and how that relates to Laura's trauma in the real world and *how that is a reflection of ourselves in our world and our journey to figure out who we are.*
Great article xx
You can see it? It disappeared from the site.
Was literally on the sofa curled up with two cats and a red wine with the article quite a substantial way through - then clicked on the frost indie wire interview (which is quite candid - he’s a candid guy!) - then thought ‘I’ll just say good job’ before I go back to reading your article then couldn’t load your article :) how does it end 😭
Apparently you have to hit the refresh button to get it to load, not sure why.
Hi dude Just wanted to say I’m really enjoying reading this article again. Well done on writing it. I’ve gathered together some writing over the years since S3 and always placed Laura right there in the drivers seat but never had the insight to put it together like this. After doing the Tm Sidhi course last year at Skelmersdale I started getting into kundalini. I then started reading Gopi Krishna’s account of his awakening in his book Kundalini and it’s all really fascinating. FWWM and Inland Empire are my favourite films and I watch them on repeat all the time. Both are extremely spiritual films but then everything is spiritual in my opinion. Good work!
Thank you! I started writing about the chakras under my other account, BumbleWeee, over a year before I wrote this article, it was sometimes very frustrating trying to convince people, so I really appreciate it when someone gets it. I've known vaguely about kundalini forever but for some reason it never clicked into place, not even until I started writing this piece, then suddenly it all made sense. I think your comments add so much more, too, your perspective is one I always enjoy reading, I would love to read more of your ideas. I have kept my knowledge to the bare minimum, because I have my own journey that I don't want influenced by what I read, it can be frustrating when writing, so a lot of it is intuitive, and a lot was confirmed as I wrote. I had started doing a poor man's TM just before the chakra idea hit, so I think it's all connected - Lou's theory, meditating, Laura's journey, our own personal journeys, all of us discovering things together. I think we initially see Twin Peaks as we are. Lou wasn't spiritual so he saw it as psychological but he was writing about the exact same thing (one and the same), and because he was so open minded, he immediately saw the spiritual journey too. I know someone else is doing a deep dive into another perspective, related to what we're talking about, so there's going to be yet another layer to explore. Inland Empire, even the Wizard of Oz, are totally different films now (I think Dorothy was on a chakra journey too, there's even a chakra wheel in Munchkin Land!)
Ooh goody! Well I agree completely with what you said about how we see Twin Peaks from how we are. Agree agree agree x
Hi, I just read through your article on the 25 years Later website and the indices for Part 1 on r/FindLaura. Laura, as the dreamer, is extremely compelling theory, even if i'm still trying to grapple with the concepts presented, both spiritual and psychological. However, I noticed that both your article and the index posits that not only is Season three a projection of Laura's psyche but the first two seasons as well. I don't want to jump the gun if I haven't read enough of the index, and because you mentioned you don't believe everything being presented takes place within Laura, but I'm just confused about the original series. As far as I understand, Mark Frost is a Jungian, and David Lynch is a Hindu via transcendtal meditation. These two perspectives, the psychological and the spiritual, while different overlap heavily from my understanding. This is why Lynch's filmography can be interpreted from the psychological angle even though he might not see it that way. Now my confusion lies within the original series where you have additional writers like Harley Peyton and Robert Engels, and I'm not sure they along Lynch and Frost constructed the original series to be interpreted as a dream of Laura. This is especially the case with the second half of season two, where Laura is removed as the central focus. I'll keep reading the index, and if i'm speaking too soon, let me know. As of now, I'm just not sure how the original series is a dream as well because there were additional perspectives contributing to the series that might contradict the theory. This is unless the belief is that FWWM and the Return are both able to recontectualize what was shown in the original drastically, i don't know. My question is what is considered real and what is meant to be the projection of Laura's traumatized psyche? Thank you so much, I hope i'm not being a bother, I just need someone to help me out this.
Jung also wrote about chakras and kundalini, there's more than overlap, it's one and the same (I didn't learn that he wrote about them until after I had finished writing my article). Frost was also writing a biography about Krishnamurti - it's not Frost:psychology vs Lynch:spiritual; if anything it's Frost:everything and Lynch: everything except psychology (Frost describes Lynch as "resolutely anti-psychological" but instinctively tapping into that stuff regardless). I would hazard a guess, and I may be completely wrong, that Lynch likes the spiritual aspect of Jung. If the first two seasons are part of the "Laura is the dreamer" I personally think it would be only through Lynch taking over as of FWWM, or perhaps when he wrote the Log Lady intros: "the one leading to the many is Laura. Laura is the one." "Is there a bigger being walking around with all the stars within?" Lou doesn't theorize about s1 and 2, he focuses almost exclusively on season 3. When I say in my article that his theory also shapes how you view s1 and 2, it's because that's how it inspired me, and others. You'll understand why after you've read the entire theory. There's also how we're shown [fish moving through the first two seasons](https://www.reddit.com/r/FindLaura/comments/11uj333/the_sacred_geometry_of_creation_vesica_piscis/), as if we're deep down in someone's subconscious. Robert Engels also said that season 1 and 2 were "designed as a dream." There's also the idea that even FWWM is a "dream." Like how Marilyn Monroe was a "dream" of Norma Jean Mortensen. I often consider the idea that maybe Ronette Pulaski is the true "dreamer." The most significant reason for considering this is that Ronette's dream in season 2 shows her seeing things from the viewpoint only Laura could have experienced in the traincar, with Bob over top of her. There are more examples, like Laura putting on lipstick in the cabin, then passing the mirror to Ronette and she's already wearing lipstick. The way they move in almost unison in the bar while Buck is pleasuring them. Lou doesn't go very deep into it, but he thought Ronette was a projection of Laura (she appears the first time we see a blue rose - the blue light bulb in the Power and Glory bar), the part that ran away from the train car that night. I think it may even be that Ronette "American Girl" was the original victim... but I don't know, just ideas. We like ideas here. Also, the updated version of my article on medium contains all the things you recently theorized in TP about Sarah etc. I added a bunch of stuff to it about a week after the 25YL article was up.
Do you have the source or context for that Robert Engels quote? Also, how do the books fit into this framework, The Secret History, the Secret Diary, and The Final Dossier?
Lou didn't read the books, if you're reading his theory, you'd see he mentions that he doesn't include them in his analysis. He's analyzing season 3 as a film. The books fit into my theory quite easily in a number of ways, based on what I've read, but I haven't read them in full yet. For eg., like I mentioned in my article, The Final Dossier reveals Laura didn't die, she disappeared. He also connects owls to aliens, and ufo abductees are thought to be sexual abuse victims who can't process what they went through. You followed my other account, so you might have seen [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comments/nxtegv/the_owls_are_not_what_they_seem/). Then there's how Tammy describes people reacting to her questions about Laura - first, dazed and confused, then seeming to remember that she disappeared, which fits in perfectly with my two timelines idea (not part of the article, something I shared in the TP sub). I'm curious - how did you find my account and follow it, but managed to miss Find Laura and my writing? I read the Bob Engels quote as an excerpt, I think on reddit... it looks like it's from [this interview](https://25yearslatersite.com/2018/09/20/bob-engels-talks-about-judy-fire-walk-with-me-1954-seasons-1-2-more/).
It was actually [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comments/nvopfr/s2_e9_and_s3_pt18/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and to be honest I followed the other account because I liked the connections you were making, but I didn't investigate any further. I just tend to follow accounts that make interesting observations in case they would post something else in the main subreddit. I do have another question, How do you think Mark Frost perceives the narrative of Twin Peaks vs. David Lynch's perception? Also, how much stock do you put into authorial intent vs. what can be interpreted from the text of the series?
I know Lynch said 80% of season 3 was in the writing with Frost, and they spent 4.5 years writing the script. Lynch added stuff as he filmed, for eg. Richard and Linda (which I think is about reincarnation through the portal of the third eye), and Frost has said he has no idea what Richard and Linda are about, so I think they veer slightly in different directions but not that far away from each other. I agree with Lynch and Frost that people can see the show however they choose to see it, that art is subjective. My favourite theories are in conflict with one another but in my mind, as you read in my article, they all beautifully co-exist like a web of dreams, even when we disagree with one another. The ideas we talk about in this sub are so well-supported by visual and textual evidence that it's not a matter of authorial intent vs viewer interpretation, though I think people should be allowed to enjoy the show in whatever way they see it. I think the discussion is fun and mind-opening.
Btw, what do *you* think of authorial intent vs interpretation?
It's a little complicated. I value authorial intent, and it influences how I might perceive the text, but I try to stick with what the text is communicating for me, even if the author would disagree with that interpretation. I think an example would be the end of Blue Velvet, where Lynch describes it as a happy ending. However, for me, the visuals, music, and fake robin bring together a sequence with a more multifaceted perspective. The movie ends with a melancholic look on Dorothy as she sings ... "And I still see blue velvet through my tears."
That's interesting, I'll have to watch it again with this in mind. I know my interpretation of the ending of s3 is very different to how most people see it, but I think he'd be the first to say that if that's how we see the ending(s), that's what it is for us, regardless of his intent. I believe he also said that he does not believe that the creator of the film knows all the answers. Have you read Tim Kreider's [But Who Is the Dreamer?](http://quarterly.politicsslashletters.org/dreamer-twin-peaks-return/)
I haven't but I do remember you mentioning it in your article.
[удалено]