A vote for ROBERT is a vote for AMERICA!
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
We are gathered here today on this great battlefield called Usenet, to
participate in a historic event of astronomical proportions and dire
consequence. Some twenty years ago, my friend and musical associate
performed with said rock ensemble, Captain Beefheart & The Magic Band.
His legacy is secured, he has made his mark, and continues to bring
smiles to the faces of children, men and Asian women all over the
world with his unique blend of groovy rock and roll and
techno-midi-type stuff and all. We are here today to cast a vote,
testing whether this newsgroup, or any newsgroup, can long endure.
Now you all know that I must sadly announce that in the name of
justice and fair play, that I must decline the temptation to vote in
this particular matter of the case of Williams vs. BatPuller, as there
exists an obvious bias in favor of Mr. Williams, HOWEVER--I must say
that this issue must not be ignored, ladies and gentlemen! I say the
time is now! The day has come to speak out, and make your voice
heard, my fellow, uh, whatever the hell you are! Take action! Take
control of your lives, now, before it's too late! They're coming!
They're coming! The old grey goose LIVES, and the SKY IS FALLING,
ladies and gents! JESUS WILL APPEAR IN THE SKY, floating around in
outer space somewhere, holding his arms up, looking dismal and
frowning, and WHY? WHY? WHY, you ask? Because of the hatred. The
hostility. The petty name-calling. The silly threats. Oh, my god,
my god! Forgive these sinners, for they know what what they do!
Please don't urinate on us from outer space! Please don't let the Los
Angeles parking violations bureau win this terrible war with me!
Please don't let TV Land cancel Sanford & Son! I'm sorry! I beg of
ye, oh lord, to cut me a break. I cannot vote in this matter, but
instead urge all to vote for Mr. Williams because he is the RIGHT man
for the job, the HONEST man, the man who can best represent AMERICA in
it's fight against the aggressive expansionist dictatorships of the
world, like England and Canada! Satan I rebuke thee! Satan I rebuke
thee! Mine eyes have SEEN the glory! Hail Jesus! Hail Harry
Krishna! Praise be to King George III! I have come to praise Robert
Williams, not to bury him! A VOTE FOR ROBERT WILLIAMS IS A VOTE FOR
DECENCY, a vote for integrity, a vote for, uh, PERCUSSION! Don't let
this rare opportunity to invoke your civil rights pass you by! Take
the time, the energy, the spiritual wherewithal, to GET DOWN AND
BOOGIE, JACK! Do the m'bugulu on dere bald haids, and lay the smack
down on the bad guys! Woooooo! I feel good!
I thank you for your time.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/ (still under construction)
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Willlbr
Cut the crap! Don't use my situation to half ass defend me. Shit or get off the
pot. Fuck, a vote is a vote. No one really gives a shit if you're biased or
not. Actually it doesn't really matter. The only fun I've had in this group
lately has been to tear a new asshole for Mr. Batpuller. Until now it's been
"Has Don ever posted in this ng...?" etc...add nausium. Well, I DON"T THINK
SO!!!!! 'Charlie don't surf' and neither does Don.
Why I have has only been out of boredom but in my search for a diversion I find
myself bored beyond tears. John French e-mailed me the other day saying that
he's finished with the music business and finished in his attempts to win the
acceptance of people out there especially Beefheart fans. Now I feel the same
way. What's the point? Doing music that is adventurous may be admirable and
risk-taking but if the very few you try to entertain turn their back on you,
how are you expected to feel? You're walking uphill as it is. When one of them
starts adding weight to your backpack (especially when it's someone your
delivering the goods to) you start to wonder what's the point is.
Yeah, Don's a hero. I miss him and don't regret a moment of the time I spent in
his band. But he got there by cheating, lying to and manipulating the musicians
who loved him most. Now he's dying and he'll go down a hero. Who do you think
suffered the most to bring him to that level? People like Zoot Horn Rollo, Ed
Marimba and Drumbo back then. And later to resurrect his reputation? Jeff
Morris Tepper, Eric Feldman and yours truly, Robert Williams. We worked our
asses off for years. We were promised a half a point from Shiny Beast and never
got a dime, and Don would drive down from Lancaster, CA once a week only to
sit there in rehearsal and talk shit and slow down the rehearsal process. You
think that all those parts were his? Get a reality check!
Then you have people like batpuller making his remarks and you wonder why I
react the way I do.
Beefheart fans! Ugh! What are your numbers? Where are you when you're needed?
The only thing I've ever gotten from a Beefheart fan was a question..."What was
it like to work with Don?"
Here's my answer>>>>It was nothing but creditless hard work and very, very
little pay with some serious abuse thrown in as a bonus!
So now I expect you to find me a beautiful Japanese girl who's a virtuoso
keyboard player to join my band without pay and play music that she'd never
understand and promise not to cry when I tell her in rehearsal that she's
playing it all wrong. But it's OK because the Beefheart fans are gonna love it.
Yeah, right!
Robert Arthur Williams Wil...@aol.com
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
>Zoogz!
>Cut the crap! Don't use my situation to half ass defend me. Shit or get off the
>pot.
Oh, I'm not EXTREME enough for you, is that it? :P
Picabia
(Willlbr) wrote:
> Zoogz!
> Cut the crap! Don't use my situation to half ass defend me. Shit or get
off the
> pot.
You didn't think thast was funny. I don't know, the guy just makes me laugh.
>Until now it's been
> "Has Don ever posted in this ng...?" etc...add nausium. Well, I DON"T THINK
> SO!!!!! 'Charlie don't surf' and neither does Don.
Hahahahahahahahahaha......................Now THAT was funny.
> Doing music that is adventurous may be admirable and
> risk-taking but if the very few you try to entertain turn their back on you,
> how are you expected to feel?
Like an artist. Knowing that the only path is personal expression no matter
what the reaction.
> Yeah, Don's a hero. I miss him and don't regret a moment of the time I
spent in
> his band. But he got there by cheating, lying to and manipulating the
musicians
> who loved him most.
Par for the course.
>We were promised a half a point from Shiny Beast and never
> got a dime, and Don would drive down from Lancaster, CA once a week only to
> sit there in rehearsal and talk shit and slow down the rehearsal process. You
> think that all those parts were his? Get a reality check!
I'm sorry to hear that.
> Beefheart fans! Ugh! What are your numbers? Where are you when you're needed?
To do what? I bought all the albums and saw him 6 times live. What else was
needed from me?
What ever you contributed is certainly appeciated by me. I never thought
Don was a saint ....... Just one of the greatest American composers since
Charles Ives.
Picabia
Michael H.
> My fellow Americans (and even you greasy foreigners),
a little dab will do yuh
The HKs would have done better if they had had racing stripes on their
bald heads. I know it though. They have the world's greatest food. Learn
the tune for a great meal!
>Praise be to King George III! I have come to praise Robert
> Williams, not to bury him! A VOTE FOR ROBERT WILLIAMS IS A VOTE FOR
> DECENCY, a vote for integrity, a vote for, uh, PERCUSSION! Don't let
> this rare opportunity to invoke your civil rights pass you by! Take
> the time, the energy, the spiritual wherewithal, to GET DOWN AND
> BOOGIE, JACK! Do the m'bugulu on dere bald haids, and lay the smack
> down on the bad guys! Woooooo! I feel good!
> I thank you for your time.
Well said.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> Zoogz!
> Cut the crap! Don't use my situation to half ass defend me. Shit or get off the
> pot. Fuck, a vote is a vote. No one really gives a shit if you're biased or
> not. Actually it doesn't really matter. The only fun I've had in this group
> lately has been to tear a new asshole for Mr. Batpuller. Until now it's been
> "Has Don ever posted in this ng...?" etc...add nausium. Well, I DON"T THINK
> SO!!!!! 'Charlie don't surf' and neither does Don.
Like, duh.
> Why I have has only been out of boredom but in my search for a diversion I find
> myself bored beyond tears. John French e-mailed me the other day saying that
> he's finished with the music business and finished in his attempts to win the
> acceptance of people out there especially Beefheart fans.
That is preposterous, because only a Beefheart fan would buy a
drums-only album by French and rave about it. I love it and play it all
the time.
> Now I feel the same
> way. What's the point? Doing music that is adventurous may be admirable and
> risk-taking but if the very few you try to entertain turn their back on you,
> how are you expected to feel? You're walking uphill as it is. When one of them
> starts adding weight to your backpack (especially when it's someone your
> delivering the goods to) you start to wonder what's the point is.
But the net is full of Bat-Pullers and AZZAPs who dump on you. Every CB
fan who bought your CD and French's CD were knocked off the map by them.
You are not appealing to the masses, so neither of you can complain.
> Yeah, Don's a hero. I miss him and don't regret a moment of the time I spent in
> his band. But he got there by cheating, lying to and manipulating the musicians
> who loved him most. Now he's dying and he'll go down a hero. Who do you think
> suffered the most to bring him to that level? People like Zoot Horn Rollo, Ed
> Marimba and Drumbo back then. And later to resurrect his reputation? Jeff
> Morris Tepper, Eric Feldman and yours truly, Robert Williams. We worked our
> asses off for years. We were promised a half a point from Shiny Beast and never
> got a dime, and Don would drive down from Lancaster, CA once a week only to
> sit there in rehearsal and talk shit and slow down the rehearsal process. You
> think that all those parts were his? Get a reality check!
You are saying that Don was not a nice person. Hell, Bach called
members of his bands "goats". The idea is that DVV is a creative genius,
and no matter what other stuff accompanies it, you have to understand
that none of you would be anything more than any of the rest of us if
you hadn't had the privilege of playing on his albums. I could have
played the guitar parts on TMR if I were in that situation and were
brow-beaten like that. Because I wasn't there, I am a nobody, but those
who were there are somebodies. And yet you all crap on Don. Bizarre, to
say the least.
> Then you have people like batpuller making his remarks and you wonder why I
> react the way I do.
> Beefheart fans! Ugh! What are your numbers? Where are you when you're needed?
> The only thing I've ever gotten from a Beefheart fan was a question..."What was
> it like to work with Don?"
That is because there are a million talented musicians, but only a few
of you got to work with Van Vliet.
> Here's my answer>>>>It was nothing but creditless hard work and very, very
> little pay with some serious abuse thrown in as a bonus!
It doesn't matter. Beefheart is a billion times bigger than you (and a
trillion times bigger than the rest of us), but yet you are immortalized
by having been in his band.
> So now I expect you to find me a beautiful Japanese girl who's a virtuoso
> keyboard player to join my band without pay and play music that she'd never
> understand and promise not to cry when I tell her in rehearsal that she's
> playing it all wrong. But it's OK because the Beefheart fans are gonna love it.
> Yeah, right!
I have always suspected that the Magic Band members didn't really
appreciate what they were getting into. All of you will be in the art
hall of fame until the sun supernovas, long after the Beatles have been
forgotten, but yet you whine and complain because Don was allegedly
impolite. Fine. I wouldn't have bought your CD nor French's other than
for the fact that you were part of the Magic Band. If you had not been
MB alumni and I had bought them by accident, I would have nevertheless
been raving about them! Van Vliet has perfect taste in drummers, and
both CDs demonstrate why. Beefheart was not mistaken in giving you both
the Beefheart seal of approval. It does sadden me that you can't escape
from the immediate situation and fully appreciate the enormity of what
you have done in being part of one of the greatest musical achievements
of the century.
Michael H.
FENATIC
from the immediate situation and fully appreciate the enormity of what
you have done in being part of one of the greatest musical achievements
of the century.>>
Hunger and/or disrespect might do that to you, I would guess. The scope of the
art and accomplishment would dwarf even minor riches, but to be left at the
mercy of a wicked industry corrupted by no less than the real mafia top to
bottom must be the worst kind of payback for real talent, I would think. To
presume you could fill Harkleroad's shoes, leaves me wondering, are you full of
shit, or willing to give me lessons? Believe me, Id hate for you to be an
undiscovered great guitarist. The guys that managed to enter and survive (so
to speak) the Beefheart thing deserve several different kinds of respect, which
you dont seem to be particularly willing to proffer. It would seem.
Michael H.
> <<It does sadden me that you can't escape
> from the immediate situation and fully appreciate the enormity of what
> you have done in being part of one of the greatest musical achievements
> of the century.>>
> Hunger and/or disrespect might do that to you, I would guess. The scope of the
> art and accomplishment would dwarf even minor riches, but to be left at the
> mercy of a wicked industry corrupted by no less than the real mafia top to
> bottom must be the worst kind of payback for real talent, I would think. To
> presume you could fill Harkleroad's shoes, leaves me wondering, are you full of
> shit, or willing to give me lessons?
That was poetic license on my part. There is no way I could learn all
four sides of TMR and remember it. I just meant that a lot of guitar
players could move their fingers fast enough and follow the timing, and
if they were forced to practice 12 hours a day for months on end, quite
a few could have probably done it.
>Believe me, Id hate for you to be an
> undiscovered great guitarist. The guys that managed to enter and survive (so
> to speak) the Beefheart thing deserve several different kinds of respect, which
> you dont seem to be particularly willing to proffer. It would seem.
What it "seems" to you isn't what I said or meant. I idolize those
guys, but I do have a problem with the whole victim mentality in the
sense that I don't understand it. It's like somebody scoring the winning
touchdown at the Superbowl then grumbling about the coach. I really
don't see it, but I am awaiting Zoot's book to find out why so many
Magic Band players seem to hate Beefheart so much.
I do have a new opinion about all this, but I will wait till I've read
the book.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> Willlbr wrote:
> > Zoogz!
> > Cut the crap! Don't use my situation to half ass defend me. Shit or get off the
> > pot. Fuck, a vote is a vote. No one really gives a shit if you're biased or
> > not. Actually it doesn't really matter. The only fun I've had in this group
> > lately has been to tear a new asshole for Mr. Batpuller. Until now it's been
> > "Has Don ever posted in this ng...?" etc...add nausium. Well, I DON"T THINK
> > SO!!!!! 'Charlie don't surf' and neither does Don.
> Like, duh.
<snip>
> That is because there are a million talented musicians, but only a few
> of you got to work with Van Vliet.
>
> > Here's my answer>>>>It was nothing but creditless hard work and very, very
> > little pay with some serious abuse thrown in as a bonus!
>
> It doesn't matter. Beefheart is a billion times bigger than you (and a
> trillion times bigger than the rest of us), but yet you are immortalized
> by having been in his band.
<snip>
Re-reading this in the light of morning makes me think, "Oh shit." I
was in a pissy mood because a certain person was sniping at me earlier
for no good reason. Beefheart is a legend and that legend has been
growing since the mid-sixties, and he has long since retired from music.
Robert is much younger and still in mid-career, so that is why I said
he's not as "big" as Beefheart. In my head, Beefheart is bigger than
anybody outside of certain jazz & blues players and some classical
composers. There was no insult intended. I honestly think Williams CD is
better than any of the stuff I hear on the radio, and he deserves to be
recognized as a major talent. I can understand people being bitter when
recognition comes slowly, and all against a backdrop of being cheated
all the time.
I knew a guy who was an agent and manager, who was formerly a musician,
and he said that being a professional musician is an apprenticeship for
being a crooked manager/agent, because you learn, first-hand, all the
tricks of how to cheat musicians and get away with it. So many simple
things, like a musician is hired to do four sets for $2,000 but when he
gets there and gets set up, they tell him that they are starting the
music later, so he only needs to do three sets. Then at the end of night
they only pay him $1,500 because he only did three sets. He goes to the
union to complain and finds that the guy hearing his complaint is a
co-owner of the place that cheated him. It can grind a person down, year
after year, I think.
Michael H.
Tony Rigby
<wil...@aol.com> writes
>John French e-mailed me the other day saying that
>he's finished with the music business and finished in his attempts to win the
>acceptance of people out there especially Beefheart fans.
Really? Why does he say this?
Bye... T.
--
Tony Rigby Internet: tony....@rigbys.demon.co.uk
Edmonton, London, England
Brikbat9
>>John French e-mailed me the other day saying that
>>he's finished with the music business and finished in his attempts to win
>the
>>acceptance of people out there especially Beefheart fans.
>
>Really? Why does he say this?
>
Maybe because his music isn't selling. I mentioned his WAITING ON THE FLAME cd
a few months ago. I only remember seeing one reply to it. It was from someone
who didn't care for it. OK, it wasn't real "Beefhearty", but I maintain that
it is better than the vast majority of stuff on the radio. What were sales
like for the two "Frinch, Frith, Kaiser, Thompson" albums, I wonder. There was
great music on both of them. And they are fun to listen to. But Hootie and
the Blowfish sell 12 million of their first album.
And we wonder why John French has had it with the music business.
Zoot Horn Rollo's thoughts were interesting, too.
I know that many of us got sick and tired of Zoogz Rift and Robert Williams
plugging themselves and their products in, at least this ng, but when one has
put work, time, and talent into a productand can not find an entrance into the
marketplace, how should we expect them to behave. I admire these guys for
sticking with it and hope that they receive the audience that their efforts and
talent merit them.
Sorry, this reply was not intended to be this long winded.
Jack
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
>Tony Rigby asks:
>
>>>John French e-mailed me the other day saying that
>>>he's finished with the music business and finished in his attempts to win
>>the
>>>acceptance of people out there especially Beefheart fans.
>>
>>Really? Why does he say this?
It's none of your damn business. (I'm still mad at Tony Rigby for,
uh, whatever he said--I don't remember now)
>>
>Maybe because his music isn't selling. I mentioned his WAITING ON THE FLAME cd
>a few months ago. I only remember seeing one reply to it. It was from someone
>who didn't care for it. OK, it wasn't real "Beefhearty", but I maintain that
>it is better than the vast majority of stuff on the radio. What were sales
>like for the two "Frinch, Frith, Kaiser, Thompson" albums, I wonder.
Not great. Rhino advanced them $20,000 ($5000 a piece) to record the
first one, but it's my understanding that Rhino never made the money
back.
>There was
>great music on both of them. And they are fun to listen to.
I found them both pretty mundane, to tell you the truth.
>But Hootie and
>the Blowfish sell 12 million of their first album.
>
That word "blow" isn't part of their name for nothing (take that on as
many levels as you wish...)
>And we wonder why John French has had it with the music business.
>
John is a born-again Christian. The music industry is about as
"satanic" as a business can get, and I'm sure John resents the
internal machinery and the people that make it move and shake.
>Zoot Horn Rollo's thoughts were interesting, too.
>
Don't know them. Yet.
>I know that many of us got sick and tired of Zoogz Rift and Robert Williams
>plugging themselves and their products in, at least this ng, but when one has
>put work, time, and talent into a productand can not find an entrance into the
>marketplace, how should we expect them to behave. I admire these guys for
>sticking with it and hope that they receive the audience that their efforts and
>talent merit them.
Thank you for that. I've only been doing it for 26 years now, with 35
official releases under my belt, and still, relatively very few people
have even heard of me. However loud I'm "screaming," it's apparently
not loud enough. Or too loud. But it's not my nature to whisper.
>
>Sorry, this reply was not intended to be this long winded.
>
>Jack
>
>
That's okay. Mine was! ;)
Mike Dickson
> John is a born-again Christian.
You've no idea how depressing it was to read these words.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Edinburgh, Scotland
fax 0131-271-1551 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
I used to work with Mr. French, and in-between Beefheart stories he
used to talk about God. Pretty creepy.
Michael H.
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:18:28 GMT, mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk (Mike
> Dickson) wrote:
> >In article <362bf11a...@news.earthlink.net> moam...@earthlink.net wrote...
> >> John is a born-again Christian.
> >You've no idea how depressing it was to read these words.
> >Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Edinburgh, Scotland
> >fax 0131-271-1551 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
> I used to work with Mr. French, and in-between Beefheart stories he
> used to talk about God. Pretty creepy.
I don't think so.
When I saw the BCP line-up with Robert, Jeff, Eric and Denny, some
heckler in the audience yelled out, "Where is John French??!!" which I
thought was pretty creepy because Robert's playing was phenomenal.
Beefheart said to the crowd in a very serious tone, "He left the band
for religious reasons." Later, when I got to speak to Don off-stage, I
asked him what the religious reasons were and he said in a totally
off-hand way, "Oh, he thought I was the devil." That was so funny to me,
because it was like he was setting up a joke on stage, but didn't give
the punch line until he was asked.
I posted that anecdote here about a year ago and people said that it
wasn't a joke, but it still sounds funny to me.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> In article <362bf11a...@news.earthlink.net> moam...@earthlink.net wrote...
> > John is a born-again Christian.
> You've no idea how depressing it was to read these words.
You're right, I don't.
Michael H.
Tom
>That's a problem. You believe in God. That's absurd and irrational.
Since when do you object to the absurd and irrational?
Brikbat9
>I found them both pretty mundane, to tell you the truth.
>
>
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but they are STILL better than the
vast majority of what's out there.
Jack
Brikbat9
>> John is a born-again Christian.
>
>You've no idea how depressing it was to read these words.
>
>
What do you find so depressing about it?
Jack
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Mike Dickson wrote:
>
>> In article <362bf11a...@news.earthlink.net> moam...@earthlink.net wrote...
>
>> > John is a born-again Christian.
>
>> You've no idea how depressing it was to read these words.
>
> You're right, I don't.
>
> Michael H.
That's a problem. You believe in God. That's absurd and irrational.
Athiesm is a sign of intelligence and strength, not weakness and fear.
God, I fucking HATE religion.
MDec500157
>From: mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk (Mike Dickson)
>Date: Tue, Oct 20, 1998 03:18 EDT
>In article <362bf11a...@news.earthlink.net> moam...@earthlink.net
>wrote...
>
>> John is a born-again Christian.
>
>You've no idea how depressing it was to read these words.
Well, hold on to your hat, cos Jeff Cotton and Doug Moon are born again too.
Mike
"There's no money. You'll never get any more money."
-- adapted from Sam Beckett's "Endgame"
scott hand
>
>You certainly have a right to your opinion, but they are STILL better than
the
>vast majority of what's out there.
>
But the vast majority of what's out there sucks. There's just too much
music for the line to be too thin. I don't own the FFKT albums because
they're not important to my enjoyment/further education of music. i thought
the stuff was ok, but I didn't pay too much attention- too much technique
with too little to do, I think. I wouldn't knock anybody else's enjoyment,
however.
Agreed,
scott
scott hand
<mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>That's a problem. You believe in God. That's absurd and irrational.
>Athiesm is a sign of intelligence and strength, not weakness and fear.
>God, I fucking HATE religion.
>
Hold on! You guys better come to terms with "God" first!
Atheism is the worst form of Christianity,
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
>
>
>>That's a problem. You believe in God. That's absurd and irrational.
>
>
>Since when do you object to the absurd and irrational?
>
>
My philosophical foundation is Objectivism. My playground is dada.
They can work hand in hand, but they're at two opposite ends of the
spectrum.
Michael H.
> >Subject: Re: A vote for ROBERT is a vote for AMERICA!
> >From: mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk (Mike Dickson)
> >Date: Tue, Oct 20, 1998 03:18 EDT
> >In article <362bf11a...@news.earthlink.net> moam...@earthlink.net
> >wrote...
> >> John is a born-again Christian.
> >You've no idea how depressing it was to read these words.
> Well, hold on to your hat, cos Jeff Cotton and Doug Moon are born again too.
That is so cool.
Michael H.
Tony Rigby
Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
>My philosophical foundation is Objectivism.
Isn't that that Ayn Rand stuff?
Michael H.
> In <362d6470...@news.earthlink.net>, "Zoogz Rift \"The Liquid
> Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
> >My philosophical foundation is Objectivism.
> Isn't that that Ayn Rand stuff?
Maybe Zoogz' group used to be called the Fountainheads before it was
the Shitheads.
And there must be an idea for a book title in there somewhere. "Dada
Shrugged"?
Michael H.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Tony Rigby wrote:
I accept Objectivism, not Ayn Rand. If Rand were alive today, she
would likely strongly disapprove of me, and I of her. I especially
disliked her fiction.
Dada lives, daddy-o.
Michael H.
> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:30:39 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
> >Tony Rigby wrote:
> >> In <362d6470...@news.earthlink.net>, "Zoogz Rift \"The Liquid
> >> Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
> >> >My philosophical foundation is Objectivism.
> >> Isn't that that Ayn Rand stuff?
> > Maybe Zoogz' group used to be called the Fountainheads before it was
> >the Shitheads.
> > And there must be an idea for a book title in there somewhere. "Dada
> >Shrugged"?
> > Michael H.
> I accept Objectivism, not Ayn Rand. If Rand were alive today, she
> would likely strongly disapprove of me, and I of her. I especially
> disliked her fiction.
Well there's something I think we can all agree on.
I think with Rand there is some word before Objectivism.
Something-Objectivism. I think I know what you meant by it. You base
your ideas of reality entirely on objective evidence, that type of
thing. There is a point at which philosophy starts to get really tangled
and messy, so I don't restrict my options as to what actually might be
the case.
> Dada lives, daddy-o.
I was concerned that dadaism might have become a school with an
official orthodoxy, which would contradict the whole concept, wouldn't
it?
I always think of Beefheart as Dadaist, in his music and lyrics at
least, but he strikes as being very adamant about avoiding being
labelled, but the way the words and music seem to just flow out of
nowhere seems dadaistic to me, but at the same time, it all makes a kind
of sense. Is dada supposed to make sense?
What about synchronicity? There is a lot of that surrounding Beefheart.
For example, the other day there were three huge ravens outside my
window, and later on I happened to turn on the VCR to watch whatever was
in it, and it was the Andy Kaufman video. There's no coincidence there,
but I took it out and put in a video that I labelled "Beefheart" and it
happened to be right at the spot where it had the Corbijn piece in black
and white, and Don talked about ravens in that and there was picture. I
had never really seen a raven up close until that day. It's a
coincidence, but that kind of thing happens quite a bit whenever
anything has anything to do with Beefheart. Why is that? Anyway, I think
there is a lot of that in his music. He'd do some sax thing or something
just straight out of nowhere anyone could imagine, almost random, and it
fits absolutely perfectly in a way that I'm sure that no one including
him could accurately duplicate. Maybe dada is connected with that kind
of thing. Probably it is the kind of thing that you kill it if you try
to analyze it.
Michael H.
Tom
>Freakish monsters pretending to be freakish monsters! The
>human race is much scarier than the Frankenstein monster ever was.
Shouldn't that be "Frankenstein's monster?"
When reality becomes absurd, we can always find comfort in a pedantic
attention to details.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:30:39 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Tony Rigby wrote:
>
>> >> In <362d6470...@news.earthlink.net>, "Zoogz Rift \"The Liquid
>> >> Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >> >My philosophical foundation is Objectivism.
>
>> >> Isn't that that Ayn Rand stuff?
>
>> > Maybe Zoogz' group used to be called the Fountainheads before it was
>> >the Shitheads.
>
>> > And there must be an idea for a book title in there somewhere. "Dada
>> >Shrugged"?
>
>> > Michael H.
>
>> I accept Objectivism, not Ayn Rand. If Rand were alive today, she
>> would likely strongly disapprove of me, and I of her. I especially
>> disliked her fiction.
>
> Well there's something I think we can all agree on.
>
> I think with Rand there is some word before Objectivism.
>Something-Objectivism.
No, she developed the philosophy of Objectivism. That's what it's
called. Her "crusade" has been "officially" carried on by Leonard
Peikoff, another idiot I dislike.
> think I know what you meant by it. You base
>your ideas of reality entirely on objective evidence, that type of
>thing. There is a point at which philosophy starts to get really tangled
>and messy,
Right on both counts. Philosophy takes a lot of work to untangle.
Logic helps a lot.
>so I don't restrict my options as to what actually might be
>the case.
>
>> Dada lives, daddy-o.
>
> I was concerned that dadaism might have become a school with an
>official orthodoxy, which would contradict the whole concept, wouldn't
>it?
It did, it has, it still does. Which is why I ignore the activities
of the old fart dadaists of yesteryear, and concern myself only with
Psychoaquatics, the TRUE dada, invented the day I was born (July 10,
1953). Only that day, and May 11 (International Detonacy Day--on May
11, 1974, I publically destroyed my entire life's work at the Delaware
Valley Festival Of The Avant-Garde), are the two holidays that mean
anything. Well, those and maybe Halloween. Halloween is the ultimate
paradox: Freakish monsters pretending to be freakish monsters! The
human race is much scarier than the Frankenstein monster ever was.
>
> I always think of Beefheart as Dadaist, in his music and lyrics at
>least, but he strikes as being very adamant about avoiding being
>labelled, but the way the words and music seem to just flow out of
>nowhere seems dadaistic to me, but at the same time, it all makes a kind
>of sense. Is dada supposed to make sense?
Of course! Well, not really. It absolutely does. Kind of. Nah.
Yep. Don was a dadaist, no question about it. But his lyrics mostly
DID make sense--he just took the long way around to preach his
ecological messages.
>
> What about synchronicity? There is a lot of that surrounding Beefheart.
>For example, the other day there were three huge ravens outside my
>window, and later on I happened to turn on the VCR to watch whatever was
>in it, and it was the Andy Kaufman video. There's no coincidence there,
>but I took it out and put in a video that I labelled "Beefheart" and it
>happened to be right at the spot where it had the Corbijn piece in black
>and white, and Don talked about ravens in that and there was picture. I
>had never really seen a raven up close until that day. It's a
>coincidence, but that kind of thing happens quite a bit whenever
>anything has anything to do with Beefheart. Why is that?
God must be a Beefheart fan. They both work in mysterious ways! lol
>nyway, I think
>there is a lot of that in his music. He'd do some sax thing or something
>just straight out of nowhere anyone could imagine, almost random, and it
>fits absolutely perfectly in a way that I'm sure that no one including
>him could accurately duplicate.
Don didn't know how to play sax "conventionally." Many would say he
wasn't a real musician. I don't agree with that. I think he knew, on
some level, exactly what he was doing.
>aybe dada is connected with that kind
>of thing. Probably it is the kind of thing that you kill it if you try
>to analyze it.
>
> Michael H.
I am a slave to nature; dada is slave to me.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<tony....@rigbys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In <362d6470...@news.earthlink.net>, "Zoogz Rift \"The Liquid
>Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
>>My philosophical foundation is Objectivism.
>
>Isn't that that Ayn Rand stuff?
Used to be. Now it's Zoogz Rift stuff. ;)
Mike Dickson
> > Well, hold on to your hat, cos Jeff Cotton and Doug Moon are born
> > again too.
>
> That is so cool.
I'd love it if you were to explain your retort.
Michael H.
> >Freakish monsters pretending to be freakish monsters! The
> >human race is much scarier than the Frankenstein monster ever was.
> Shouldn't that be "Frankenstein's monster?"
> When reality becomes absurd, we can always find comfort in a pedantic
> attention to details.
I think that when the academic world of philosophical discourse meets
pro wrestling that a whole lot of illusions can get shattered on both
sides. Unfortunately for me, I can neither philosophle or wrestle very
well, but I always enjoy any kind of mental stretch. Some people hate
stretches, but for me, a stretch is a comforting thing, like the way a
cat stretches. Good for the circulation.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> In article <362D5B...@netcom.ca> zol...@netcom.ca wrote...
> > > Well, hold on to your hat, cos Jeff Cotton and Doug Moon are born
> > > again too.
> > That is so cool.
> I'd love it if you were to explain your retort.
It was just a spontaneous reaction. Religion, politics and all sorts of
pedantry can get so bogged down in trying to deal with and filter and
re-filter all sorts of enigmatic stuff that I just thought it was cool
that they had cleared away all the crap. I think of the story of this
carpenter being nailed up and praying to his god to forgive the very
people who were banging the nails in, and somehow I can't dislike him or
those who admire him. Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades,
and probably won't until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by
the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
about it.) Whatever.
Michael H.
scott hand
<mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>wrote:
>
>> Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades,
>>and probably won't until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by
>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
>>about it.) Whatever.
>>
>> Michael H.
>
>
>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
>
>
>--ZRTLM
So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the earliest
art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm, I'm
not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
how you look at religious art.
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
> Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades,
>and probably won't until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by
>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
>about it.) Whatever.
>
> Michael H.
I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
--ZRTLM
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the earliest
>art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
>can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm, I'm
>not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
>how you look at religious art.
>
>
>
>scott
>
>
Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
WANT to believe it--in essence, blindly accepting dogma. (A good name
for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol) Art is the direct,
intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
act, with a conscious, intended message.
Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
>
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
Michael H.
> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
> >the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
> >has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
> >about it.) Whatever.
> > Michael H.
> I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
> thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
> recipient to be able to understand the intended message.
Yes, but none of that requires atheism.
>Religion, or
> the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
> using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
There are many questions that logic can't answer though. That is the
a-gnostic position. No one can prove that the Void rules. The question
is up in the air. To come down on the side of believing in the supremacy
of the Void is no different than being a Hari Krishna. It all involves
making a leap that is not required by logic nor science. To take any
position at all, affirmation or denial, requires a blind faith of some
sort. To believe that the universe is completely explained by the motion
of atoms, etc., and the mathematical patterns they follow, is itself a
type of religion, but it isn't called that. It is a metaphysical
position,but faith in the ability of science to eventually explain
absolutely everything is itself blind faith.
> Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
> art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
> thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
It depends on what you mean by "reason". Certainly there is a lot of
that required in the "craft" part of any art. Mixing colors of paint to
get a certain subtle shade is probably almost a science, but to conceive
of that shade and to sense when you've mixed it right requires a sort of
artistic intuition or instinct. Same in music...time signatures, chords,
harmony, etc.,...it's a science, but if a person is improvising over
something they know well, very little conscious thought about the
mechanics is required. For example, when a person accidently hits his
thumb with a hammer, he doesn't think "It would be logical to yell
'Fuck!' right now, therefore I must fill my lungs with air to ensure
loudness, and put my upper teeth over my bottom lip in preparation for
the initial 'F' sound." No, a person just yells it without thinking.
Logic could conceivably come into play; for example, if there are kids
around the person might consciously stifle the urge to curse.
When I listen to Coltrane's "A Love Supreme", it sounds to me at times
as if he is soaring internally, that there is a "jet-stream" up there
somewhere that he somehow finds, and it takes him right out. Any sort of
inspiration like that is mysterious and goes beyond logic. It takes
logic to lay the theoretical groundwork for the song, just as takes
logic to design and build a saxophone, or a recording studio, but once
he gets into the middle of a solo and is playing away with his eyes
closed, I think logic drops away like the booster stage of a rocket and
it's just pure intuition or inspiration.
Coltrane believed in God, in fact he has a big poem about it on the
album jacket. So did Van Gogh...in fact, he studied to be a priest, but
they turfed him for various reasons, one of them being that he thought
they were too complacent. So did Stravinsky. I'm sure lots didn't, but
all must certainly have been aware of the unexplainableness of certain
mysteries. For example, I don't know what Miles Davis thought about
religion, but consider this quote: "If you can hear a note, you can play
it. The note I hit that sounds high, that's the only one I can play
right then, the only note I can think of to play that would fit. You
don't learn to play the blues. You just play. I don't even think about
harmony. It just comes." (-from an interview that Columbia did that is
in a pocketbook I have.) He clearly isn't coming at it from the point of
view of logic. He did study it all at some point earlier, but it gets
left behind. You know that. You are a dadaist.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> On 22 Oct 98 23:58:51 -0400, "scott hand"
> <vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> >>wrote:
> >>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
> >>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
> >>>about it.) Whatever.
> >>> Michael H.
> >>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
> >>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
> >>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
> >>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
> >>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
> >>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
> >>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
> >>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
> >>--ZRTLM
> >So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the earliest
> >art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
> >can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm, I'm
> >not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
> >how you look at religious art.
> >scott
No, I think you said it very well, especially about the "magical" part.
I remember reading about those Neanderthal cave drawings. You must have
seen the ones, they looked something like oxen drawn in sweeping lines.
The theory that the author had for it is that these people were hanging
around in the cave thinking a lot about food, and perhaps laying down
near a fire looking at the ceiling, and started to see the shapes
forming, in the same way that clouds can look exactly like something, or
the way people thought they saw canals on Mars through the early
telescopes. So then they would take a burnt log and start tracing out
the forms on the cave walls/ceilings. The main parts of the shapes
follow the natural lines of the rock formations. That is why I changed
the title of the thread, i.e. because I think that seeing things in
clouds is a lot like hallucinating, and same thing for the cave
drawings, and I think that the process of artistic creativity is somehow
related to that, i.e. giving form to something that isn't "really" there
but that you can somehow see. The question of how that can happen is
very mysterious. I suppose one can say that it comes out of the brain's
pattern-recognition capabilities, so it doesn't prove anything one way
or the other, but remember the sixties when people used to see paisley
patterns in everything? I just can't believe that those patterns are
built into the brain...the brain is just a bunch of germ-like things
living in a hollow rock they've built for themselves. Where are those
paisleys in there?
> Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
> things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
> WANT to believe it--in essence, blindly accepting dogma.
Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
of some experience that leaves them no choice. Religion isn't always the
picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
concentration camps. It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
does wake people up in some way. It strikes me as being simultaneously
about living in the instant yet having a cosmic perspective about human
mortality. I don't know if Coltrane was specifically Christian, or of
another religion, but his phrase "A Love Supreme," captures it very well
for me.
>(A good name
> for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol)
hahaha!! I like it. Then their fans could shorten it to BAD!
>Art is the direct,
> intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
> Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
> act, with a conscious, intended message.
It's a rational act to choose to babble nonsense, but the nonsense
itself may not be rational, obviously.
> Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
??? That one is over my head.
Michael H.
> --ZRTLM
Mike Dickson
> Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades, and probably won't
> until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by the
> mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
> has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa?
I'd much rather nothing whatsoever involved religion. Religion is
tantamount to posting your judgement and intelligence on an extended
holiday.
scott hand
<mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
>things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
>for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol) Art is the direct,
>intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
>Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
>act, with a conscious, intended message.
What about the difference of art "depicting" religion and art "expressing"
religion? I mostly agree with what you are saying about religion, but I
don't think the dogma has to be accepted blindly. Most of the time it is,
but it doesn't have to be. Everybody has cetain rules they live by,
definitions of the universe so they know where to put their feet in the
morning, no different from dogma. I do have more respect for people that
come up with their own rules, though.
>Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
>
Sure, surrealism is inherently paradoxical because it is a product of the
rational human mind. You have to intend to use surrealism to circumvent
reason. I'm guessing this is what you are getting at. In the same way,
religion can be used to pull a person to the same place. I think
Christianity is a particularly crappy method, but it can be done.
scott
scott hand
>> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
>> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>> >>wrote:
>
>> >>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but
art
>> >>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa?
(Think
>> >>>about it.) Whatever.
>
>> >>>
Michael H.
I think I know what you mean, but unless you are using a VERY broad
definition of religion, I don't think it's necessary.
>> >>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
>> >>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
>> >>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
>> >>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
>> >>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
>> >>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
>> >>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
>> >>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
>
>> >>--ZRTLM
>
>> >So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the
earliest
>> >art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that
art
>> >can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm,
I'm
>> >not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to
hear
>> >how you look at religious art.
>
>> >scott
>
> No, I think you said it very well, especially about the "magical" part.
>I remember reading about those Neanderthal cave drawings. You must have
>seen the ones, they looked something like oxen drawn in sweeping lines.
Yes, that was part of what I was referring to. There was a proto-religious
significance to those paintings. If I had read you're response to that
post, I wouldn't have bothered with mine. You got it pretty well.
>The theory that the author had for it is that these people were hanging
>around in the cave thinking a lot about food, and perhaps laying down
>near a fire looking at the ceiling, and started to see the shapes
>forming, in the same way that clouds can look exactly like something, or
>the way people thought they saw canals on Mars through the early
>telescopes. So then they would take a burnt log and start tracing out
>the forms on the cave walls/ceilings. The main parts of the shapes
>follow the natural lines of the rock formations. That is why I changed
>the title of the thread, i.e. because I think that seeing things in
>clouds is a lot like hallucinating, and same thing for the cave
>drawings, and I think that the process of artistic creativity is somehow
>related to that, i.e. giving form to something that isn't "really" there
>but that you can somehow see.
Yeah, the human specialty of abstraction. The capability of relating
seemingly unrelated things. I think that is where both religion and art
come from.
The question of how that can happen is
>very mysterious. I suppose one can say that it comes out of the brain's
>pattern-recognition capabilities, so it doesn't prove anything one way
>or the other, but remember the sixties when people used to see paisley
>patterns in everything? I just can't believe that those patterns are
>built into the brain...the brain is just a bunch of germ-like things
>living in a hollow rock they've built for themselves. Where are those
>paisleys in there?
Hahaha, I have wondered that many times myself, and I wasn't even around
for the sixties (for anyone who hasn't checked in a while, they are still
there). I don't know if they are built into the brain or something
environmental. Weird stuff for sure, there is still much we don't know.
This all brings up the question, "Are hallucinations real?". Of course they
are, they're just hard to reach.
>
>
>> Religion, and art depicting religion, are two entirely different
>> things. Religion is accepting certain precepts based on the desire to
>> WANT to believe it--in essence, blindly accepting dogma.
>
> Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
>of some experience that leaves them no choice. Religion isn't always the
>picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
>persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
>concentration camps. It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
>issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
>under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
>Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
>big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
>words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
>does wake people up in some way. It strikes me as being simultaneously
>about living in the instant yet having a cosmic perspective about human
>mortality. I don't know if Coltrane was specifically Christian, or of
>another religion, but his phrase "A Love Supreme," captures it very well
>for me.
I think christianity is indeed intended as a big teddy bear in the sky.
There can be more if you like, but for most people, that's all they want.
The spiritual aspects you mention are there, but there is also the "lite"
version for simple comfort and political manipulation. Atheists are just
christians in denial. I get the impression that Coltrane was beyond
everyday christianity, though I don't know that much about him.
> >(A good name
>> for an album!--"Blindly Accepting Dogma." lol)
>
> hahaha!! I like it. Then their fans could shorten it to BAD!
>
> >Art is the direct,
>> intentional representation of whatever the artist chooses to say.
>> Even if the artist chooses to babble nonsense, it's still a rational
>> act, with a conscious, intended message.
>
> It's a rational act to choose to babble nonsense, but the nonsense
>itself may not be rational, obviously.
>
>> Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
>
> ??? That one is over my head.
It's a conscious decision to be surreal.
> Michael H.
>
>> --ZRTLM
>
scott
Michael H.
> In article <362F32...@netcom.ca> zol...@netcom.ca wrote...
> > Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades, and probably won't
> > until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by the
> > mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
> > has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa?
> I'd much rather nothing whatsoever involved religion. Religion is
> tantamount to posting your judgement and intelligence on an extended
> holiday.
I just spent over an hour responding to Scott, and I had book
references, quotes and everything, but suddenly my surfer closed itself
for no reason. It was the culmination of a lifetime of thinking flushed
into oblivion. You win. Butterflies can never beat rocks.
Michael H.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:58 PM, Michael H. <mailto:zol...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
>>> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>>> >>wrote:
>>
>The point of
>>Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
>>big momma's breast in the sky.
I like breasts and teddy bears. If God has a pussy department, count
me in! :P~~~
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
Michael H.
> On 23 Oct 98 12:46:34 -0400, "scott hand"
> <vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:58 PM, Michael H. <mailto:zol...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >>> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
> >>> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> >>> >>wrote:
> >The point of
> >>Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> >>big momma's breast in the sky.
> I like breasts and teddy bears. If God has a pussy department, count
> me in! :P~~~
Think of that beetle tune, "Pussy In the Sky With Diamonds." That
pretty well sums it up, doesn't it.
Michael
scott hand
> I just spent over an hour responding to Scott, and I had book
>references, quotes and everything, but suddenly my surfer closed itself
>for no reason. It was the culmination of a lifetime of thinking flushed
>into oblivion. You win. Butterflies can never beat rocks.
>
Their hands are too small.
scott
Michael H.
Sad but true.
Michael H.
andy roberts
<362FFE...@netcom.ca> :
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>
>> On 22 Oct 98 23:58:51 -0400, "scott hand"
>> <vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
>> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>> >>wrote:
>
>> >>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
>> >>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
>> >>>about it.) Whatever.
>
No. Religious creeds are man-made creations which are invariably used to create
fear and acceptance, not very conducive to the creative process.
>> >>> Michael H.
>
>> >>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
>> >>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
>> >>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
>> >>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
>> >>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
>> >>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
>> >>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
>> >>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
>
The only thing to be careful of in the above is the limitations of some forms
of logic, reason or thought . As long as these limitations are not falsely
imposed on the objective material reality then it's the best we can do.
>> >>--ZRTLM
>
>> >So how do you look at all the religion inspired art?
Patronage. Most artists have always been willing to work for advertising
agencies to put food on the table.
>Some of the earliest
>> >art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
>> >can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being.
Yes but that's not religion, it's just a state of mind, switching off the
"chattering monkeys". You don't need anybody pushing their gods at you
for that to happen.
>> >Hmm, I'm
>> >not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
>> >how you look at religious art.
>
>> >scott
>
> No, I think you said it very well, especially about the "magical" part.
>I remember reading about those Neanderthal cave drawings.
I have seen animal and fish diagrams , 20-40,000 years old,deep inside a
mountain in southern Spain. It was impossible to imagine how those early people
thought or felt , but I expect they had already developed language and abstract
ideas. Most of the drawings would have been purely record keeping but some were
more elaborate and were done with care , by someone with a little surplus energy
and time above mere survival. Did you know that hunter/gatherers had more free
time and holidays than nearly all present day workers?
> You must have
>seen the ones, they looked something like oxen drawn in sweeping lines.
>The theory that the author had for it is that these people were hanging
>around in the cave thinking a lot about food, and perhaps laying down
>near a fire looking at the ceiling, and started to see the shapes
>forming, in the same way that clouds can look exactly like something, or
>the way people thought they saw canals on Mars through the early
>telescopes. So then they would take a burnt log and start tracing out
>the forms on the cave walls/ceilings.
These would be the black markings then, not the red ones.
>The main parts of the shapes
>follow the natural lines of the rock formations.
Always make the most of any features in your raw material.
>That is why I changed
>the title of the thread, i.e. because I think that seeing things in
>clouds is a lot like hallucinating,
Pattern recognition is a pre-requisite to abstract thought and language.
It's so important , that sometimes it works a little too well and recognises
patterns that are barely there at all.
>and same thing for the cave
>drawings, and I think that the process of artistic creativity is somehow
>related to that, i.e. giving form to something that isn't "really" there
>but that you can somehow see. The question of how that can happen is
>very mysterious. I suppose one can say that it comes out of the brain's
>pattern-recognition capabilities, so it doesn't prove anything one way
>or the other, but remember the sixties when people used to see paisley
>patterns in everything? I just can't believe that those patterns are
>built into the brain...the brain is just a bunch of germ-like things
>living in a hollow rock they've built for themselves. Where are those
>paisleys in there?
>
Those patterns are inherent in the mathematics of the Fibonacci series.
1,1,2,3,5,8,12,20,32,52,84,136, etc.
[ Religion]
[art]
> It's a rational act to choose to babble nonsense, but the nonsense
>itself may not be rational, obviously.
>
>> Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
>
> ??? That one is over my head.
>
It's all out of the window and down the street to me.
> Michael H.
>
>> --ZRTLM
Andy R
--
Now at home on andy D0T Roberts HAT zetnet.co.uk
Michael H.
> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
> > Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades,
> >and probably won't until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by
> >the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
> >has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
> >about it.) Whatever.
> > Michael H.
> I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
> thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
> recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
> the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
> using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
> Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
> art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
> thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
I once read a piece by E.A.Poe about how he wrote that hideous poem
that had, "Quoth the raven, 'Nevermore'," and it knocked me out how
analytical he was about it. Poe was a genius, and his poetry moves me
and terrifies me, but what a shock it was to find out that he set it all
up in a craftsman-like way.
Where is the dividing line between art and show business? Huh? Some
poor schmuck goes out on a date with some babe and falls in love over
candle-light, but her make-up artist claims, "Oh, he was fooled, only I
and her hairdresser know the truth." Well, hey, the world of Beefheart
fans is not the same world as the world that created the image. There
shouldn't be a conflict. There is, though. People are working on it.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> Michael H. van "Netcom Canada" heeft geschreven in bericht
> <362FFE...@netcom.ca> :
> >Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
> >> On 22 Oct 98 23:58:51 -0400, "scott hand"
> >> <vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 11:34 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
> >> ><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:19 +0600, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>>the mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
> >> >>>has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa? (Think
> >> >>>about it.) Whatever.
> No. Religious creeds are man-made creations which are invariably used to create
> fear and acceptance, not very conducive to the creative process.
You are probably right. There are these big questions. Guys in lab
coats parade themselves around the idea that anything that doesn't
bubble in a test tube is nonsense. The shear amateurishness of all such
attempts to explain the mysterious MUST put anyone with a brain into a
position of serious doubt.
> >> >>> Michael H.
> >> >>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
> >> >>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
> >> >>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
> >> >>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
> >> >>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
> >> >>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
> >> >>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
> >> >>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
> The only thing to be careful of in the above is the limitations of some forms
> of logic, reason or thought . As long as these limitations are not falsely
> imposed on the objective material reality then it's the best we can do.\
That sounds reasonable. One ought not be dogmatic when one hasn't a
clue what one is doing.
> >> >>--ZRTLM
> >> >So how do you look at all the religion inspired art?
> Patronage. Most artists have always been willing to work for advertising
> agencies to put food on the table.
Talk about spoilsports!!
> >Some of the earliest
> >> >art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
> >> >can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being.
> Yes but that's not religion, it's just a state of mind, switching off the
> "chattering monkeys". You don't need anybody pushing their gods at you
> for that to happen.
Oh god, been reading Wittgenstein?
> >> >Hmm, I'm
> >> >not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
> >> >how you look at religious art.
> >> >scott
> > No, I think you said it very well, especially about the "magical" part.
> >I remember reading about those Neanderthal cave drawings.
> I have seen animal and fish diagrams , 20-40,000 years old,deep inside a
> mountain in southern Spain. It was impossible to imagine how those early people
> thought or felt , but I expect they had already developed language and abstract
> ideas. Most of the drawings would have been purely record keeping but some were
> more elaborate and were done with care , by someone with a little surplus energy
> and time above mere survival. Did you know that hunter/gatherers had more free
> time and holidays than nearly all present day workers?
No doubt. There is nothing better than the good old days.
> > You must have
> >seen the ones, they looked something like oxen drawn in sweeping lines.
> >The theory that the author had for it is that these people were hanging
> >around in the cave thinking a lot about food, and perhaps laying down
> >near a fire looking at the ceiling, and started to see the shapes
> >forming, in the same way that clouds can look exactly like something, or
> >the way people thought they saw canals on Mars through the early
> >telescopes. So then they would take a burnt log and start tracing out
> >the f>
> These would be the black markings then, not the red ones.
You mean the ones drawn in blood? Yikes!!!
> >The main parts of the shapes
> >follow the natural lines of the rock formations.
> Always make the most of any features in your raw material.
Rule number one in art, right?
> >That is why I changed
> >the title of the thread, i.e. because I think that seeing things in
> >clouds is a lot like hallucinating,
> Pattern recognition is a pre-requisite to abstract thought and language.
> It's so important , that sometimes it works a little too well and recognises
> patterns that are barely there at all.
Recognizes? It will take me at least a week to think that one through.
> >and same thing for the cave
> >drawings, and I think that the process of artistic creativity is somehow
> >related to that, i.e. giving form to something that isn't "really" there
> >but that you can somehow see. The question of how that can happen is
> >very mysterious. I suppose one can say that it comes out of the brain's
> >pattern-recognition capabilities, so it doesn't prove anything one way
> >or the other, but remember the sixties when people used to see paisley
> >patterns in everything? I just can't believe that those patterns are
> >built into the brain...the brain is just a bunch of germ-like things
> >living in a hollow rock they've built for themselves. Where are those
> >paisleys in there?
> Those patterns are inherent in the mathematics of the Fibonacci series.
> 1,1,2,3,5,8,12,20,32,52,84,136, etc.
Well that is what I was trying to say earlier, i.e. that certain
aspects of reality are mathematics. Perhaps most. But I think that art
jumps free of that. It has to, or it wouldn't be art.
> [ Religion]
> [art]
> > It's a rational act to choose to babble nonsense, but the nonsense
> >itself may not be rational, obviously.
> >> Kind of makes surrealism a paradox, doesn't it... ;)
> > ??? That one is over my head.
> It's all out of the window and down the street to me.
Somewhere down the street there might be a coffee shop where Beefheart
fans can discuss stuff like this.
Michael H.
Picabia
>It is a metaphysical
> position,but faith in the ability of science to eventually explain
> absolutely everything is itself blind faith.
Yep. And technological advance, without a corresponding advance in human
wisdom, is certain death.
>It takes
> logic to lay the theoretical groundwork for the song, just as takes
> logic to design and build a saxophone, or a recording studio, but once
> he gets into the middle of a solo and is playing away with his eyes
> closed, I think logic drops away like the booster stage of a rocket and
> it's just pure intuition or inspiration.
For the great ones it is.
Picabia
Picabia
> I was concerned that dadaism might have become a school with an
> official orthodoxy, which would contradict the whole concept, wouldn't
> it?
That's why Duchamp dropped out.
>Is dada supposed to make sense?
Just about as much sense as life.
Picabia
Henk Dolleman
wrote:
>Mike Dickson wrote:
>
>> In article <362F32...@netcom.ca> zol...@netcom.ca wrote...
>
>> > Personally, I haven't gone to a church in decades, and probably won't
>> > until I'm a stiff, and I certainly am disgusted by the
>> > mean-spiritedness of the ultra-wacky bible-belt contingency, but art
>> > has to include religion to avoid meaninglessness, or vice versa?
>
>> I'd much rather nothing whatsoever involved religion. Religion is
>> tantamount to posting your judgement and intelligence on an extended
>> holiday.
>
> I just spent over an hour responding to Scott, and I had book
>references, quotes and everything, but suddenly my surfer closed itself
>for no reason. It was the culmination of a lifetime of thinking flushed
>into oblivion. You win. Butterflies can never beat rocks.
IMHO one simple quote says it all. Religion is the opium *of* the
people. Marx.
(Note: not *for* the people. As it's wrongly quoted most of the time &
thus not understanding a fucking bit of what young KM meant: Religion
is a fundamental need of mankind in order to compensate all kinds of
things, uncertainties etc it lacks. It certainly ain't no initial plot
of the rich & wealthy - they use/are part of it's institutions to keep
people down under, but that's quite another story. Real salvation has
to be found outside of religion's realm in the real world of course
<g>).
h (who listened to Ain't weird while writing this <g>)
--
"You'll never hear vloerbedekking again" - Zappa
scottmcf
enables those not involved with it to profit from the state of those who
are involved with it ... which I see as to some extent being the case ...
the modern-day example here in the U.S. being the way the Republican
party, whose true agenda is to flow resources away from most of the
nation and centralize it in the hands of wealthy Republican patrons, get
people to punch their ballot by bullshitting them about family values,
dancing around the abortion issue, etc. etc.
Michael H.
> >Mike Dickson wrote:
i.e. in REAL opium, lit up with a Zippo lighter of course. (Just
kidding.)
> h (who listened to Ain't weird while writing this <g>)
> "You'll never hear vloerbedekking again" - Zappa
I missed vloerbedkking the first time around. What is that, Marxist
surf music? Or is that, "serf music." (Somebody stop me, please.)
Michael H.
Graham Sanders
Michael H. wrote in message <3634D1...@netcom.ca>...
>> "You'll never hear vloerbedekking again" - Zappa
>
> I missed vloerbedkking the first time around. What is that, Marxist
>surf music? Or is that, "serf music." (Somebody stop me, please.)
>
> Michael H.
Dutch schlager - nasty stuff.
gs
Hanzo
"Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
of some experience that leaves them no choice.
Ow, I don't understand it, so it must be God. Gee, thats easy.
Religion isn't always the
> picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
> persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
> concentration camps.
Never thought of religion as a picnic, nor life in general. Try coming
out in the open as an atheist when your living in Iran or ever worse
Afghanistan (where you're only allowed to tell jokes with a beard).
It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
> issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
> under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
> Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
> words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
> does wake people up in some way.
Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
>
There is no Hell Hanzo
Michael H.
> In article <362FFE...@netcom.ca>
> "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
> Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
> of some experience that leaves them no choice.
> Ow, I don't understand it, so it must be God. Gee, thats easy.
> Religion isn't always the
> > picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
> > persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
> > concentration camps.
> Never thought of religion as a picnic, nor life in general. Try coming
> out in the open as an atheist when your living in Iran or ever worse
> Afghanistan (where you're only allowed to tell jokes with a beard).
> It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
> > issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
> > under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
> > Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> > big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
> > words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
> > does wake people up in some way.
> Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
I guess the pills and the pat answers are kind of a package deal, huh?
Michael H.
Michael H.
> > Michael H.
Actually, the word "schlager" means as little to me as "vloerbedkking."
What is it, some kind of beer?
Michael H.
J E H Shaw
>>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
>>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
>>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
>>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
>>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
>>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
>>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
>>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
>>
>>
>
>
>So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the earliest
>art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
>not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
>how you look at religious art.
FWIW, I thonk ZRTLM is spot-on. About (say) 600 years ago artists in the
Christian world could ONLY illustrate religious themes, in the same way
that Islamic artists couldn't depict any religious themes, or indeed
humans. Hence all old Western art appears to be "religion inspired",
even if the choice of religious subject is often (say) St. Sebastian,
and hence penetration-inspired or sado-masochism inspired.
On a more beefheart note, did anyone else in the UK see a television
interview with John Aldridge (spelling?), the Welsh football international?
The background music throughout the interview was excerpts from Troutmask
Replica; I don't know if that was his choice or the producers, but it
made a wonderful change from (e.g.) "Eye of the Tiger" or similar
supposedly hyping-up adrenalilne-producing sport-friendly music.
With apologies if I've asked that question before - my memory's going.
Regards, Ewart Shaw
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 203 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept/Staff/JEHS/
yacc - the piece of code that understandeth all parsing
Hanzo
"Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
> Hanzo wrote:
>
> > In article <362FFE...@netcom.ca>
> > "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
>
> > Some people might look at it that way, but many people believe because
> > of some experience that leaves them no choice.
>
> > Ow, I don't understand it, so it must be God. Gee, thats easy.
>
> > Religion isn't always the
> > > picnic that atheists think, and I don't just mean that people are
> > > persecuted for believing, e.g. get thrown to the lions or burned in
> > > concentration camps.
>
> > Never thought of religion as a picnic, nor life in general. Try coming
> > out in the open as an atheist when your living in Iran or ever worse
> > Afghanistan (where you're only allowed to tell jokes with a beard).
>
> > It's a scarey business within oneself, because the
> > > issues are scarey, and I think that it is the atheists who are hiding
> > > under the tables from reality, not the other way around. The point of
> > > Christianity, as I see it, is not to offer everybody a teddy bear or a
> > > big momma's breast in the sky. I'm not qualified to put the point of it
> > > words, and I am certainly not posing as preacher of any kind, but it
> > > does wake people up in some way.
>
> > Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
>
> I guess the pills and the pat answers are kind of a package deal, huh?
>
> Michael H.
Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
Hanzo
Picabia
st...@primrose.csv.warwick.ac.uk (J E H Shaw) wrote:
> On a more beefheart note, did anyone else in the UK see a television
> interview with John Aldridge (spelling?), the Welsh football international?
> The background music throughout the interview was excerpts from Troutmask
> Replica; I don't know if that was his choice or the producers, but it
> made a wonderful change from (e.g.) "Eye of the Tiger" or similar
> supposedly hyping-up adrenalilne-producing sport-friendly music.
> Regards, Ewart Shaw
I am stunned by this news. I would fall on the floor if that happened in
the NFL.
Picabia
Michael H.
> In article <363585...@netcom.ca>
> "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
> > Hanzo wrote:
> > > In article <362FFE...@netcom.ca>
> > > "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca> writes:
<snip>
> > > Don't need religion to keep me awake, bennies will do fine.
> > I guess the pills and the pat answers are kind of a package deal, huh?
> > Michael H.
> Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
> fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
Sure, but who are the "brain police," really? Religious zealots?
Atheist zealouts? To me, it is anything from inside that tries to tell
you what to think or not to think. Your own internal censors keep you
safe by suppressing religious thoughts. That's fine. It is hardly
surprising that people can't get past the Jimmy Swaggarts and think
about it unbiasedly. I am not trying to push religion at anybody. It
just bugs me when Void-worshipping fanatics start pushing atheism at
people and try to close doors in people's minds. They are as bad as the
door-to-door people with the pamphlets. A monolithic viewpoint. People
should be more open-minded and tolerant.
Michael H.
scott hand
<mailto:st...@primrose.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>FWIW, I thonk ZRTLM is spot-on. About (say) 600 years ago artists in the
>Christian world could ONLY illustrate religious themes, in the same way
>that Islamic artists couldn't depict any religious themes, or indeed
>humans. Hence all old Western art appears to be "religion inspired",
>even if the choice of religious subject is often (say) St. Sebastian,
>and hence penetration-inspired or sado-masochism inspired.
>
I know what you mean about artists subverting mandated religious art, but
it's not really what I was getting at. I know the religious art of the
heyday of the catholic empire isn't srictly legit due to its coercion. I
was speaking more of "primitive", "tribal" etc. art depicting the mystical
thought/beliefs of a society or individual. The earliest art seems to be
indistinguishable from the mystic ritual and survival practices. All of
these were one.
I don't care for dogma, but a lot of artistic methods are rather dogmatic
anyway. There are many ways to an end and religion can be a useful tool for
some people, not me, but some. It can also help some people realize their
full potential for idiocy. The hammer is supposed to strike the nail, not
your head. Some doctors may not want you to know that.
And what's the deal with all those paintings of the temptation of St.
Anthony? What drew so many artists to that particular scene?
scott
scott hand
>Whatever. I detest religious Zappa fans. In my mind that just doesn't
>fit. I've got a mind of my own, you know.
>
>
I don't know, but I'll take your word for it.
You're concept of god may be much different from another's concept. They
may have very little in common. I think Zappa's problem was with evangelism
and rip-off artists. I'm sure he would be just as annoyed by evangelistic
atheists.
scott
Proposition 282
>
> ANYWAY, responding to Mr. H's previous post in this meeting of the
> minds: Athieism is not dogma. To PREACH athiesm is absurd, but it's
> like refusing to admit that the sky is made of velour. It isn't. How
> do I know this? Because I use logical reasoning to assess the
> information available to me, consider it, process it, and make the
> best conclusion I'm capable of making. That's what logical thinking
> is all about. No, no one can prove that God DOESN'T exist, because
> one can't prove a negative. All anyone can do is look at the reality
> of the situation--i.e., the FACTS--as best as we can perceive it and
> interpret it--and draw conclusions based on those facts. Here's
> something I always try to follow: JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE
> ANSWER TO ANY GIVEN QUESTION, DOES *NOT* MEAN I HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL
> RIGHT TO "MAKE SOMETHING UP." Nope. Reality doesn't work that way.
> Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
> and leave it at that. Does that mean that an athiest, then, is really
> an agnostic? No, because the sky is not made of velour.
Yeah, but the sun IS made of piss. You even said so.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
Jim--that's how *I* felt when Steve Vai told me he convinced David Lee
Roth to play my entire ISLAND OF LIVING PUKE album before every
concert during their 1987 tour!
This world is much weirder than I'll ever be. :P
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
Shaw) wrote:
>...
>>>I disagree with you here. Art needs the human brain, the creative
>>>thinking process, and a degree of intelligence in the head of the
>>>recipient to be able to understand the intended message. Religion, or
>>>the concept of using "faith" as a tool of cognition (as opposed to
>>>using logic to determine what is real and true), has no place here.
>>>Art is the end result of the exercise of reason, always. Even chance
>>>art, even abstract art, even improvisation. Creativity requires
>>>thought, faith does not (in fact, faith rejects thought all together).
>>>
>>>
>>>--ZRTLM
>>
>>
>>So how do you look at all the religion inspired art? Some of the earliest
>>art was specifically religious or "magical". I think the idea is that art
>>can go beyond reason, as faith does, to a state of simply being. Hmm, I'm
>>not saying this very well- tired. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear
>>how you look at religious art.
>> ... (scott)
>
>FWIW, I thonk ZRTLM is spot-on. About (say) 600 years ago artists in the
>Christian world could ONLY illustrate religious themes, in the same way
>that Islamic artists couldn't depict any religious themes, or indeed
>humans. Hence all old Western art appears to be "religion inspired",
>even if the choice of religious subject is often (say) St. Sebastian,
>and hence penetration-inspired or sado-masochism inspired.
>
>On a more beefheart note, did anyone else in the UK see a television
>interview with John Aldridge (spelling?), the Welsh football international?
>The background music throughout the interview was excerpts from Troutmask
>Replica; I don't know if that was his choice or the producers, but it
>made a wonderful change from (e.g.) "Eye of the Tiger" or similar
>supposedly hyping-up adrenalilne-producing sport-friendly music.
Ella Guru always did it for ME. ;)
>
>With apologies if I've asked that question before - my memory's going.
>
> Regards, Ewart Shaw
Cool name. p.s. For the one semester I went to college (back in the
stone age), the only course I got a good grade in was statistics.
Don't remember a damn thing about it now, though. Now, I barely know
how to add, period.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 27, 1998 1:49 PM, J E H Shaw
><mailto:st...@primrose.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>>FWIW, I thonk ZRTLM is spot-on. About (say) 600 years ago artists in the
>>Christian world could ONLY illustrate religious themes, in the same way
>>that Islamic artists couldn't depict any religious themes, or indeed
>>humans. Hence all old Western art appears to be "religion inspired",
>>even if the choice of religious subject is often (say) St. Sebastian,
>>and hence penetration-inspired or sado-masochism inspired.
>>
>
It is, however, held together with the infant Jesus' cosmic velcro.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<vida...@mail.doh!.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 27, 1998 11:11 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
><mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE
>>ANSWER TO ANY GIVEN QUESTION, DOES *NOT* MEAN I HAVE THE
>>INTELLECTUAL
>>RIGHT TO "MAKE SOMETHING UP." Nope. Reality doesn't work that way.
>>Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
>>and leave it at that. Does that mean that an athiest, then, is really
>>an agnostic? No, because the sky is not made of velour.
>
>But atheists are busy saying that there is NOT a god, NOT a heaven, NOT a
>hell, etc., when they don't know any more about it than the idiot
>christians they denounce. A lot of people have a lot of trouble saying,
>"uh, I dunno" when they should. Hell, for all I KNOW, the sky is made of
>velour and I just can't see enough detail from this distance.
>
Right. And until you CAN see evidence that would support the
supposition, you have no reason to believe it.
>>It is, however, held together with the infant Jesus' cosmic velcro.
>>
>
>Well, yeah, of course.
>
>
>
>
>scott
>
>
>
Velcro was God's greatest invention (next to the vagina).
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
scott hand
<mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE
>ANSWER TO ANY GIVEN QUESTION, DOES *NOT* MEAN I HAVE THE
>INTELLECTUAL
>RIGHT TO "MAKE SOMETHING UP." Nope. Reality doesn't work that way.
>Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
>and leave it at that. Does that mean that an athiest, then, is really
>an agnostic? No, because the sky is not made of velour.
But atheists are busy saying that there is NOT a god, NOT a heaven, NOT a
hell, etc., when they don't know any more about it than the idiot
christians they denounce. A lot of people have a lot of trouble saying,
"uh, I dunno" when they should. Hell, for all I KNOW, the sky is made of
velour and I just can't see enough detail from this distance.
>It is, however, held together with the infant Jesus' cosmic velcro.
John Scialli
"The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
>Velcro was God's greatest invention (next to the vagina).
>
>
>--ZRTLM
> http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
what's it doing there?
Michael H.
> On Tue, Oct 27, 1998 11:11 PM, Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo"
> <mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE
> >ANSWER TO ANY GIVEN QUESTION, DOES *NOT* MEAN I HAVE THE
> >INTELLECTUAL
> >RIGHT TO "MAKE SOMETHING UP." Nope. Reality doesn't work that way.
> >Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
> >and leave it at that. Does that mean that an athiest, then, is really
> >an agnostic? No, because the sky is not made of velour.
> But atheists are busy saying that there is NOT a god, NOT a heaven, NOT a
> hell, etc., when they don't know any more about it than the idiot
> christians they denounce. A lot of people have a lot of trouble saying,
> "uh, I dunno" when they should. Hell, for all I KNOW, the sky is made of
> velour and I just can't see enough detail from this distance.
Very succinctly put! A decade ago it was considered naive in some
circles to believe that minds exist, because a mind cannot be isolated
in a test tube. Scientists refused to say the "m"-word in public for
fear of ridicule.
> >It is, however, held together with the infant Jesus' cosmic velcro.
> Well, yeah, of course.
Everybody knows that.
Michael H.
Michael H.
scott hand
<mailto:moam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hell, for all I KNOW, the sky is made of
>>velour and I just can't see enough detail from this distance.
>>
>
>
>supposition, you have no reason to believe it.
Except maybe for entertainment now and then.
>>>It is, however, held together with the infant Jesus' cosmic velcro.
>>>
>>
>>Well, yeah, of course.
>>
>>scott
>>
>>
>>
>
>Velcro was God's greatest invention (next to the vagina).
>
>
>--ZRTLM
Ouch!
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<hiway...@ao1.com> wrote:
>> something I always try to follow: JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE
>> ANSWER TO ANY GIVEN QUESTION, DOES *NOT* MEAN I HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL
>> RIGHT TO "MAKE SOMETHING UP." Nope. Reality doesn't work that way.
>> Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
>> and leave it at that. Does that mean that an athiest, then, is really
>> an agnostic? No, because the sky is not made of velour.
>
>Yeah, but the sun IS made of piss. You even said so.
I sent $10 to the infant Jesus and he told me in a seance.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Tony Rigby
>Sure, but who are the "brain police," really? Religious zealots?
>Atheist zealouts? To me, it is anything from inside that tries to tell
>you what to think or not to think. Your own internal censors keep you
>safe by suppressing religious thoughts. That's fine. It is hardly
>surprising that people can't get past the Jimmy Swaggarts and think
>about it unbiasedly. I am not trying to push religion at anybody. It
>just bugs me when Void-worshipping fanatics start pushing atheism at
>people and try to close doors in people's minds. They are as bad as the
>door-to-door people with the pamphlets. A monolithic viewpoint. People
>should be more open-minded and tolerant.
Indeed. Militant atheists have a hysteria about them quite as unpleasant
as the headbanging evangelists - and they're even less rational too.
Bye... T.
--
Tony Rigby Internet: tony....@rigbys.demon.co.uk
Edmonton, London, England
Tony Rigby
Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
>Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
>and leave it at that.
Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
evidence suggesting the existence of God.
Tony Rigby
Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
>Velcro was God's greatest invention (next to the vagina).
Are you talking about those all in one outfits that do up between the
thighs?
Randy Cech
Please site your alleged "Strong Evidence" noted in your post.
All for now.
Randy Cech
Tony Rigby wrote in message <2++6+HAO...@rigbys.demon.co.uk>...
>"Zoogz Rift \"The Liquid Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
>>Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
>>and leave it at that.
>
>Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
>evidence suggesting the existence of God.
>
simon smith
@rigbys.demon.co.uk> writes
>Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
>evidence suggesting the existence of God.
So if God existed, would he be good evidence for the existence of God?
--
Simon
--
cl...@cake2.demon.co.uk
simon smith
writes
> Very succinctly put! A decade ago it was considered naive in some
>circles to believe that minds exist, because a mind cannot be isolated
>in a test tube. Scientists refused to say the "m"-word in public for
>fear of ridicule.
Religious unbelief need have nothing to do with positivism - i.e. the
religion of the Fact. It has to do with the awareness that religion has
all the signs of an entirely *human* construction, determined by the
social, political, and psychological forces at work in the cultures in
which it appears. e.g. Pantheism suited its time and place - it was an
effort to make some sense of the blind web of nature in which early
peoples found themselves caught.
God is dead now - modern Christians are worshipping a ghost. A God
separate yet entirely at one with the world? How does that make sense?
An old man with a beard? What are we talking about? These are
constructions we put on unknowable things. If 'God' existed we wouldn't
know about him. Religion and atheism are beside the point.
--
Simon
--
cl...@cake2.demon.co.uk
JWB
>>However, I would say that the universe is strong
>>evidence suggesting the existence of God.
To suggest that the existence of the universe is the doing of a
supernatural being, especially when it's existence has been proven as
scientific evolution, is purely mythological and arbitrary in my opinion.
And it is just as much evidence of the existence of god as the loaf of
bread sitting to my left. Get real.
JWB
scott hand
wrote:
>>Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
>>evidence suggesting the existence of God.
>
>
Perhaps, if he could show some bank statements or a couple credit cards.
scott
scott hand
wrote:
>>> Tony Rigby says:
>>>However, I would say that the universe is strong
>>>evidence suggesting the existence of God.
>
>
>supernatural being, especially when it's existence has been proven as
>scientific evolution, is purely mythological and arbitrary in my opinion.
>And it is just as much evidence of the existence of god as the loaf of
>bread sitting to my left. Get real.
>
I'm confused, is there, or is there not, a loaf of bread sitting to your
left?
Science has yet to prove any reason for the existence of the universe. In
fact, the only thing science ever proves is that it is wrong. Tony didn't
explain what god is, but I bet he's not thinking of a bearded old man on a
cloud.
scott
Ron Spiegelhalter
<cl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> mumbled something like...> >Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
> >evidence suggesting the existence of God.
>
This is just so off-topic, but I'm jumping in anyway because I've always
loved this argument...
A: "The universe itself is evidence of God's existence."
B: "How do you figure that?"
A: "Well, just look at it; how else did it get here if not by the
conscious act of a greater being?"
B: "But that's not evidence, that's a question. An unanswered one at
that. An unanswered question is not evidence."
A: "Uhhhhhhhhhhh...."
Not to be confused with:
A: "There has to have been a second gunman in Dealey Plaza."
B: "How do you figure that?"
A: "Well...what about the whole magic bullet thing? HMM? You can't
explain that one, can you?"
B: "No, but that's not evidence, that's a question. An unanswered one at
that. An unanswered question is not evidence."
A: "Uhhhhhhhhhhh...."
In closing, a thought: Why do we have ten fingers and toes and not,
say, twelve? Because if we had twelve we'd be asking why we have twelve
and not, say, ten. Oh, just forget it.
--
ron
<ron2112 at empire dot net>
"Once upon a time when you saw roadkill you said "aw"
Now you say "good for you"
Maybe it's a certain enzyme you lack
And may all your T-shirts be black"
-Mike Keneally, "Top of Stove Melting"
www.moosenet.com/keneally.html
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<tony....@rigbys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In <36369573...@news.earthlink.net>, "Zoogz Rift \"The Liquid
>Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
>>Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
>>and leave it at that.
>
>Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
>evidence suggesting the existence of God.
In what way? Just curious.
--ZRTLM
http://zoogzrift.8m.com/
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Uncle Remus
>A: "The universe itself is evidence of God's existence."
>B: "How do you figure that?"
>A: "Well, just look at it; how else did it get here if not by the
>conscious act of a greater being?"
>B: "But that's not evidence, that's a question. An unanswered one at
>that. An unanswered question is not evidence."
>A: "Uhhhhhhhhhhh...."
>
OK, let us suppose we accept that the universe is evidence of God. It
is premised on the "how did the universe get here" question, if I
follow the line of reasoning so far. Well, it begins to beg the
question, if God did the universe, where/who/what did God come from?
Is God evidence of that which created God?
--Uncle Remus
d...@apk.net
Ron Spiegelhalter
mumbled something like...
A: "Well, God has always existed. He wasn't created, he's
just...well...always existed!"
B: "Well, if God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe? Maybe
*it's* always existed."
A: "Uhhhhhhhhhh....."
Questions like these are why Catholic school nuns carry rulers.
Geir Corneliussen
> "uh, I dunno" when they should. Hell, for all I KNOW, the sky is made of
> velour and I just can't see enough detail from this distance.
>
Must be nice to be so romantic and naive. An atheist is a cold, rational
thinker, you know.
A Theist is not rational. He is certainly one who think the sky is
velur. An atheist don't think so.
Geir Corneliussen
Geir Corneliussen
> God is dead now - modern Christians are worshipping a ghost.
God is not dead. He just smells funny.
Geir Corneliussen
Michael H.
> >> Tony Rigby says:
> >>However, I would say that the universe is strong
> >>evidence suggesting the existence of God.
> To suggest that the existence of the universe is the doing of a
> supernatural being, especially when it's existence has been proven as
> scientific evolution, is purely mythological and arbitrary in my opinion.
> And it is just as much evidence of the existence of god as the loaf of
> bread sitting to my left. Get real.
Your skull is a hollow bone full of sociable germs and nothing more.
Where do you get the idea that there is some nebulous thing in there to
call a "mind" to even consider such questions? Explain to me the
connection between a skull full of microbes and the mind that supposedly
inhabits it (or thinks it does), and you will have explained how it is
that the physical universe in a larger sense can also be haunted.
Michael H.
Michael Pierry
Tony Rigby wrote:
>
>
> Indeed. Militant atheists have a hysteria about them quite as unpleasant
> as the headbanging evangelists - and they're even less rational too.
>
To quote Jerry Seinfeld: "Who are these people?" Communists? I don't
know any militant atheists.
Michael Pierry
Tony Rigby wrote:
>
> In <36369573...@news.earthlink.net>, "Zoogz Rift \"The Liquid
> Moamo\"" <moam...@earthlink.net> writes
> >Sometimes, one just has to admit that we don't know all the answers,
> >and leave it at that.
>
> Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
> evidence suggesting the existence of God.
>
Maybe. But then one has to wonder what we mean by "God". The word
means different things to different people, doesn't it?
Michael Pierry
Randy Cech wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> Please site your alleged "Strong Evidence" noted in your post.
>
He did. He said "the universe". That is the evidence.
Michael H.
> In article <2++6+HAO...@rigbys.demon.co.uk>, Tony Rigby <tony.rigby
> @rigbys.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
> >evidence suggesting the existence of God.
> So if God existed, would he be good evidence for the existence of God?
In fact, if some super-being were to appear in the sky, wind a string
around the moon and start working it like a yoyo, claiming to be God,
the scientific position would be this: since the God hypothesis is ruled
out by definition, this being is lying; we also rule out the possibility
that it might be a space alien because we don't want our colleagues to
snicker at us; ergo the explanation must be that high-tech subversives
among us have either (a) created an impressive holographic projection in
the sky, or (b) put belladonna in the water supply.
The point of this ridiculous illustration is that "proof" is impossible
by definition - the existence of a "display" that could provide the
required "evidence" is impossible. Leaping blindly to a position of
total faith in the dogma that there is certainly no God can only be
"justified" using circular arguments. If "proof" is ruled out
axiomatically, as a game rule, right at the outset, then one cannot
trace a squiggly trail of arguments to someplace down the line and come
up with the idea that there is no "proof" as if it were the result of a
reasoned inquiry. It merely involves winding one's way back to the
original axiom that was assumed without proof to begin with.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> In article <uRUxBAAm...@cake2.demon.co.uk>, simon smith
> <cl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> mumbled something like...
> > In article <2++6+HAO...@rigbys.demon.co.uk>, Tony Rigby <tony.rigby
> > @rigbys.demon.co.uk> writes
> > >Sensible enough. However, I would say that the universe is strong
> > >evidence suggesting the existence of God.
> > So if God existed, would he be good evidence for the existence of God?
> This is just so off-topic, but I'm jumping in anyway because I've always
> loved this argument...
> A: "The universe itself is evidence of God's existence."
> B: "How do you figure that?"
> A: "Well, just look at it; how else did it get here if not by the
> conscious act of a greater being?"
> B: "But that's not evidence, that's a question. An unanswered one at
> that.
Stop right there.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> In article <363787e2....@news.show.net>, Uncle Remus <d...@apk.net>
> mumbled something like...
> > Oh good, this one again!
> > >A: "The universe itself is evidence of God's existence."
> > >B: "How do you figure that?"
> > >A: "Well, just look at it; how else did it get here if not by the
> > >conscious act of a greater being?"
> > >B: "But that's not evidence, that's a question. An unanswered one at
> > >that. An unanswered question is not evidence."
> > >A: "Uhhhhhhhhhhh...."
> > OK, let us suppose we accept that the universe is evidence of God. It
> > is premised on the "how did the universe get here" question, if I
> > follow the line of reasoning so far. Well, it begins to beg the
> > question, if God did the universe, where/who/what did God come from?
> > Is God evidence of that which created God?
> A: "Well, God has always existed. He wasn't created, he's
> just...well...always existed!"
> B: "Well, if God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe? Maybe
> *it's* always existed."
> A: "Uhhhhhhhhhh....."
> Questions like these are why Catholic school nuns carry rulers.
> --
> ron
> <ron2112 at empire dot net>
What about the Big Bang? One scientist explained the Big Bang in this
way: "The Big Bang is just one of those things that happens from time to
time." I love it.
Michael H.
Michael Pierry
Ron Spiegelhalter wrote:
>
>
> A: "Well, God has always existed. He wasn't created, he's
> just...well...always existed!"
>
> B: "Well, if God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe? Maybe
> *it's* always existed."
>
> A: "Uhhhhhhhhhh....."
>
> Questions like these are why Catholic school nuns carry rulers.
Maybe God IS the Universe. OWW! Sister, stop hurting me!!