*


Orange

Larry King Live CNN
Tuesday, 9 December 1998 [transcript]

Larry King (LK): I am Larry King, welcome to Larry King Live. Today my guest is Zoe Alexander, the "non-conceptual" artist from Seattle. Thank you for being on my show.

Zoe Alexander (ZA): Thank you for having me.

LK: Joe Carson has called you insane and sentimental. Do you have any comment about that?

ZA: Not really. He’s an odd duck.

LK: What did you think of his article?

ZA: I didn't see his article. But that’s all he wants to talk about. He’s better looking than on tv.

LK: You know him?

ZA; I talked with him once or twice on a chat line, then we met last week for coffee.

LK: Do you agree with Mulder that he’s an alien?

ZA: He is? He seems like an American.

LK: No, alien as in ET.

ZA: Oh. Could be.

LK: CNN reported today that friends of yours from the chat line have started a Zoe for Mayor of Seattle campaign.

ZA: I think it is a joke.

LK: Will you run?

ZA: I'm leaving soon for a meditation retreat in Burma.

LK: Courtney Love was quoted as saying there is more political commonsense and insight in your art than in the entire Beltway.

ZA: How did she measure it?

LK: Well

ZA: In any case, insight is easier to imagine than to incorporate into life, unless ...

[pause]

LK: Unless what?

ZA: Unless one can find ways to be fully aware without being stuck in hopes and fears about any of it.

LK: *Not being stuck* --that reminds me of Nietzsche.

ZA: He had a brilliant idea of freedom but was himself stuck, I think, with too solid a sense of self.

LK: The self is fictional?

ZA: That way of saying it can be misleading because it is too melodramatic. We're simply not as dense as we tend to think.

LK: Do you mean *dense* as in Liddy’s sense? The way he writes about it in the journal?

ZA: That was my idea, not his.

LK: Oh, is that right? Liddy told me it occurred to him while he was out jogging.

ZA: Liddy jogs? That’s a surprise. It certainly doesn’t show. Maybe he was jogging when it occurred to him to steal my M.A. thesis.

LK: You are saying Liddy plagiarized *you* before Epstein plagiarized **him? This is getting complicated. Why don’t you just produce the thesis and prove it?**

ZA: Because he stole it.

LK: There’s only one copy?

ZA: I’m afraid so.

LK: You didn’t save it on a disk?

ZA: apparently I lost it when I moved to Seattle.

LK: Hmm. So what does "not dense" mean?

ZA: Not as fundamentally real and separate as we tend to assume. Not like Descartes thought, for example, that as substances we have a reality independent of anything else.

LK: But Nietzsche rejected that substantial notion of self, didn’t he?

ZA: It is easy enough just to deny it, especially given Descartes as foil. Descartes says he is going to doubt everything he can, then *ka-boom!* very first thing, he's got an unchanging substantial soul in the picture. By his own rules he went way too fast.

LK: What do you have in mind as more than simply denying the substantiality of self?

ZA: First, I don't really know of course what it was like for Nietzsche. But I'd guess it was just an idea for him -- he didn't know it in his bones. It was an idea grounded in the insecurity of Cartesian skepticism. An intellectual pose.

LK: And you are saying?

ZA: Maybe one can know it directly in experience without merely imagining or thinking about it.

LK: Know what?

ZA: The self isn't dense.

LK: So one doesn't take oneself so seriously?

ZA: I wouldn't put it that way. One might be even more serious, but with a lighter touch. It is odd how that can work.

LK: In meditation you experience this?

ZA: Yes. Definitely. There are practices one can learn to explore it.

LK: But these states, the experiences, might just be the central nervous system--

ZA: Exactly!! You are absolutely correct. That is why I told you before the interview started I'm not talking about ontology.

LK: Ok then. Let’s take some calls. We have a caller, Joe. Calling from Las Vegas.

Caller 1: Larry, thank you for taking my call. My name is Joe. I watch your show all the time. I really like it.

LK: Thank you, Joe.

ZA: Oh, **God. It’s Carson.**

Caller1: My full name is Joe Carson.

LK: Joe, do you have a question for my guest?

Caller 1: So what is prior to being?

ZA: Huh?

Caller 1: Do you claim that *doing* is prior to being as Epstein asserts? --or do you accept Winnicott's view that creativity is a result of *being* being prior to doing?

ZA: Neither, if I understood you, Joe. I would say that *knowing* is fundamental --simple pure awareness. Out if this there arises creative action and a secure sense of being. Knowing without an object, so it can seem like **not knowing. Simple pure awareness. I'm not making ontological claims here.**

LK: What does that mean? What are you not doing?

ZA: I'm not saying everything exists due to awareness, or proclaiming some sort of idealism. I have no definite ideas about the ultimate natures of things.

LK: Why do you shy away from ontology?

ZA: The leaps required are too much for me. Its too speculative.

LK: let’s take another call. We have Mark on the line, calling from New York City. Mark, what is your question?

Caller 2: Is your fear of ontological speculation related in any way to your refusal to get married?

ZA: **What?! --Mark! -- is that you?**

Caller 2: What's wrong with speculation?

ZA: There is so much to be explored, even within our own minds, before we can do it right in theory. And in practical life, freedom and creativity come from simple awareness, not from ideas. Larry, I think this is Epstein on the line.

LK: the guy who wrote about Joe?

ZA: Yah.

LK: Good. Let’s ask him about his plagiarism --oops, he hung up. Ok. Sally, from Oklahoma.

Caller 3 : Is simple pure awareness what are known as the jhanic states?

ZA: No. They are different, unless I am mistaken. I am not a big expert on this.

LK: Do they really exist? Or is it all just make-believe. Zoe, listen. maybe you put so much effort into meditation you come out thinking you got something just to feel good about wasting so much time.

ZA: Maybe.

LK: Or if its that hard maybe just getting finished with a retreat is why you think its so great.

ZA: Maybe.

LK: So?

ZA: So what?

LK: Are you just going to say *maybe*?

ZA: Look, Larry. If you want to test your ideas you can go give it a try.

LK: I’ve heard it is pretty difficult work.

ZA: Yah. It looks easy and boring from the outside but it isn’t.

LK: So **maybe. -- Maybe you just brainwashed yourself into thinking meditation is good?**

ZA: No, of course not. Don’t be getting slow on us here, Larry. Here, want me to drink your coffee for you too?

LK: [laughing] No.

ZA: did you think I was gonna come on your tv show to announce I’ve brainwashed myself?

LK: [laughing] You are a funny girl. So what are those states all about?

ZA: The jhanic states are discrete identifiable states of mind, states of deep concentration. That’s just the beginning. You can observe it if you try. I claim this is an empirical matter. Of course you don’t just go inside and grab them. It is subtle. And one’s motivation matters.

LK: But what are they?

ZA: There are levels or patterns to be observed in the profoundly concentrated human mind. I observed them many times during intensive retreats -- they are beautiful and interesting to experience. Then later I was stunned to find them described in great detail in literature written centuries ago.

LK: How do they differ from pure awareness?

ZA: The jhanic states are states of concentration, with awareness absorbed into an object, such as the flow of physical sensations associated with the breath. Awareness itself doesn't necessarily have an object. You should ask Joseph Goldstein or Sharon Salzberg or you could read Ayya Khema about this stuff.

LK: Did you claim as Carson asserts that Joe is Joseph Goldstein channelling through you?

ZA: That would have been a joke, Larry.

LK: Oh.

ZA: Carson might not’ve gotten it.

LK: Gotten what?

ZA: The joke.

LK: Oh. Ok. Let’s take another call. Misty, from San Diego. What is you r question?

Caller 4: Is concentration meditation like TM?

ZA: I never have practiced that method myself.

LK: TM?

ZA: Transcendental meditation. A lot of people tried it in the 70s--

LK: Is that what the Beatles did?

ZA: Yah, I think so.

LK: So is that what you mean, then, about a method for building concentration?

ZA: I’ve never used that method. But from what I’ve heard about it, yes. They are, I believe, using continuous attention to a repreated mantra.

LK: Mantra?

ZA: Thinking a phrase repeatedly over and over--

LK: it deepens concentration?

ZA: oh, yes. It can do that. It definitely works.

[pause]

LK: But?

ZA: But what?

LK: I sense a *but* here.

ZA: ok. If you only do concentration, that is pretty limited.

LK: How so?

ZA: Even experiencing these refined states of mind, in developing deeper concentration, one actually can use these skills in both wholesome and unwholesome ways.

LK: How so?

ZA: The unwholesome applications would be to strengthen patterns of greed, aversion, cruelty. The wholesome applications would be to develop patterns of renunciation, generosity, kindness, compassion. I’ve been influenced by the buddhists.

LK: I had the Dalai Lama on last week.

ZA: I saw it. It was good.

LK: I’ve been doing more religious themes.

ZA: Yes, I think you should lighten up on the ghost stories.

LK: Too many of them?

ZA: Yah, in my opinion. Also put a limit on that alien abduction stuff.

LK: it’s interesting.

ZA: it’s all make believe and fantasy. It is distracting. The mind is what is interesting. The normal world with normal conscious mind emerging somehow out of nerves and chemicals and blood--

LK: *Blood?*

ZA: --and how we can find freedom in the midst of all this.

LK: Freedom?

ZA: Peace.

LK: Let’s take another call. We have a caller, Marvin from Ohio. Go ahead, please.

[Silence]

LK: Marvin?

[Pause]

Caller 5: Hello?

LK: Yes, hello. You are on the air.

Caller 5: Oh, ok. Hello.

LK: What is your question?

Caller 5: Huh?

LK: Do you have a question for my guest, Zoe Alexander?

Caller 5: Yes.

LK: What is your question?

Caller 5: I am a university professor.

LK: Great.

Caller 5: I teach philosophy.

LK: Fine. What is your question?

Caller 5: Uh, hi Zoe.

ZA: Hi.

[pause]

Caller 5: I was on a meditation retreat with you last year up at the Insight Meditation Society in Massachusetts.

ZA: Oh, that’s nice.

LK: Marvin, what is your question, please?

Caller 5: Uh, Zoe?

ZA: Yes?

Caller 5: I was wondering would you be free for coffee some time next week?

ZA: *What?!*

Caller 5: I’ll be out in Seattle for a conference-- [interrupted by LK]

LK [interrupting]: Ok, let’s move on.

ZA: Huh.

LK: Sorry.

ZA: Wow.

LK: I’m sorry.

ZA: That’s weird.

LK: Sorry.

ZA: Larry, can’t you screen out crackpots like that?

LK: We try to, but it doesn’t always work.

ZA; Wow.

LK: I imagine you must have a lot of guys trying to ask you out, though. I mean, give all the attention you’ve been receiving, and given how attractive you are, if I may say so. -- How do you decide--

ZA: How do I *what*?

LK: Ok. Let’s take another call. We have a caller from Nevada, Joe. Go ahead, Joe.

Caller 6: Which is most fundamental: Truth, Goodness, or Beauty?

ZA: Wow! That's an archaic question -- a good one too! I vote for Beauty. It is most fundamental for us. This links back to simple knowing is prior to both being and doing. Knowing in a simple vast way is so beautiful. You can practice this, Joe.

Caller 6: Knowing has different forms.

ZA: Yes, I'm talking about knowledge by acquaintance, pre-verbal, prior to thought. Not propositional knowledge involving conceptual thought in the right relation to the world. You don’t have to call it knowledge, if you don’t want to. It is mind beyond thinking, maybe beyond psychology.

LK: So you live without thinking?

ZA: No, of course not. You can cultivate a spacious mind, then paint or reflect and write, or go dancing, play basketball. But your heart is light. What's fun is a light heart -- not whether you are dancing or whatever.

LK: Light hearted as in frivolous?

ZA: I guess there certainly could be a danger of that, especially given how deeply so many people are suffering. Yes, there is a danger there; not as dangerous, though, as taking oneself too seriously as dense.

LK: So you vote for beauty?

ZA: Yes.

LK: What about love?

ZA: Huh?

LK: Let’s take another caller. J. Gordon, from Nevada. --Lots of callers from Nevada tonight.

Caller 7 : Larry, thank you for taking my call. My name is J Gordon. I watch your show all the time. I really like it.

LK: Thank you, J. Gordon.

ZA: Oh, *God.* Not *Liddy*.

Caller 7: My full name is J. Gordon Liddy.

LK: You know this guy too?

ZA: He sent me some emails after we talked in an AOL chat room. Its a long story.

LK: Are chat rooms mainly for sex?

ZA: It depends on what you are looking for. Why not log on and find out for yourself?

LK: Well--was it sex with Liddy?

ZA: Oh, God forbid! What a creep! This is the guy who plagiarized my thesis!

LK: J. Gordon-- are you there?
Caller 7: Yes.

ZA: He plagiarized Epstein too!

LK: Do you have a question for my guest?

Caller 7: Why did you use Ron and Blue's real names in your article?

ZA: What article? Where did you read it?

Caller 7: Its all over the internet.

ZA: Initially I was writing it as nonfiction. Why did you plagiarize my thesis?

Caller 7: Both Ron and Blue ended long relationships with you. How does their having left you factor into your disillusionment with marriage?

ZA: Huh?

Caller 7: Are you still angry at Ron and Blue?

ZA: What do you mean? --Why the hell are you trying to ruin Epstein’s life?

Caller 7: What was the reason for the "limits" you agreed upon with Steve?

ZA: What limits? Its kind of fuzzy to me. I had dinner with him when I was in Boston last week. It was so nice to see him.

LK: Actually I was wondering why you gave up so quickly on the idea that you were Joe?

ZA: Have you ever looked at sunlight reflected on a lake or river or puddle? And tried to keep fixed and central one patch of silver or orange appearing in your visual field?

LK: Were you thinking about that when you did your Orange series?

ZA: Yes I was!

LK: Why the bandage on your head?

ZA: I got kicked in the head at a swing dance.

LK: Oh, sorry.

ZA: Dancing with the wrong guy.

LK: Hmm.

ZA: Actually it was Joe Carson who did it.

LK: Hmm. Thanks for talking with me. Have a great retreat.

ZA: Thank you. I'll give it my best shot!

LK: Yah. Ok. You go girl. Stay with me. I’ll be right back with Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
**************************** FBI #46079930ZA3325

Mulder: Scully, I found it!! Here is the other half of her original letter. Remember? --I suspected that part of it was missing! Here it is! Its the part about runcibility, or whatever they call it. Apparently she wrote this just before she came to believe (falsely, if I may say so) that she isn’t Joe. Actually I found it on the internet.

Scully: Great. --Wonderful news. Mulder, could you please remind me again why the hell we are on this case?

Mulder: I am surprised at your obduracy, Scully.

Scully: My what?? Mulder: Most of the secondary files you can ignore for awhile but I think you should look at this. --the file is at *********~~~&>> zoeRenuncible
Scully: How about let's call it a night? Mulder: Oh, no Scully. We are just getting started here. **************************** Continue Orange (Zoe to Dad) next>>> Return to homepage The Z-Files