The Third Person
Erik A. Mattila
about what would happen when social constraints no longer worked on
people.
I had a similar experience flying to Vietnam. The airplane left Travis
AFB in California, and landed at SeaTac airport. Whe had about two hour
lay-over there, while the Airline changed its crew for the next let to
Guam. The flight attendants, originall Anglo, were replaced with Asian
women. I was amazed to see in some of my fellow G.I.s an utterly
astounding shift in attitude after the plane took off, flew over B.C. for
a while, and set out across the see. You counld almost sense the social
constraints that regulate behavior dissapate, and several of these fellows
began to act out the most asocial behavior imaginable. It was in the form
of the treatment of the Asian flight attendants -- they were treate
disrepectfully, with sexual presumptions (as if they were prostitutes or
humans whose only purpose in life was sexual gratification of these boys)
and so on. It was extremely ugly, although fascinating to witness. aaa
There's an equal suspension of social rules on the internet, also, don't
you think?
Erik
Marilyn Welch wrote:
> Responding to Erik's post about social intercourse on the net.
>
> In reading about the novels Libra & Underground by Don DeLillo,
> I came across the the following theory by a litcrit. In all his
> novels DeLillo portrays characters watching TV. They watch TV
> in hopes of finding the universal 'third person'
> - someone who will make it alright, a knight/lady? in shining armour.
> What I was wondering was whether we can use that theory to refer to the
> internet.
> Substitute the tv with the computer.
> Would this theory explain some of the bizarre behaviour?
> What do you think of this theory?
>
> The other thought about the internet is its origin and therefore
> it's innate culture. It was invented for the military. It's
> main use at this point in time is for pornography, that is
> commercially and interactively. The next largest traffic is
> fanatic groups, hate/religious [fill in the blanks].
> This is not opinion, it is born out by the numbers.
>
> We float here in a small craft [alt.brallen] on a sea of trouble,
> militaristic origins, oceans of pornography & hate and unreason,
> and we try to keep smooth sailing.
>
> For me, I hear "Land Ho!" loud and clear.
>
> Marilyn
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Keith O'Connor
individual's belief or value system. Some people
believe the bible has all the answers, it makes
everything right. Some people believe Hitler had
all the answers and he would make it right.
Looking at it in this light is the functional role
of Hitler much different than the functional role
of the bible?
The predominance of sex on the net results from
culture's repression of sex, was bound to lead to
an explosion, like probation, when it ended
drinking statistics climbed even higher than
before.
Peoples behaviour on the net results from an alpha
text persona at work. Alpha text format makes the
creation of another alter ego easy. A normal
personality orchestrates a variety or alter ego's
into a cohesive unit.
The alpha text alter ego is completely abstract
it only relates to other alpha text alter egos. If
I say something nasty to you in the alpha text
world, there is nothing you can do to me other
than say something nasty back or ignore me. You
can't hit me you can't impact my job, you can do
nothing to me, I am all powerful. For the first
time in my life I am free of constraints. That is
an explosive condition, but if we are to move on
and develop the explosion must occur. I can only
hope that I have a little spot where it can't find
me.
Because the internet was invented for the military
you assume it has some hidden military culture.
Roads were developed for the military do they have
some hidden military culture? Internet email and
postings as we use them are just a rapid form of
mail delivery.
It's getting late I must go by by______________
Quo Vadis
you/we/they like it, Americans still dominate the forum. As long as
there is this feeling of supremacy in the world then a global village
will always be a troubled one. Its easy to analyse the attitudes or to
dwell on the coming together of so many personalities, but in truth it
is nothing more than a condensed reality. You only have to visit
alt.philosophy or one of the religious groups where Mani hangs out, and
learn what real flaming is about. There are some extremely insane and
very dangerous people there with anger and malice flying around that you
could not even start to imagine from the shenanigans of raf - nazi
groups and religious fanatics stand side by side and the poor folk who
believe in this global village drown.
I don't see it as any different to the real world except that those who
don't get a voice in that world. Take the Irish lad - now I still think
that was Dan, but it serves as a good illustration. He reflected exactly
what it is like in Eire, particularly down in the south. Americans will
have to relate to Mississippi or somewhere to get an idea. Its a time
warp. So he arrives on the scene - maybe not used to conversing with
people from other cultures, certainly not used to computers, definitely
prejudice and not in the slightest bit concerned - but he has good
thoughts. Our job then is to open the door and let him in - *we* are the
people who can influence him.
I don't see this machine as a threat - we are at the onset of a dramatic
cultural revolution. Sexual freedom, which everyone shirks from, may in
fact be a positive thing. There is a human need for pornography which
has been repressed for too long. If there is sex on the Net it is
because there is a demand - and that has to be addressed. Nothing is
going on now that has not being going on for hundreds of years - the
difference is accessibility - and that is the bottom line.
Off I go with my combat gear to teach those who think otherwise a lesson
or two .............
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.990723074547.14078A-100000@vtn1>,
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes
Erik A. Mattila
Keith, but I do think it may be part of the big picture, albiet
inconsistant. Pornography is fairly universal in human cultures, and quite
ancient. So there's almost a contraticition of terms. For example,
pornographic Roman art was quite visible in Pompeii publically, and it's
presence suggets to me a less sexually repressed society (by comparison to
Victorian moraliy and its antecedents). This is true of several societies.
Common in Nazca culture circa AD 500 was pornography. As a matter of fact,
many Native American societies used pornography. The problem is that this
historical reality is often repressed in 'our' society. It is difficult to
find the literature even in the best of libraries.
I read an essay once called "War, yes, Sex, no: Reflections on the Marquis
de Sade". The author began by revealing his research that in US Libaries
all the War books are available, but the sex book are under lock and key.
Then he goes on to discover that the sons of history's greatest deviants,
like de Sade and Oscar Wilde, salvaged the honor of the family name by
military achievemnent and distintion in battle - killing other human beings.
Pornography is not sex, simply put. Visual representations of sex is not
actual human sexual culture. The two phenomena are radically different.
Yet 'pictures' are incredibly powerful in their own right.
I purchased a copy of George Bataille's "Tears of Eros" once, and had a
remarkable experience. The book was a theory of eroticism in western art,
and in Bataille's theory the trajectory erotic always extends from pleasure
to pain. In the last chapters the author included some sequencial
documentary photographs of the ecstatic smile on the face of a vitim of the
Chinese execution "The Death of Ten Thousand Cuts." In this, the victim is
dismembered while alive, his body filled with opiates, and is litterally
taken apart in a public theatre. I was so shocked by the photos that I
threw the book down on my coffee table, and it sat there for several weeks
while I tried to come to grips with the horror I felt. Eventually I began
to question how it was that (phenomenologically) some ink marks on paper,
arranged in a certain manner, could evoke such an incredibly powerful
response in me.
Internet pornography is the same. Pixels on a monitor arrange just so, and
able to evoke all sorts of reactions from the viewers - from absolute
disgust, the experience of fear of representations of human genitalia,
physiological reactions -- swelling of orifices, constrictions of
capillaries, changes in heart rate, release of pheremones and on down the
line. A whole range of social reactions - from anarchy to knee-jerk
conservatism. I think that in order to understand this you have to have
three terms. The first is the pornography, and the second is the human
subject. The third human sexual culture. From there you have to begin to
identify the common threads that exist between the subject and pornography,
and between the subject and sexual culture. Well, this is klunky unless I
emphasize that by 'sexual culture' I mean actual sexual encounters between
human beings, as differenciated from the various 'fictions' of
representations.
One common thread are called 'desiring structures' which are socially
organized modes which spill over into all sorts of social sciences,
including Marxism. "Desire' is at the root of the 'commodity fetish' in
Marx, and Freud also has treated this in contexts other than Marxism
(certainly in his ideas on repressed sexuality). The pornograhic
representation is, by agreement of several authorities, a 'fetish' and
functions as a Congolese 'Nail Fetish" or Carribean Vuoduo doll (or a Disney
character such as Uncle Scrooge, for that matter).
But because pornography is such a common form of representation, what is
it's function? Bataille argues that it is the way society defines the
'social' (as distinct from the 'asocial') by saying what constructive
society 'is not!" He further argues that pornograhy itself (not human
sexuality) needs to always be 'repressed' in society, in order for it to
have a constructive social value. In his "Psychological Theory of Fascism",
Bataille argues that the potential for fascist systems exist when the
'heterogenous' elements of culture cross over to the 'homogeneous' sphere,
since these extrinsic forms, once they become 'acceptable,' lose their power
to define culture as a productive, positive force. When you read a work
such as Klaus Theweliet's "Male Fantasies", which was an analysis of fascist
writings, you see that pornography did become homoginized into German and
Italian culture, and in fact 'human sexuality' became more exotic (as if
replaced by pornograhpic representations).
What a schism, if you believe in the kind of theory above. You don't want
to eradicate pornography, yet you don't want to accept it. Like all
ecosystems, it exists in a state of delicate balance.
Well, this is just he tip of the theoretical iceberg, as there are an
incredible amount of ideas circulating about pornography. I just don't
think the 'repressed sexuality" theory explans a lot about it. It seems
much more political than psychological. Pornographic representations appear
to me to be much more about 'power' of one individual over another than
about human sexuality -- starting from the point that is is just pictures
(or words). But you can argue that 'human sexuality" has become that also
in our society -- that may be simply that 'life mimics art".
Erik
Keith O'Connor wrote:
Keith O'Connor
Hi Eric
Because christianity has been and continues go be
in many sectors a strong influence on morality you
cannot exclude its influence from the sexual
culture of the western world.
The christian world does not have the values of
the ancient world.
have fun
_______________________
Erik A. Mattila
'exotic' pornorgraphy? (or does Christianity share no kinship with the 'ancient'
world?)
Just curious,
Kay
the proper context in which to reply to it. It is a bit too
all-encompassing. Christianity could have and effect, but would it's effect
be moreso today than in the year 1280, for example? What would be more
influential in 1999: Christianity, which is certainly not new or innovative
at the present or more likely, the fact that the previous century has
brought upon us air travel, electricity, nuclear weapons, biological
warfare, cloning, heart transplants coupled with not only the fin de siecle
anxiety we always experience at centuries end, but more significantly the
end of millennium anxiety which is so much more profound. (not to mention
the y2k thing)
Kay
Keith O'Connor wrote in message <379A40D4...@home.com>...
:Hi Eric
Erik A. Mattila
not arise in a vacuum with no ideological relationship with 'not-christian.'
Historically or culturally it just doesn't work like that. Subsequently
Gilgamesh, Jesus and Quetzalcoatl may have had the same moral message to their
flocks.
Frankly, I think Christian Culture does share the values of the ancient world,
although 'values' are always in a state of flux at any given time. Today,
Christian fundamentalist preachers frequently seduce and knock-up their choir
girls, for exasmple. Not that far removed from the dithyrambic rituals of
old. Talk about repression, in very ancient cultures it was explicitly
controlled who you could or could not screw. Luckily, we don't have that so
much today, as we are sexually liberated, yet pornography flourishes. No,
repressed sexuality explains nothing to me.
Erik
John Haber
of the body from paganism. Look up Peter Brown and Caroline Bynum.
It's a curious thing that pornography (a different issue entirely)
isn't exactly a synonym with "sexually arousing images." People get
off on different things (often very innocent things); Hollywood,
retailers, and Hugh Hefner sure figured out how much sexual longing
goes into (relatively) wholesome stuff. Porn is more a particular
(often cliched) representation of particular practices. That more
than society's fear of sex is why it defines a subculture.
I am interested in how sexuality and porn get played with sometimes by
non-porn. Nayland Blake's comical art is a wonder, and there's a cool
show of childhood images in art (including tales of childhood
sexuality and violence, going back to Lewis Carroll) at Snug Harbor
now on Staten Island. I think it's too long since I saw it now that
I'll be writing again for me to write about it, which is a drag. No
one in the press has covered it.
John
Erik A. Mattila
person,' just to bring this back to your point. I keep coming back to
Norman Mailer's critique of Playboy (since John broaches the subject) which
was that it asks its readers to live their lives in the 'third person'
rather than the first (as in grammar). But this could be applied to media
generally, or any form that holds up an image of fashion, life-style etc.
and says 'you will be cool if you behave this way.' In some sense I can
read this as 'a knight-in-shining-armor' kind of thing, in that the promise
of fashion is that your life will be enhanced by participating in fashion
systems.
I can see that 'using' the interent could function this way (form), but the
material there doesn't seem to function this way (content). I think the
internet lacks the 'spectacle' quality of television -- meaning that TV is
a witness medum -- it's audiance doesn't participate that much, and it's
audiance has little or no 'voice.' I'm using the scarecrows because there
is that part of narratology that says the listener always creates another
story in order to make the narrative intelligible.
Am I close to your understanding of DeLillo's idea of the 'third person?"
(or is this the critic's idea, and if so, where is the critic speaking
from?)
Erik
Marilyn wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Here is the original post:
> and don't yawn as soon as you see the name DeLillo,
> read on, please.
>
> <<Responding to Erik's post about social intercourse on the net.
>
> In reading about the novels Libra & Underground by Don DeLillo,
> I came across the the following theory by a litcrit. In all his
> novels DeLillo portrays characters watching TV. They watch TV
> in hopes of finding the universal 'third person'
> - someone who will make it alright, a knight/lady? in shining armour.
> What I was wondering was whether we can use that theory to refer to the
> internet.
> Substitute the tv with the computer.
> Would this theory explain some of the bizarre behaviour?
> What do you think of this theory?>>
>
> Then I went on to mention the history of the internet
> being invented by the military, for the military, and
> that it's main traffic & commerce today is pornography.
>
> Seems like people picked up the pornography part, but
> no one picked up the "third person" idea. The need for
> pornography would indicate a search for the SECOND person,
> don't you think?
>
> Anyway, that's past, thanks for bringing this group back
> to the subject of art. Some lurkers have emailed me that
> they searched here for art topics recently and couldn't find
> any. Well, that is until you came on-line here.
>
> Thanks,
> Marilyn
Quo Vadis
>
>Anyway, that's past, thanks for bringing this group back
>to the subject of art. Some lurkers have emailed me that
>they searched here for art topics recently and couldn't find
>any. Well, that is until you came on-line here.
>
>Thanks,
>Marilyn
Yup, not long now and we will be just another r.a.f - and then we will
be breaking up into more little groups. You know, Marilyn - you are
starting to sound just like Flowery Showers.
--
Kay
Marilyn wrote in message <379CC1...@bc.ca>...
:Quo Vadis wrote:
:>
:> In article <379C9F...@bc.ca>, Marilyn <n...@bc.ca> writes
:
:And you Alison,
:are you the new Mani?
:
:Marilyn
I've noticed two direct attacks above and two direct hits! I don't know what
to say except that the first thing I remember you posting, Marilyn, is that
you thought this was a *soft-porn* group, upon which we (someone)
immediately cut back on the flirtatious posts in the possibility that we
would offend newcomers or people just acquiring alt.brallen. Is an art topic
what *you* say it is? How is your Indian post related to art? I enjoyed it
very much, but it is more in line with alt.anthropology than fine art. What
are your guidelines? If you will look at the archived posts in alt brallen,
you will see NO disharmony in this group before you created it with your
complaints and negativism. Lurkers are, most likely, lurking because they
have tracked members of raf here and are afraid to post because they haven't
been been invited. This group is by invitation only, remember? Does this
mean (your rules), that Erik can't tell us his wonderful, off-beat and
off-topic stories? Why don't you post the rules you are comfortable with,
Marilyn, so that we don't insult your sensibilities any longer? I have
tried. No more.
Kay
Quo Vadis
I found your comment particularly insulting, Marilyn. We have been here
for weeks and have enjoyed a lot of fun and lively debate. It is great
to have John here but an insult to the group to suggest that without him
(no offence John) we would not be discussing art. You have complained
since day one about this group, Marilyn when in fact YOUR *fun* has
actually put it in total jeopardy.
Some lurkers ??? do we have *some lurkers* ??? Stephen and Oliver, who
I invited - have you met them ? oh and Peter ... trust me he doesn't
care what we discuss. So that leaves Jonathan perhaps ? Jonathan can
start an art related discussion anytime - perhaps first he would have
the courtesy to address the rest of the group apart from you ? We
certainly don't want a group of lurkers complaining about us to Marilyn.
So if you are writing to Marilyn complaining *lurkers*, why don't you
just start writing to the group about art ???
This is not r.a.f - this is a retro-moderated group who want to discuss
life and the universe and some art when the time is right. Above all we
are a group of friends who feel comfortable together and people who join
us do so by invite. The agenda and FAQs, which I will post again in the
next couple of days, agreed that this was an open discussion group and
that we were not restricting the topics. We do not want another r.a.f.
Finally folks - I urge you not to mention anyone's name in your posts
that will make a search on that person reveal alt.brallen. Thanks to
Marilyn we now appear on both MdeL and NLel searches and we agreed from
day one not to do that. That is why I do not include my name or address
in the sig anymore and try not to mention people from r.a.f by their
names.
In other words, Marilyn - lighten up eh and let us all enjoy ourselves
like we were a couple of weeks ago.
Erik A. Mattila
Wolfman Jack once said "Love? Love is everthin!" I say "Art?, Art are
everthin"! Meaningless statements are always placebos, right?
I think we should support each others right to complain - after all...
It may be all astrology -- Saturn is in cranky, and monkey has python
rising. We all know where Uranus is.
Erik (whose excuse is the heat)
Quo Vadis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>My, my, my. Testy, aren't we? (I'm not excluding myself).
>
>Wolfman Jack once said "Love? Love is everthin!" I say "Art?, Art are
>everthin"! Meaningless statements are always placebos, right?
>
>I think we should support each others right to complain - after all...
>
>It may be all astrology -- Saturn is in cranky, and monkey has python
>rising. We all know where Uranus is.
>
>Erik (whose excuse is the heat)
is that directed just at me, Erik ?????????
what's your name ? Nutto ???????? joking of course, and laughing -
Erik, its eighty degrees here and a hundred in the studio. I was awake
from three this morning with a fan on me and two windows open - and
still lying in a puddle of sweat... and then today had to drive around
London in the middle of a truckers blockade which ended up costing me a
days pay ...... but I am glad I know where the stars are. Monkey has
python rising ? is that the same as monty python being reshown on Sky ?
My head feels like it has a clamp on it and my neck like steel rod is
stuck in it. That's my excuse - now what the hell is Marilyn's ?? and
why is she complaining about something she is as much responsible for as
everyone else ??????????????
Kay (oh, I was wrong by the way) ? do you think I have post menstrual
tension ??? oh oh, just shocked everyone again. Sorry !
Night night ...... going to crash on the studio floor and dream of
ARdee's cold feet running all over my hot body ! He'll always be ARdee
to me ;-)
Erik A. Mattila
What happens to me, reading your brief statements, is that I really don't know what
you mean. This leads me to guess, and run the risk of misinterpreting. Am I
making the argument for complexity? Maybe so. But imagine a conversation carried
out with general statements with ambiguous meaning? (You hear these all the time,
of course). What's really said? It's like those endless statements - have a nice
day, have fun, cheers, howzit going, what's happening, what's new -- what do these
communicate? Some call them 'metalanguage', or Malinovsky called them 'phatic
communion' and they are social rituals rather than language. (I'm not denigrating
this, for sure, but it is the case that many people mistake these for speech. )
John Haber
Please guys, let's be friends here. That example could actually be a
fable for our times: I knew Mani well when she was a painter instead
of a free-association artist. Let's stick by each other in the hope
we'll together never lose our ideals.
John
John Haber
>In reading about the novels Libra & Underground by Don DeLillo,
>I came across the the following theory by a litcrit. In all his
>novels DeLillo portrays characters watching TV. They watch TV
>in hopes of finding the universal 'third person'
>- someone who will make it alright, a knight/lady? in shining armour.
I don't buy it as literary criticism, partly because I don't see WHERE
it's going as interpretation, but also on facts that make me think it
might be going the wrong way. In White Noise, the best of them imho,
we're talking about a college campus back in the days one didn't see a
lot of appliances past a stereo. In Underworld, there may be TV (I
forget), but the key incidents reflect real desires of real people,
including the desire to preserve their connections.
It starts in a ballpark, with "the shot heard round the world," and
the baseball will be passed from person to person throughout the book.
It will become a metaphor (or is it metonymy or synechdoche? my
structuralism is fading) for the human desire for connection and for
history -- which, the very opening page announces, is the weave of all
human desires (it's a beautiful phrase, I should pull it out and get
it). It will also become a metaphor for the novelist's act of drawing
connections.
So much else functions that way in the book -- the yellow cab speeding
across the desert, the nexus of that lost love affair. DeLillo is
fascinated by the notion of plot (punning on conspiracy and novelist's
plot) and its relationship to history (punning on story). It traps
people, and they feel deadened by it, but they never revel in their
loss like a video-game player.
>What I was wondering was whether we can use that theory to refer to the
>internet. Substitute the tv with the computer. Would this theory explain some
>of the bizarre behaviour? What do you think of this theory?
Well, now you're losing me at a second remove, with a step from a
literary reading to a theory of history. That's a sign I gotta run.
<grin> But no question we use the Web to connect with each other.
You're my friends here, no? I am not quite ready to claim it's a lost
connection, a knight in shining armor. Perhaps for teenagers a sign
that connections are TOO easy in a more cynical world with no heros.
>Then I went on to mention the history of the internet
>being invented by the military, for the military,
It did start as Pentagon research, although I'm not sure it was
totally dominated by military objectives for long. Still, I'd like to
cling to that thought for a second. Gore took a lot of flak for
overstating his role in the Internet somehow. I'd like to think he
was reminding the country that, myths of free markets notwithstanding,
the kind of commitment to long-term research characteristic of
government and academia really underlies the success of the markets.
So mad lefties like me aren't necessarily commies so much as the
realists!
and
>... that it's main traffic & commerce today is pornography.
Are you kidding? It's main traffic??? It's big-time stuff these
days, kiddo, not a reactionary, nutty male subculture.
John
John Haber
post was really thoughtful.
John
John Haber
Thanks!
>but an insult to the group to suggest that without him
>no offence John) we would not be discussing art.
Dead on. I'm privileged to be joining some intense discussions here
with people I value. Besides, I'm know if it ever got puerile, Kay
would have ripped it to shreds long ago! <grin> And so far, all I've
done is use you guys! Totally.
I took the excuse of having to report to you to write up one of my
long blathers, which is my motivation of getting some of my notes on
paper. I totally realize that tends to block rather than encourage
discussion, so I thank you guys in advance.
john
Lauri.L.
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
(...)
> I think we should support each others right to complain - after all...
lauri:
I second that. About the time I was invited, someone
(who she was?)
explained that the essence of this group is tolerance
(or something like that)
Visual artists are almost by definition handicapped byverbal
clumsyness in social context. Without that handicap
they would be salespersons like Fizz.
To Marilyn
For my sake, here is discussion, even dabate of art and
related topics as much as I can take. I try to skip over the rest.
I got a lot of mental nourishment from EM, even though he tastes
as paper sometimes. (I am always suspicious that quotations
mark undidgested material.)
As important is to hear from you and Kay
the practising artist's common sense remarks.
so I see it
but I'm only a journeyman
- lauri
I use my name here, I'm not ashame of being invited
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kay
Lauri.L. wrote in message <7njm34$m8g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:In article <379CD09C...@tomatoweb.com>,
: "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
:(...)
:> I think we should support each others right to complain - after all...
:(...)
:lauri:
:I second that. About the time I was invited, someone
:(who she was?)
:explained that the essence of this group is tolerance
:(or something like that)
I think it was me, Lauri. We were very tolerant. Showed art. Critiqued one
another's art. Nice. Gee, do you remember when the tolerance stopped?
:
:Visual artists are almost by definition handicapped byverbal
:clumsyness in social context. Without that handicap
:they would be salespersons like Fizz.
:
:To Marilyn
:For my sake, here is discussion, even dabate of art and
:related topics as much as I can take. I try to skip over the rest.
:
:I got a lot of mental nourishment from EM, even though he tastes
:as paper sometimes. (I am always suspicious that quotations
:mark undidgested material.)
:As important is to hear from you and Kay
:the practising artist's common sense remarks.
:
:so I see it
:but I'm only a journeyman
:- lauri
:
:I use my name here, I'm not ashame of being invited
This is a big point, Lauri! You were invited. I was invited. Everyone who
posts here was invited and we had agreed in the past that it was inevitable
that someone from another group would one day do a search on one of us and
know of our existence and we also agreed to ignore them. If there are
*lurkers* out there, then they must post to raf. After a period of time, if
they post interesting things then a member submits the new person's name in
the group and we accept the proposed invitee or we reject the proposed
invitee (with discussion). This is an *invitational* group and any lurkers
out there should post on raf, if they aspire to be invited here.
Kay
: //www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
Kay
Marilyn wrote in message <379D06...@bc.ca>...
:1. a DejaNews search of author profile of anyone
: here Dan, Eric, etc.
: will reveal <alt.brallen> unless you are
: using a separate ID for each newsgroup.
I am guilty of this as well. I don't know how to change my address. We did
discuss this before you got alt.brallen and desided to ignore anyone who
found us.
:
:2. There have been people invited to join this
: group unknown to the majority of the group.
: They have not _complained_
: they unsuccessfully
: searched for art topics and mentioned this to me.
This must be something new because every single name posted here has been
either in the original group of people invited when Dan started this group
or has been proposed for membership in advance by a group member. Lurkers
should establish a posting history on raf and, if they are interesting,
someone will inevitably invite them. No lurker has ever contacted me. Funny
that lurker(s) have contacted you so quickly. That is better, I guess,
because I would advise them to post elsewhere. This is an invitational
group.
:3. As far as I know, literature is considered an art,
: so a discussion of books is on topic.
: Any reasonable topic is okay with me, until it
: descends into the personal-maudlin to the point that
: this group becomes a kind of crisis line.
Reasonable as defined by you, Marilyn, I think this is the problem we are
having here. I feel as though I'm living with a curfew all of a sudden. I
resent the freedom that you seem to be taking away with your new
restrictions and complaints.
:4. I believe the real annoyance about me began with my
: questioning of the recent flame war. So now
: on this _respite_ newsgroup there is an attempt
: at yet another flame war.
No, Marilyn, you explained that I misunderstood you and that you weren't
comparing me to Mattison and I took that at face value and forgot about it.
You're mention of our lack of art discussions was insulting to all of us who
have been discussing much art, giving critiques, etc. and who have also been
getting to know one another as people, as well. When I am out in the actual
non-cyberspace world, I meet an artist as an artist, THEN I get to know them
as a person. This usually takes ONE time. I am INTERESTED in all of this
off-topic stuff because it does pertain to the person, which creates the
art!
:5. Well let me assure you, there will be no flames
: from me. No response beyond this post made necessary to
: make some corrections to the two previous
: posts by Alison & Kay. As for the opinions,
: I have the courtesy to allow you to
: express them. Maybe you could do the same for
: future guests on this newsgroup.
Future guests, like past guests, have to be invited and I hope that when
they are invited, tolerance is taken into very, very serious consideration
in order to avoid this strife!
:signing off,
:
:Marilyn
Marilyn,
You insulted me when you had your emergency surgery. Then I received a type
of form letter sent to quite a few people apologising for any thing that you
may have said that offended anyone. I've had emergency surgery and I sure
was affected by the pain meds. (though they made me happy) so I forgot about
it. I was angry that you compared to to Mattison, you said I misunderstood,
so I forgot about. I am going to forget about this too and accept that you
are just, by nature, judgemental and perhaps unaware of it. I will
therefore be *tolerant* of you. I ask the same courtesy from you.
Kay
Quo Vadis
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
I agree - my reference to Marilyn sounding like Flowery Showers
obviously hit a nerve. I apologise to Marilyn for that. Still, nothing
like an eye for an eye - she got me back good !
I agree we should stick by each other ...... and what a lovely way to
put it, John - the collective *ideal* ! Brallenideology. Nice that.
Now what's all this about Ma ni being female ???
Lauri.L.
"Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> I think it was me, Lauri. We were very tolerant. Showed art. Critiqued
one
> another's art. Nice. Gee, do you remember when the tolerance stopped?
It didn't! I still keep reading you ;-)
I believe it can and must co-exist with our other emotinal responses.
- lauri
--
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>This must be something new because every single name posted here has been
>either in the original group of people invited when Dan started this group
>or has been proposed for membership in advance by a group member. Lurkers
>should establish a posting history on raf and, if they are interesting,
>someone will inevitably invite them. No lurker has ever contacted me. Funny
>that lurker(s) have contacted you so quickly. That is better, I guess,
>because I would advise them to post elsewhere. This is an invitational
>group.
I am not aware that the *rules* have changed - but maybe some of the new
people aren't aware of them. As the administrator, I suggest that not
only do I re-post the FAQ's that we originally agreed on but that some
amendments are made to cover some potential problems. I am going to do
this today - I am also going to submit our new group proposal to the alt
hierarchy in the inevitable event that we will have to move.
>Reasonable as defined by you, Marilyn, I think this is the problem we are
>having here. I feel as though I'm living with a curfew all of a sudden. I
>resent the freedom that you seem to be taking away with your new
>restrictions and complaints.
Well I certainly feel like that. Crisis line ? I thought we had created
an environment where we could open up and share our lives - some of us
here are now life long friends. Wouldn't you all agree ? Are we now to
start checking everything we say in case it offends someone ? You know,
I spend a lot of time amongst what I consider *real* artists - and the
ones that I spend a lot of time with are open and frank about life and
love. This environment is not r.a.f - if you want to go talk about art,
art, art why the hell not go there ? what was it a friend of mine
described this place as ? oh yes: we should regard alt.brallen as a turn
of the century Parisian cafe. A place where we talk about art, exchange
ideas, yet also, speak of sex, life, love, hopes, dreams, war, poverty,
etc. Isn't that quite brilliant ! Artists are a wonderful bunch - they
are driven by natural inquisitiveness; passion; excitement; a love of
life and between the need for solitude they also have an amazing need to
be amongst their own sort. Am I wrong here ?
Now back to it !!!
rdav...@my-deja.com
Quo Vadis <floa...@somewhere.inthe.comos> wrote:
we should regard alt.brallen as a
turn
> of the century Parisian cafe. A place where we talk about art,
exchange
> ideas, yet also, speak of sex, life, love, hopes, dreams, war,
poverty,
> etc. Isn't that quite brilliant ! Artists are a wonderful bunch -
they
> are driven by natural inquisitiveness; passion; excitement; a love of
> life and between the need for solitude they also have an amazing need
to
> be amongst their own sort. Am I wrong here ?
"talking about art is almost useless" Cezanne. I kind of agree with that
but of course I yak about art as much as the next artiste. I think that
we need this place to gather because we really are different. An artist
to me is someone who recognizes that the world is not just what we see.
There is another world and this really scares the average man because
it destoys his value system. His house of cards will come tumbling down.
Oh, come with old Khayam, and leave the wise
To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;
One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;
The flower that once has blown for ever dies.
ARdee
>
> Now back to it !!!
>
>
rdav...@my-deja.com
Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> In article <QQdn3.57157$AU3.1...@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it was me, Lauri. We were very tolerant. Showed art.
Critiqued
> one
> > another's art. Nice. Gee, do you remember when the tolerance
stopped?
> It didn't! I still keep reading you ;-)
> I believe it can and must co-exist with our other emotinal responses.
>
> - lauri
with 2 people joining together because they believe in each other, and
over time that belief is tested over and over again. Tolerance can keep
you together but I think it has its limits.
I think it is part of my nature to try to be kind to others (a true
Canadian is always polite), especially to dolts and imbeciles.
In order for a very shy person like myself to speak his mind knowing
that one will be tolerated is not enough. I am like a baby that needs to
be tickled under the chin and then I will start to coo. Of course, like
a baby I also need my diaper changed once in awhile.
whatever you do don't touch me feet.
ARdee
Quo Vadis
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>Dead on. I'm privileged to be joining some intense discussions here
>with people I value. Besides, I'm know if it ever got puerile, Kay
>would have ripped it to shreds long ago! <grin> And so far, all I've
>done is use you guys! Totally.
And we are glad to have you here, John ! Use us ??? isn't that what
Usenet is for - anyone who doesn't realise that is being very, very
naive - I guess you probably missed the episode where I gave Ma ni a
virtual blow job on r.a.f - he has only posted once since then (god I
hope he is ok, seriously, because I am kind of fond of him really) - oh
yes, and you missed Dan's confession to being about ten of the
characters on r.a.f - what a laugh ! But seriously, an environment like
this where we are all old friends (and some new) does allow intense
discussions ... and I for one, am very glad for it.
>
>I took the excuse of having to report to you to write up one of my
>long blathers, which is my motivation of getting some of my notes on
>paper. I totally realize that tends to block rather than encourage
>discussion, so I thank you guys in advance.
Well I certainly don't mind you using me as a sounding board - keep 'em
coming - been missing them on r.a.f.
Cheers ! Alison
Kay
Marilyn wrote:
(snip)
:
:Kay:
:
:I sure don't know what you are talking about, insulting you
:when I had surgery, that was 2-1/2 months ago. Why didn't
:you say something then?
I ignored your posts on raf. What was there to say?
: I never send form letters.
:It was something you obviously misunderstood once again.
Perhaps.
:I thanked you for your note,
:that's all I remember.
I remember that you scolded me for a comment with your response "we aren't
in the schoolyard anymore..." Quite insulting, actually.
:Lurkers are people who were invited but chose to lurk
:instead of post here. They just read - they don't post.
:They were invited by me, and I checked with Dan about
:my invitees.
Then this was a new rule and special exemption that the rest of us were
totally unaware of. We have always posted a possible participant's name in
full view of the entire group for people to comment upon.
: One of them was my daughter. I told her
:it was a new group who were going to discuss art & ideas,
:and what does she see? something about giving someone a
:blow job.
Lighten up, Marilyn! If you want to be a good mother, then for goodness
sakes, shouldn't you WANT your daughter to be able to give a good blow job?
And she'd be learning from a master, Alison is world-famous in this. Blow
job, blow job, blow job. It won't kill you, it won't hurt you. It's part
of life and there is no Santa (sorry to destroy all illusions). I would
recommend that your daughter establish a posting history in raf. We really
don't know what she is like. She would, of course, have to be tolerant and
not afraid of someone discussing blow jobs.
You want to continue that kind of repartee,
:that's your business.
Yes, actually, I do want to feel free to discuss whatever "pops up" which
would include topics such as the above. I will not censor myself in this
group because you have invited your daughter. I assume she is an adult.
:All the things you say about me are right there in your
:own letters.
Sounds like your comparison of me and Mattison. I don't know what you are
talking about.
Your discussion about your rules, your intolerance
:of someone not like you, it is all there.
I have no rules. I follow your rules. Accept that please.
:Please continue to have the fun you were having.
:
:Marilyn
You come and rain on my parade and leave me drenched from your downpour and
say "Please continue to have the fun you were having", are you crazy?
Kay
Erik A. Mattila
enemies. It stopped, turned, and saw a large dust cloud on the horizon as its
natural enemies drew closer. It continued, but came to a large river. It could
not swim. Looking around, it saw a croc sunning itself in the mud. It
approached the croc and asked for a lift across the River. "Nothing doing" said
the croc, "I know all about you snakes, with your sharp fangs, venom, and all
that."
"But you don't understand" said the snake. "Look" pointing to the dust cloud
which was drawing nearer, "My natural enemies are closer, and my only chance is
to get across the river." Croc felt sorry for the snake, and finally
acquiesced. The Snaked climbed on its back as it oozed across the water, and
slithered down the corc's nose on to the opposite bank. But then the snake
turned around quickly and bit the croc on the nose. As the croc was convulsing
from the effects of the venon, it uttered "I should have trusted my instinct! Do
a snake a favor, and what do you get? An agonizing death!"
The snake blinked, and said "Well, that's Africa, baby!"
I don't know where that story came from -- I mean in response to this. I suppose
it's something to do with inevitability, or rather that things will continue
along as they are preordained. In this case, we're dealing with personalties,
and people will continue being their 'person' no matter what.
Complaining about alt.brallen has a good purpose, I think, but at the same time
the complaint is likely to be impotent -- that is beyond the knowledge others may
have about a partcular person's values and interests. I would guess that any
group could only share a commonality in values and interests that are marginal,
or very general, because once it gets down to the level of the individual all
sorts of special interests are involved. So Tolerance is nothing more that
accepting the generalizsed idea of a collective endeavor.
Another story - this one real. In 1960 I worked as a counselor at a summer camp
with a fellow named Gia Fu Feng. Gia Fu was a beatnik Chinese Zen Philosopher
(he was Alan Watts teacher). He was a pretty amazing human being, always able
'know' exactly where the 'key' was in any collective human disharmony. (But he
wasn't a goodie-goodie type of guy, he was 'rough'). So one evening we (the
counselors) were sitting around in our 'safe room' (away from the kids) and we
heard this terrible language coming from the shower house - a cacophany of
cursing. The head counselor was horrified, and we ran up the hill to
investigate. Entering the showers, there were all these naked 8 year old boys
jumping in joy in the water shouting, with considerable glee, all their
profanities to the gods "goddam, shit, piss, hell, fuck, sonnabitch, and so on".
I've never seen such expressions of joy. And speaking of joy, there was Gia Fu
standing in the corner, rubbing his hands together, with a giant, warm smile on
his face. Head Counselor approaches him and shouts in his face "What is the
meaing of this, Gia Fu!!!" Gia Fu answers "Well, the boys seemed to be a little
tense. I thought I would give them some "free expression." Here's my theory
about this. That was 39 years ago. Those 'boys' are now 48, worrying about 50.
What do you think they remember about that summer camp?
Erik
Marilyn wrote:
> Kay wrote:
> >
> > Marilyn wrote in message <379D06...@bc.ca>...
> > :1. a DejaNews search of author profile of anyone
> > : here Dan, Eric, etc.
> > : will reveal <alt.brallen> unless you are
> > : using a separate ID for each newsgroup.
> >
> > I am guilty of this as well. I don't know how to change my address. We did
> > discuss this before you got alt.brallen and desided to ignore anyone who
> > found us.
> > :
> > :2. There have been people invited to join this
> > : group unknown to the majority of the group.
> > : They have not _complained_
> > : they unsuccessfully
> > : searched for art topics and mentioned this to me.
> >
> > This must be something new because every single name posted here has been
> > either in the original group of people invited when Dan started this group
> > or has been proposed for membership in advance by a group member. Lurkers
> > should establish a posting history on raf and, if they are interesting,
> > someone will inevitably invite them. No lurker has ever contacted me. Funny
> > that lurker(s) have contacted you so quickly. That is better, I guess,
> > because I would advise them to post elsewhere. This is an invitational
> > group.
> >
> > :3. As far as I know, literature is considered an art,
> > : so a discussion of books is on topic.
> > : Any reasonable topic is okay with me, until it
> > : descends into the personal-maudlin to the point that
> > : this group becomes a kind of crisis line.
> >
> > Reasonable as defined by you, Marilyn, I think this is the problem we are
> > having here. I feel as though I'm living with a curfew all of a sudden. I
> > resent the freedom that you seem to be taking away with your new
> > restrictions and complaints.
> >
> Kay:
>
> I sure don't know what you are talking about, insulting you
> when I had surgery, that was 2-1/2 months ago. Why didn't
> you say something then? I never send form letters.
> It was something you obviously misunderstood once again.
> I thanked you for your note,
> that's all I remember.
>
> Lurkers are people who were invited but chose to lurk
> instead of post here. They just read - they don't post.
> They were invited by me, and I checked with Dan about
> my invitees. One of them was my daughter. I told her
> it was a new group who were going to discuss art & ideas,
> and what does she see? something about giving someone a
> blow job. You want to continue that kind of repartee,
> that's your business.
>
> All the things you say about me are right there in your
> own letters. Your discussion about your rules, your intolerance
> of someone not like you, it is all there.
>
Quo Vadis
>"talking about art is almost useless" Cezanne. I kind of agree with that
>but of course I yak about art as much as the next artiste. I think that
>we need this place to gather because we really are different. An artist
>to me is someone who recognizes that the world is not just what we see.
>There is another world and this really scares the average man because
>it destoys his value system. His house of cards will come tumbling down.
You know, we live and breathe art all day long ... some of us ...
sometimes it is good to write about art, sometimes it is good to just
know that your friends, however different, also think and live art and
just have some fun. And anyway, I need you all to stop me feeling as
though this studio could become a prison from the outside world ... you
remind me it is there.
In the good old days ;-) the list Artcrit, where I met Peter, was a
collection of people, mostly artists, who talked about gardening and
cooking and on the odd occasion art. In amongst all that we discussed
and listened to so many of other people's problems and also their joys.
The atmosphere was cordial and secure in the knowledge that we all
shared similar and also very different concerns. Then some bright spark
still in art school who thought she knew it all complained about the
lack of art talk and a whole bunch more joined in and from then on it
was down hill for that list. That bright spark was me, and I never
forgave myself because on my last visit there, a bunch of academics were
squabbling about who was the best artist and the discussions were
nothing but power talks. Let's not go there, eh ?
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
(snip)
:Entering the showers, there were all these naked 8 year old boys
:jumping in joy in the water shouting, with considerable glee, all their
:profanities to the gods "goddam, shit, piss, hell, fuck, sonnabitch, and so
on".
:I've never seen such expressions of joy. And speaking of joy, there was
Gia Fu
:standing in the corner, rubbing his hands together, with a giant, warm
smile on
:his face. Head Counselor approaches him and shouts in his face "What is
the
:meaing of this, Gia Fu!!!" Gia Fu answers "Well, the boys seemed to be a
little
:tense. I thought I would give them some "free expression." Here's my
theory
:about this. That was 39 years ago. Those 'boys' are now 48, worrying
about 50.
:What do you think they remember about that summer camp?
:
:Erik
Sounds like these may be the best memories of their childhood... Nice
stories (nothing to do with art, of course)... I was embarrassed because I
thought "It looks like all the women are fighting" and assumed that the men
were standing by reading it with a superior smirk on their collective faces.
Then I remembered the posts of the past few days from men to men. Seems
like you have been getting curt responses, Erik. I guess you are less
confrontational than I and you have a wonderfully collection of stories to
offset every comment. Nice approach to life. Now, back to my intensity!
Kay
Erik A. Mattila
> I got a lot of mental nourishment from EM, even though he tastes
> as paper sometimes. (I am always suspicious that quotations
> mark undidgested material.)
> As important is to hear from you and Kay
> the practising artist's common sense remarks.
Of course, I can quote undigested material. One reason I like to write it
out is that I can't really understasnd anything unless I use it. So you
are nothing more than a laboratory rat to me. Ha ha ha ha. I'm yoking, of
course, but not about having to 'act out' things in order to understand
them.
I think you need to spit out what's on your heart. You're hinting at
things when you create polarities like "intellecutal" and "intelligent',
'common sense' and 'tastes like paper'. Why don't you just say what you
feel?
If you were in the US I could pin you down as a typical anti-intellectual,
a position that is institutionalized in this counrty. But I don't really
know what it means in Finland. When I read S.C.N. I get the impression
that generally Scandinavians are pretty intellectual, at least those who
participate in that n.g. But I've run into Finns in the US, especially the
Wisconsin species, who have institutionalized shallowness and
superficiality as a cultural value.
But this is really autobiograhpical, Lauri, I mean my sensitivities. I've
been punished all my life by my peers for being inclined to think about
things -- even ostracized in many cases. One time when I was in Vietnam a
sergeant asked me a question, and my answer was "not particularly" and he
turned to the Major and said "See..." as he pointed to his head. The only
real distinction between 'no' and 'not particularly' is vocabulary skills,
but it is elevated to the status of a social 'type' i.e. the egghead, the
pseudo-intellectual, geeks, nerds, and whatever. "No' is a very general,
unfocused response to a question. "not particularly' is a focused,
conditional response (there may be circumstances where the answer was 'yes'
if the question itself had any focus.)
Here's something to think about. I've spent several years of my life
living in Indian communities. By and large, Native Americans in this
country are not well educated, especially the older generation, who have
typically dropped out of school at the second or third grade because of the
intense prejudice they encountered, and a bunch of other reasons. Many of
these uneducated ones were very brilliant - good, deep thinkers about the
things of our lives. Some were outstanding - I've seen a man with a second
grade education hold a group of lawyers in a trance with his legal
knowledge -- gained by reading law books by the light of a kerosene lamp,
and figuring it out for himself, But my point is that whatever knowledge
and education I personally had was always respected in an Indian
community. I never ran across that anti-intellectual bullshit there. It
was when I stepped out of this sort of community that the scorn and disdain
of 'knowing' something came to be - by the white community. There's you're
'common sense' for you. It's nothing but an alibi. A person can always
create the fiction of attainment by devaluing everything that surrounds
him. Like a Bell Cuve.
Erik
Quo Vadis
>I think it is part of my nature to try to be kind to others (a true
>Canadian is always polite), especially to dolts and imbeciles.
You know, my bestest friend in the world ;-) just got back from three
weeks in Toronto. She said she found the Canadians to be so rude ...
couldn't believe it, because I always thought them so gentle. Still, two
disclaimers on this in two days ... you've got some work to do ARdee to
convince me otherwise.
>In order for a very shy person like myself to speak his mind knowing
>that one will be tolerated is not enough. I am like a baby that needs to
>be tickled under the chin and then I will start to coo.
we can do that.
> Of course, like
>a baby I also need my diaper changed once in awhile.
and that if we must.
>
>whatever you do don't touch me feet.
>ARdee
>
Bloody right - those feet belong to me.
Stop snoring, ARdee.
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Lighten up, Marilyn! If you want to be a good mother, then for goodness
>sakes, shouldn't you WANT your daughter to be able to give a good blow job?
>And she'd be learning from a master, Alison is world-famous in this. Blow
>job, blow job, blow job. It won't kill you, it won't hurt you. It's part
>of life and there is no Santa (sorry to destroy all illusions). I would
>recommend that your daughter establish a posting history in raf. We really
>don't know what she is like. She would, of course, have to be tolerant and
>not afraid of someone discussing blow jobs.
>
ROFLWMK ..... you can say it, Kay !!! took a little while but you made
it.
Erik A. Mattila
and 70s. My idea is that these tried to 'invent' culture, and it didn't
work out. The rare survivals, like Tassahara (sp?) in New Mexico were
organized around a totalitarian ethic disguised as religious enlighenment.
I like your reference to marriage. What makes a marriage survive over time
is the ability of its subjects to commit - not necessarily to each other,
but to the ideal of marriage (or any other social contract.) High divorce
rates seem to reflect a general inability to commit to a plan.
Politness is ok, in my opinion, until it begins to repress the 'person' in
the theorem. A good 'go to hell' can be refreshing -- ah, at last I've
returned to the world.
regards,
Erik
rdav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7nkanm$3s1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> > In article <QQdn3.57157$AU3.1...@news2.giganews.com>,
> > "Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it was me, Lauri. We were very tolerant. Showed art.
> Critiqued
> > one
> > > another's art. Nice. Gee, do you remember when the tolerance
> stopped?
> > It didn't! I still keep reading you ;-)
> > I believe it can and must co-exist with our other emotinal responses.
> >
> > - lauri
> In my experience with groups: they remind me of marriage, which begins
> with 2 people joining together because they believe in each other, and
> over time that belief is tested over and over again. Tolerance can keep
> you together but I think it has its limits.
> I think it is part of my nature to try to be kind to others (a true
> Canadian is always polite), especially to dolts and imbeciles.
> In order for a very shy person like myself to speak his mind knowing
> that one will be tolerated is not enough. I am like a baby that needs to
> be tickled under the chin and then I will start to coo. Of course, like
> a baby I also need my diaper changed once in awhile.
>
> whatever you do don't touch me feet.
> ARdee
>
Dan Fox
> 60s and 70s. My idea is that these tried to 'invent' culture, and it
> didn't work out. The rare survivals, like Tassahara (sp?) in New Mexico
> were organized around a totalitarian ethic disguised as religious
> enlighenment.
I was right in the middle of the hippie culture, but never bought into
much of it (although I did have hair down to my ass!) I was (and am)
more of the bohemian persuasion.
I think the hippies failed for several reasons: first, they denied the
laws of nature. The notion that if we all just kind of love each other
we won't need doctors and engineers and agronomists just isn't true.
Second, they denied human nature (which is akin to inventing culture).
People behave in certain ways, regardless of your wishes and desires that
they be otherwise. Wishing doesn't make it so (another law of nature).
Third, many of the hippies weren't serious - they were just doing what
was in fashion at the time. When the fashion changed they all put on suits
and became investment bankers.
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
Kay
whole thing for me. Also, I couldn't abandon my mascara and blusher. My
opinion: Drugs ruined it...
Kay
Keith O'Connor wrote in message <379E4C38...@home.com>...
:The only thing I liked about being a hippy was the
:sex.
:
:have fun
:
:_____tinman end_____
:
:Dan Fox wrote:
:>
rdav...@my-deja.com
Quo Vadis <floa...@somewhere.inthe.comos> wrote:
> In article <7nknnh$d21$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, rdav...@my-deja.com writes
>
> >Canadian is always polite), especially to dolts and imbeciles.
>
> weeks in Toronto. She said she found the Canadians to be so rude ...
> couldn't believe it, because I always thought them so gentle. Still,
two
> disclaimers on this in two days ... you've got some work to do ARdee
to
> convince me otherwise.
Doesn't surprise me about Toronto, but thats just a little blackhead on
the back of Canada. I think you would find if you travelled across this
big bugger of a country that we are quite a nice bunch.
My wife and I travelled to Paris years ago and concluded Parisians were
the rudest of people but at the same time I have never enjoyed a city
more. That reminds me, on the way downtown from the airport on the bus
there were some crude tourists demanding the bus driver take them to see
the Eiffel Tower.
Of course all the National Museums were on stike for the duration of our
stay.
ARdee
>
> Stop snoring, ARdee.
Quo Vadis
>Lurkers are people who were invited but chose to lurk
>instead of post here. They just read - they don't post.
>They were invited by me, and I checked with Dan about
>my invitees. One of them was my daughter. I told her
>it was a new group who were going to discuss art & ideas,
>and what does she see? something about giving someone a
>blow job. You want to continue that kind of repartee,
>that's your business.
You know, it *is* our business what we do or say here and I for one, am
going to air mine because I have tried to keep quiet and just let the
whole thing go over my head.
There has been a lot of talk of tolerance here and frankly mine just
went out the window when Marilyn posted to Kay that she was going to
report her to the ISPs - for what I ask ? She says for insulting her and
her family. For stepping on her precious little toes. Someone explain to
Marilyn that the servers don't care about stuff like that. While she
wastes their time being delicate, they have to deal with death threats
and cults and child pornography. Its like complaining to the cops that
the next door neighbours dog made a mess on your lawn.
Kay has done nothing but be honest and on this occasion she did it to
stand up for me - loyalty is something Marilyn obviously knows nothing
about, judging from her stupid remark to Kay about that psycho Mattison.
I wonder if she remembers telling me on r.a.f that she had no respect
for me because I commented on some very good points that burning chrome
and Bryan made during one of *her* scuffles. I stand by what I said
then: Marilyn doesn't understand what respect is.
Marilyn has posted regarding me - she hasn't directed a single thing at
me but it is clear who she disapproves of. I have no intention of being
anyone I am not, not here or in real life, and I can't do a thing about
my past except accept it as *past* and celebrate that I came through
happy and well balanced. In my epitaph it will say that I didn't suffer
fools. At least I am honest. Marilyn has been two faced and back handed
about her remarks concerning the nature of my posts. It seems if she is
offended by what I have talked about that perhaps she ought to do
exactly what she advises Kay to do a few days ago. I wonder if she
remembers.
Finally, Marilyn had no right to bring people here unannounced. we
decided from the onset that we would ask the permission of the other
members. Dan is wrong for saying she could without asking the rest of
us. In fact I go further and say how dare he. As far as I am concerned
Marilyn owes Kay an apology for her unnecessary threat and after that if
she continues to subscribe here then she must do so without inflicting
her restrictions on the rest of us. I certainly will not be intimidated
by her presence and will continue to be exactly the person that I am
irrespective of whether or not Marilyn approves of me.
I feel very sad that this has happened, but maybe it will be a good
thing for the future of the group. When it all dies down we will get
back to having the fun we were having before and the people who can't
stand the heat will have fled. Lessons learned and all.
Quo Vadis
>Doesn't surprise me about Toronto, but thats just a little blackhead on
>the back of Canada. I think you would find if you travelled across this
>big bugger of a country that we are quite a nice bunch.
Like all other nations - there are good and bad. One day I will travel
through Canada. I got halfway there once - my man and I brought a boat
from the West Indies, through the Bahamas and into South Carolina
heading Intracoastal for Toronto. Then he did a runner leaving me with
the boat and no money and a very unhappy Canadian owner (they were a
lovely Canadian family)
>My wife and I travelled to Paris years ago and concluded Parisians were
>the rudest of people but at the same time I have never enjoyed a city
>more. That reminds me, on the way downtown from the airport on the bus
>there were some crude tourists demanding the bus driver take them to see
>the Eiffel Tower.
Again, I found Paris to be very difficult - but aren't most cities ?
Must be the toxic fumes they/we breathe all day. Its easy to stereotype
based on those sort experiences. My head waiter from many years ago was
a frog (that's how he signs himself) - he is a beautiful person and gets
jobs all over the world because of his incredible manners. I just had my
first Email from him today after ten years of being out of touch - he
has been working in Japan and now has moved to Portugal. What an amazing
life !
>Of course all the National Museums were on stike for the duration of our
>stay.
Naturally ! I wonder if they ever achieve anything ?
Alison
Kay
Quo Vadis wrote:
:
:
:>Of course all the National Museums were on stike for the duration of our
:>stay.
:
:Naturally ! I wonder if they ever achieve anything ?
:
:Alison
I would have to side with the strikers. The museums are putting on
blockbuster exhibits with people waiting in lines like cattle to get in. The
museum workers are working so much harder for the same amount of pay. I
don't blame them at all. The gift shops make a fortune and the donors
supporting the museums are more supportive as well. I would hate to be on
vacation and not see the art (break my heart!), but, I would understand the
reasoning for the strike.
Kay
Kay
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
:In article <379fbb6...@news.onepine.com>, John Haber
:<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
:>>Now what's all this about Ma ni being female ???
:>
:>Ooops. Sorry, my friend. Meant Mattison.
:>
:>John
:
:well it kept me busy in a traffic jam the other night, John. Kept
:thinking, shit, I hope I didn't give a woman a virtual blow-job. I
:figured it out though ! Whoops, there I go talking about blow jobs at
:six thirty in the morning. Off to work I go ... hauling paintings around
:town, that's all !
Maybe a hermaphrodite?
Then would you be bi-sexual or tri-sexual?
Kay
John Haber
John Haber
>between the need for solitude they also have an amazing need
>to be amongst their own sort.
Nice one.
John
Quo Vadis
>
>Ooops. Sorry, my friend. Meant Mattison.
>
>John
well it kept me busy in a traffic jam the other night, John. Kept
rdav...@my-deja.com
Yes it did break my heart. But its funny because I ended up feeling it
was a blessing in disguise. Instead of spending our time in museums we
walked the streets and got to know ( superficially) the Paris of the
present. It is easy to go into a big gallery and get overwelmed, you go
from one great painting to the next not really seeing. For Alison it is
probably different, being close to such galleries, and being able to
look at one piece at a time and truly study it. I think my brain can
only really take in so much and then it seizes up.
brains go on stike to
ARdee
Quo Vadis
>
>Yes it did break my heart. But its funny because I ended up feeling it
>was a blessing in disguise. Instead of spending our time in museums we
>walked the streets and got to know ( superficially) the Paris of the
>present. It is easy to go into a big gallery and get overwelmed, you go
>from one great painting to the next not really seeing. For Alison it is
>probably different, being close to such galleries, and being able to
>look at one piece at a time and truly study it. I think my brain can
>only really take in so much and then it seizes up.
>
>brains go on stike to
>ARdee
Hadn't considered that, ARdee. I suppose I do tend to go back and back
to the same paintings time after time at places like the National
Gallery and always to the Turner rooms at the Tate - that collection
alone has near on to a thousand paintings - maybe more. But mostly it is
just *visiting* shows and because I usually do so many shows in one day,
for time reasons, I rush around skimming for that which interests me.
Does anyone else do that ? I walk into a gallery and if it fails to lure
me immediately then I am afraid I am out of there. I am sure I miss a
lot of good stuff because I do that but I am looking for aesthetic
excitement not intellectual challenge. In fact the more time I spend in
the studio the more that art becomes nothing more than a joyous
experience ... like sex (yes, sorry, but it's true). Far removed from
what Erik considers *art* to be, or maybe not ?????
John: (by the way have you two met - you and ARdee/Ron ?) do you
remember me remarking on how the Sensation show kept enticing me back
for more ? I started with such a negative concept of the show and went
in snarling - after I came out I was stopped and interview by a press
officer and I said something about it bring life back into British art
and changing the name of the Academy. Of course the next show they put
on was a Victorian fairy painting show !! I guess Sensation was their
token gesture to coming into the 20th century as it departs !
Brain just had a shock and woke up !
Al
Erik A. Mattila
during strikes, charges desperate tourists high admission in order to raise
stirke funds? Musee l' resistasnce, or something like that.
Taxi drivers, on the other hand, could create an amusement park, which
allows frustrated tourists to throw small French atomic bombs at taxi cabs.
Erik
rdav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <h9Kn3.59246$AU3.1...@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> >
> > Quo Vadis wrote:
> > :
> > :
> > :>Of course all the National Museums were on stike for the duration of
> our
> > :>stay.
> > :
> > :Naturally ! I wonder if they ever achieve anything ?
> > :
> > :Alison
> >
> > I would have to side with the strikers. The museums are putting on
> > blockbuster exhibits with people waiting in lines like cattle to get
> in. The
> > museum workers are working so much harder for the same amount of pay.
> I
> > don't blame them at all. The gift shops make a fortune and the donors
> > supporting the museums are more supportive as well. I would hate to be
> on
> > vacation and not see the art (break my heart!), but, I would
> understand the
> > reasoning for the strike.
> > Kay
>
> Yes it did break my heart. But its funny because I ended up feeling it
> was a blessing in disguise. Instead of spending our time in museums we
> walked the streets and got to know ( superficially) the Paris of the
> present. It is easy to go into a big gallery and get overwelmed, you go
> from one great painting to the next not really seeing. For Alison it is
> probably different, being close to such galleries, and being able to
> look at one piece at a time and truly study it. I think my brain can
> only really take in so much and then it seizes up.
>
> brains go on stike to
> ARdee
>
> >
> >
>
rdav...@my-deja.com
> during strikes, charges desperate tourists high admission in order to
raise
> stirke funds? Musee l' resistasnce, or something like that.
>
> Taxi drivers, on the other hand, could create an amusement park, which
> allows frustrated tourists to throw small French atomic bombs at taxi
cabs.
>
> Erik
>
the cab, just after disembarking from the bus and on our way to the
hotel. As we approached our hotel I started to worry about our lack of
hard currency and piped up " accepty-vous les travellers cheques"
His reply " no shake, man."
Finally got into our hotel exhausted after the gruelling flight
(couldn't land in Paris due to fog so had to visit Marseille for a few
hours before we could return.) Immediately fell asleep only to wake a
couple of hours later to discouver our suitcase was missing. Frantically
opened our door and there in the hall it sat.
a totally franc story