doug galecawitz
07-21-2004, 12:44 AM
Disclaimer: music lyrics are the cousin of poetry, and as such are themselves esoteric in meaning. In all likelihood the chance may be that there is no "official meaning" and that the writer for whatever purposes (comercial accessibility, crafty artistry?) has determined to leave them as obtuse as possible. This allows plenty of room for varied intrepretations that remain independent of the actual song. One need only apply selective thinking when attempting to shoehorn their own meaning into the lyrics. And often a person's reflections on a song's meaning will say more about them than about the objective meaning of the song. That said I'll try to postulate some new ideas into this song thread.
I would think the first question that comes to mind in this song is, what is "it"? The "it" that Maynard refers to as being twice as clear as heaven but only half as clear as reason. (Does that mean that reason is four times more clear than heaven?) I'm of the belief that whatever "it" is, it likely is something immaterial. An emotion or mental state of some sort. Lust, desire, the subconscious, inner doubt, intuition, and numerous others fit nicely into the song in this retrospect. If desire doesn't speak twice as loud as reason (as has been commonly asserted throughout the history of literature) I'm not sure if anything does. From this point forward the song could be anything pertaining to this mental state or emotion taking over the singer's whole life. Either line "sense your enemy" or "you're saturating me" could then take on signifigance in diffrent reguards. If it be the former than whatever "it" is would probably contain a negative connotation of sorts, if the latter than it probably could be taken that saturation not necessarily a good or bad thing.
The song's "it" may not have to be so intangible though. As many have pointed out it could be addiction (addiction isn't always about drugs) or the "it" could be a woman. Many people get the feeling that as a relationship progresses that their individuality is somewhat sacrificed in the attempt at spiritual unity with their spouse, i.e. the you and I becomes the we. An argument can be made that a blossoming relationship can be a very comfortable affair (both meanings of affair intended) and that sometimes that comfort can be almost frieghtening in the way it changes you.
One should never dismiss the possibility of sexual matters as potential meanings in song. Indeed sex seems inheritly ingrained in our language. And the subject that is most often the subject of art throughout history has indeed been the act of making love and all that it entails. So excuse me for a moment if I sound Freudian.
Anytime the words deep, mouth, beckon, and swallow appear in a song that should raise a red flag. Because this is techincally poetry the exact sexual act or gender specifications need not be specific. That there is something below him and opening up around "him" might in itself say enough. I think you hear me knockin.
But could it be that simple? Of course not. When Maynard says below him we of course must remember that below can mean below as in underneath or it can mean below as in beneath as in less than him. It is hear where the song must take on a negativly connotated meaning. It is also here where I think that the theory that "it" represents culture, society, pedestrian affairs. Again remember the disputed saturating/enemy line. When human affairs choke off the individual and make him weak and insignifigant he is indeed brought to his knees, in the servile sense. (or is forcing him to believe he is weak and insiginifigant the actual act of him being brought to his knees?) Then again does this genuflection need to necessarily be a bad thing.
Maybe the it that is saturating him is god. And he is being humbled by the voice of god that speaks twice as loud as reason. And again not necessarily god in the Judeo/Christian/ Islamic sense but maybe god in the buddhist sense with reality itself being the humbling experience. Given the seeming profoundity of everday life this theory is not easliy shoved aside.
To change gears for a moment what is meant when the singer says he's too comfortable, then follows right away with "shut up" This line makes me think of the inner turmoil and confusion that comes ingrained in every moral decision. At first he speaks lovingly about his comfort than changes gears by saying "too comfortable" and then switches a third time (or does he?) by saying "shut up" Is the shut up intended for some internal or external entity? Shut up to that which causes comfort? or shut up to that which questions comfort? Is it the comfort which saturates him? or the questioning of comfort which saturates him? Is his comfort a good thing or a bad thing. Those with mind/body issues would probably say that comfort is a negative thing. In this case the it is the undertow and the undertow is euphoria. Utilitarians, egocentrics, and materialists would probably say that comfort is a positive thing. Which is Maynard?¿? Your guess is as good as his.
But what if the euphoria (or that which causes it) is ignorance? Ignorance has often been linked to bliss, TOOL have often seemed to harbor a disdainful view of ignorance, and the unflexible fixed beliefs that accompany ignorance can be said to provide too much comfort for modern **** sapiens (man of wisdom) Of course this would also mean that latter in the song Maynard would be asking why his ignorance doesn't kill him? So maybe that's a dead end hypotheses.
When Maybard speaks of going under two and then three times, what exactly does he mean? This to me seems like one of the more straight forward points of the song which is why I'm taking a moment to recognioze it on it's own. It may simply be because of the sequential mentioning of numbers that these lines seem actually objective. The tendency when a specific number is mentioned is to look everywhere at what that number or numbers could represent. So besides the previously mentioned ideas about what he could be going under I'd like to use the numbers here to mention a few other possibilities. I'm not too familiar with the practice of baptism but I do believe it was mentioned somewhere that Maynard was indeed raised a baptist. Keeping with the water theme of the song and the whole album, could this be a reflection of the early religous life (or practice) of the singer? Maybe. Then there's the terminology of "gone under" that is often asssociated with hypnosis. While this may seem a stretch consider for a moment the very reflective nature of TOOL's lyrics. Hypnosis is often cited as having the ability to relieve pain, recover repressed memories, or memories of a past life, or to discover truths hidden in the unconscious mind, to produce a trance-like state of altered conscious, to access multiple personalities, and as a gateway to knowledge of the self and the universe. Stop me when this starts sounding like any themes prevalent in this or any other TOOL song. Could Maynard perhaps
be a fan of hypnosis? maybe.
What about falling in love? Could that be what has the singer so "struck dumb" so "comfortable" and indeed "sweeps him away" Of all the half-assed theories I have to offer this one I think appeals to me the most. I used the words desire and lust earlier and here I might used the word infatuation because while they all mean the same thing none of them seems to carry the same lingusitic and cultural baggage of the word love. It is in thes sweet and innocent thoughts that I often like to place alot of TOOL's work within the framework of. (never end a sentence in a preposition) Throughout my life I have succumbed to the overwhelming feeling of infatuation that possesses every fiber of my being and probably rivals that of even the most religous of experiences. I'm sure quite a number of people have had similar experiences and it is in this very mindframe that I come to such reasoning. At times I have felt myself going under the influence of this powerful emotion for what may be the third time. Again could this be the ignorance and bliss paradigm?
The worst of all that which may indeed be the undertow is that of the worst emotion of all human life, that of the unrequited or unreciprocated infatuation. What else is infatuation but the irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired?
Maybe I've missed it all together and maybe there's a thousand more theories I've not yet thought of for this song. I've given you what amounts to my most objective possible opinion and my unabashedly personal opinion. I hope that something shook you.
I would think the first question that comes to mind in this song is, what is "it"? The "it" that Maynard refers to as being twice as clear as heaven but only half as clear as reason. (Does that mean that reason is four times more clear than heaven?) I'm of the belief that whatever "it" is, it likely is something immaterial. An emotion or mental state of some sort. Lust, desire, the subconscious, inner doubt, intuition, and numerous others fit nicely into the song in this retrospect. If desire doesn't speak twice as loud as reason (as has been commonly asserted throughout the history of literature) I'm not sure if anything does. From this point forward the song could be anything pertaining to this mental state or emotion taking over the singer's whole life. Either line "sense your enemy" or "you're saturating me" could then take on signifigance in diffrent reguards. If it be the former than whatever "it" is would probably contain a negative connotation of sorts, if the latter than it probably could be taken that saturation not necessarily a good or bad thing.
The song's "it" may not have to be so intangible though. As many have pointed out it could be addiction (addiction isn't always about drugs) or the "it" could be a woman. Many people get the feeling that as a relationship progresses that their individuality is somewhat sacrificed in the attempt at spiritual unity with their spouse, i.e. the you and I becomes the we. An argument can be made that a blossoming relationship can be a very comfortable affair (both meanings of affair intended) and that sometimes that comfort can be almost frieghtening in the way it changes you.
One should never dismiss the possibility of sexual matters as potential meanings in song. Indeed sex seems inheritly ingrained in our language. And the subject that is most often the subject of art throughout history has indeed been the act of making love and all that it entails. So excuse me for a moment if I sound Freudian.
Anytime the words deep, mouth, beckon, and swallow appear in a song that should raise a red flag. Because this is techincally poetry the exact sexual act or gender specifications need not be specific. That there is something below him and opening up around "him" might in itself say enough. I think you hear me knockin.
But could it be that simple? Of course not. When Maynard says below him we of course must remember that below can mean below as in underneath or it can mean below as in beneath as in less than him. It is hear where the song must take on a negativly connotated meaning. It is also here where I think that the theory that "it" represents culture, society, pedestrian affairs. Again remember the disputed saturating/enemy line. When human affairs choke off the individual and make him weak and insignifigant he is indeed brought to his knees, in the servile sense. (or is forcing him to believe he is weak and insiginifigant the actual act of him being brought to his knees?) Then again does this genuflection need to necessarily be a bad thing.
Maybe the it that is saturating him is god. And he is being humbled by the voice of god that speaks twice as loud as reason. And again not necessarily god in the Judeo/Christian/ Islamic sense but maybe god in the buddhist sense with reality itself being the humbling experience. Given the seeming profoundity of everday life this theory is not easliy shoved aside.
To change gears for a moment what is meant when the singer says he's too comfortable, then follows right away with "shut up" This line makes me think of the inner turmoil and confusion that comes ingrained in every moral decision. At first he speaks lovingly about his comfort than changes gears by saying "too comfortable" and then switches a third time (or does he?) by saying "shut up" Is the shut up intended for some internal or external entity? Shut up to that which causes comfort? or shut up to that which questions comfort? Is it the comfort which saturates him? or the questioning of comfort which saturates him? Is his comfort a good thing or a bad thing. Those with mind/body issues would probably say that comfort is a negative thing. In this case the it is the undertow and the undertow is euphoria. Utilitarians, egocentrics, and materialists would probably say that comfort is a positive thing. Which is Maynard?¿? Your guess is as good as his.
But what if the euphoria (or that which causes it) is ignorance? Ignorance has often been linked to bliss, TOOL have often seemed to harbor a disdainful view of ignorance, and the unflexible fixed beliefs that accompany ignorance can be said to provide too much comfort for modern **** sapiens (man of wisdom) Of course this would also mean that latter in the song Maynard would be asking why his ignorance doesn't kill him? So maybe that's a dead end hypotheses.
When Maybard speaks of going under two and then three times, what exactly does he mean? This to me seems like one of the more straight forward points of the song which is why I'm taking a moment to recognioze it on it's own. It may simply be because of the sequential mentioning of numbers that these lines seem actually objective. The tendency when a specific number is mentioned is to look everywhere at what that number or numbers could represent. So besides the previously mentioned ideas about what he could be going under I'd like to use the numbers here to mention a few other possibilities. I'm not too familiar with the practice of baptism but I do believe it was mentioned somewhere that Maynard was indeed raised a baptist. Keeping with the water theme of the song and the whole album, could this be a reflection of the early religous life (or practice) of the singer? Maybe. Then there's the terminology of "gone under" that is often asssociated with hypnosis. While this may seem a stretch consider for a moment the very reflective nature of TOOL's lyrics. Hypnosis is often cited as having the ability to relieve pain, recover repressed memories, or memories of a past life, or to discover truths hidden in the unconscious mind, to produce a trance-like state of altered conscious, to access multiple personalities, and as a gateway to knowledge of the self and the universe. Stop me when this starts sounding like any themes prevalent in this or any other TOOL song. Could Maynard perhaps
be a fan of hypnosis? maybe.
What about falling in love? Could that be what has the singer so "struck dumb" so "comfortable" and indeed "sweeps him away" Of all the half-assed theories I have to offer this one I think appeals to me the most. I used the words desire and lust earlier and here I might used the word infatuation because while they all mean the same thing none of them seems to carry the same lingusitic and cultural baggage of the word love. It is in thes sweet and innocent thoughts that I often like to place alot of TOOL's work within the framework of. (never end a sentence in a preposition) Throughout my life I have succumbed to the overwhelming feeling of infatuation that possesses every fiber of my being and probably rivals that of even the most religous of experiences. I'm sure quite a number of people have had similar experiences and it is in this very mindframe that I come to such reasoning. At times I have felt myself going under the influence of this powerful emotion for what may be the third time. Again could this be the ignorance and bliss paradigm?
The worst of all that which may indeed be the undertow is that of the worst emotion of all human life, that of the unrequited or unreciprocated infatuation. What else is infatuation but the irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired?
Maybe I've missed it all together and maybe there's a thousand more theories I've not yet thought of for this song. I've given you what amounts to my most objective possible opinion and my unabashedly personal opinion. I hope that something shook you.