The urban, on the other hand, is often seen as more real and mundane, even though it is obviously far more recent in terms of planetary development. I think this might be because nature corresponds to the unconscious and the artificial world of the city and human culture to the conscious mind.

I'm not claiming anything like sainthood - merely a native perception.

I think I'm probably too close to the seventies to be able to analyse them (it?) effectively.

I feel a little as if the Buddhism is creeping back, but I mention all this simply in order to illustrate that there is, in my life, a fundamental sense of conflict between something that I am calling 'Buddhism' and my creative impulse.

What I find difficult about Buddhism, though it is also one of its significant fascinations, is the focus on what is immediately and physically present. To me, this seems a denial of the imagination, and the imagination is very important to me.

To me the seventies represent normality, and, of course, it is a normality that is now anachronistic.

On the other hand, the seventies were drab. That is, I am utterly fascinated by the fifties and sixties.