a short book of definitions (an exercise in reflex)
Andrea Chen
>
> neu (adj.,)
> a contraction of neuter.
>
What's not male lacks neuter?
Actually the meaning is "new" with links to Von Neumann and Doctress
Neutopia one of the greatest unintentional satirists ever.
> neutopia (n.)
> senseless gibberish disguised as a psuedo-philosophical vision.
>
This is interesting since you have never attempted to answer a single
point. The buttons "gibberish" and "pseudo" are meaningless, and
certainly from the viewpoint of classical philosophy surrealism itself
was pseudo philosophy.
> neu neutopia (n.)
> neutered senseless gibberish disguised as psuedo-philosophical vision.
>
Neu neutopia is the "imminent death of the net" Neu Neutopians don't
necessarily want to create neu neutopia.
> neu surrealist (n., illiterate)
> a neutered psuedo-surrealist, or one who promotes a mutilation of surrealist
> theory in which desire is flattened and the "liberation of the imagination"
> has been deformed into the "manipulation of buttons."
>
Not really. "Buttons" are only one aspect. It's fascinating you can
see no other. Neu surrealism takes themes common to the surrealist.
Textually when successful it somewhat creates some of the effects found
in surrelaist graphic work. Realities twist from one to another,
identities flipped and so on. It frequently employs myths (which are
buttons) of both the larger society and the net which it mixes. It
provides a strange attractor which causes people to add ideas depending
on their mood in much the same way in which one early surrealist artist
would draw one part of a picture and then the next artist would draw
another. Often it seeks to link the works of currently unseen artists
(in other groups) so that both themes come together in unexpected ways.
> personalist (n.)
> one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
> existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing matters
> of theory -- particularly surrealist theory. The personalist believes, for
> example, that it is sufficient for him/her to declare some belief or
> position compatible with "surrealism" for it to be so (e.g. religion) and
> that the disagreement (even universal disagreement) of surrealists past and
> present is irrelevant. Consequently, the personalist is often found in a
> defensive posture, hopelessly outnumbered by those he/she claims are trying
> to enforce some orthodoxy, but who are in reality only insisting that they
> have no obligation to accept the personalist's unilateral redefinitions, and
> will continue to challenge them as incompatible with that theory as it
> already exists.
>
Religion is defined as the belief in supernatural powers (it's not
necessarily organized religion.) Breton used oija boards which make
such assumptions though he may have found them simply a tool in pulling
images from the unconscious, none the less he did invoke what can be
considered a religious ritual.
There is also the point made by Breton about a state of mind in which
apparent opposites merge together. It's unclear that from this apsect
(and Breton) was inconsistent whether religion and surrealism are
incompatible.
Incidently your statement about people you dislike being "hopelessly
outnumbered" is absurd. You are a handful of individuals in a group.
Someone wanders in with a point you don't like, flamewars ensue, that
person wanders out, lurkers become bored and the little clique remains.
It has no capacity to attract and unite artists which is why surrealism
was successful and why the neu neutopian movement was successful on a
smaller scale. It's a discussion group and dozens like it can be found
on the net. Socially it's no more important that the Midtown Libraries
Literary Discussion group which meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of
each month (except August.)
It sits here with the grandest publishing medium in the history of the
world (which is offered free) and rather than figure out how to take
this medium and use it to compete with the social order it bitches
about, it discusses what surrealism is and what surrealism isn't (just
as it's equivalent 60 years ago discussed what art was and what it
wasn't with many claiming that surrealism wasn't art, that true art
stopped with symbolism.)
Once again neu neutopia is more accurate to the original vision of
surrealism for (while mocking the concept) it does explore pragmatic
ways to build a movement.
> reality (n.,)
> usually referring to manifest reality or reality-as-experienced, this is a
> word in significant transition due to the advancing probes of science and
> art. It is now recognized as an enactive process and requires distinction
> between its sub-processes before any in-depth discussion so as to avoid
> significant confusion:
> latent reality
> personal reality
> shared reality
>
This is so silly, it baffles me. 3 levels of reality? "Shared
reality." Such a thing does exist. You, Brandon and Hal will percieve
your post as a rational explanation and mine as pure flaming (even
though I discuss issues) while others will percieve things differently.
To a degree you have a shared reality. You guys are lock steppers.
People like talyman and Nik feel common frustrations, but being loyal to
individual visions can't unite to impose such a group reality as you
have. They are also baffled and thrown by your smug denial of their
realities.
But this aside apart there are many "group realities" and your model in
general is the creation of a freshman student.
> surreal (adj., illiterate)
> a vulgar colloquialism popularized as a synonym for "weird" or "bizarre,"
> this is a word with no meaning whatsoever among surrealists, except as a
> certain identifier of the user's carelessness or ignorance. [also: --
> surrealistic, (adj.) -- surrealistically, (adv.)]
>
In other words they are uninterested in the forces of the social
unconscious or how their reality muted into another? In other words
real surrealists (tm) have no use for surrealism in a modern context.
> surrealism (n.,)
> one of the most misused words of our time. Its communicative value is
> limited to attempts to correct misrepresentations of the surrealist project.
> Should always be enclosed in quotation marks to acknowledge its recuperated
> status in popular culture.
>
> surrealist (n.)
> a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
> practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
> but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
> reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
> as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> colleagues.
>
This is meaningless. But are you claiming aliens are not marvelous?
Incidently above you say surrealism *can't* include religion. Isn't
that a rule? And might not individuals who have internalized this
fundamental life imperative (wow?) internalize it in different ways
because it is after all intuitive?
> surrealist project (n., process)
> the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
> and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
> achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
> imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
> this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
> transformation as well as a personal one.
>
Yet you confine your actions to a single group? This Usenet covers a
vast range of social issues? Have you gone out to battle Nazis, to
expound a philosophy, to make surrealism anything more than an esoteric
discussion in one little group read by perhaps a dozen people. Have you
done anything to attract people to this group? Have you made any
attempt to act on society?
You are using grand words to describe a clique.
> truth (n.,)
> a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of shared
> reality (the greater the consensus, the more compelling the "truth"). As
> such, it is significantly less interesting than reality. [syn: fact]
If "truth" is as you say, then Nik was correct in his debate with
Brandon and Hal. If surrealism is anything besides a clique, but
instead a loyalty to principles then you should have intervened.
You are a hypocrite.
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
> the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
> future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
> perceived as contradictions."
>
So why not truth and not truth?
Religion and not religion?
Brandon was the one stressing logical consistency. If one is consistent
with the above statement it seems necessary to allow the assertions of
Nik.
Bill Cleere
>
> This Is the most informative Post I have read on this NG in the three months I have
> been here.
> It is exactly the kind of discussion I had hoped to find originally.
> Instead I found flame wars arguing about who is more of an orthodox surrealist and
> how many surrealists could fit on the head of a pin.
> Silly and dumb humor passing it's self of as "Surrealist work" (this is where I
> admit my guilty participation), and intolerance to any kind of expression that did
> not fit the currently acceptable (yet unwritten) rules led to a state where the
> bulk of the postings where by a very small cadre of people. It was becoming boring
> and lacking fresh stimulus or input from all of the innovative and artistic minds I
> am sure are out there on the net looking for a place to bounce things (in a surreal
> context) around in.
> I am JUST as guilty as the people I am talking about (you know who you are) because
> I participated or because I was silent when I could have done differently, or
> because I egged people on
> for my own amusement. But I now say that I want to change and
> welcome the refreshment.
> I am sorry that my lack of formal education and or intellectual skills prevents my
> contributing much of any meaningful value to this NG , but I would like to keep
> trying (the 100 monkeys on typewriters theory).
> That's about all I have on my chest for the moment, BCNU
> don wheeler-mings aka perceptor
Your quotations have been very apt, and also good in
themselves.
Andrea's post was spot on. I don't know what's
surrealist and what's not, but Usenet posting can be
a Dada act if it's done in the right spirit. And
the most important part of that spirit is:
ANYONE IS WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE.
NO ONE IS TO BE EXCLUDED ON A PRIORI GROUNDS.
It is a Dada act to post without fear, favor, or
expectation of attention or lack of attention.
It is a Dada act to follow up with regard only to
the dynamic of the thread, not caring whether one
has been supported or attacked, or ignored or
acclaimed. It is to live in the moment, so that
one may have a future.
One thing I can tell you, my friend, it's a big
Usenet and a short life.
-- Bill Cleere
Oscar Levant
Perceptor wrote:
> >
> > One thing I can tell you, my friend, it's a big
> > Usenet and a short life.
> >
> > -- Bill Cleere
>
> "The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without
> work. "
> - Emile Zola (1840-1902)
"You can pound and fondle the keys until your fingers bleed and fall off,
but when you're finished the silence will still eat you alive,
just like the friendliest school of sharks on the block."
---Oscar Levant
AndreaBillNiclBrandonxisterbarrettDaleLeo #6
Nikolaus Maack
AndreaBillNiclBrandonxisterbarrettDaleLeo #6 writes:
> I am sorry that my lack of formal education and or intellectual skills
> prevents my contributing much of any meaningful value to this NG
Good lord. Don't let a lack of formal education stop you. You have
experienced life, and presumably have learned something from these
experiences, and therefore must have something of value to share. Look
around you. The internet is full of people who SHOULD shut the fuck up.
I might be one of them.
They don't shut up. They scream and wave their fists and blame everything
on earth for their suffering. They argue about who is the most exciting
Simpson character. They debate issues like abortion, as though their
opinions are interesting. They have nothing to say and they say it
loudly.
You may as well join in and start screaming at the top of your lungs.
Don't shoot yourself in the foot before you even load your gun.
An education more often than not means jumping through hoops and
performing other easy tricks so that you can be awarded a sheepskin.
There are many ways to learn. You must have picked up something by just
being alive.
My dream is of an internet where people express their personal,
most-private, most fascinating, most confusing experiences without fear of
reprisal. Or without caring what sort of reprisals they get. You know
that for every five people who say you're an idiot, there will be five who
say they completely understand you and agree with every word.
Here, in alt.surrealism, where everyone supposedly believes in an art
theory that demands we express the intimate and ultra-real, there is a
distinct lack of personal revelation. And anyone who does reveal anything
personal tends to be mocked. Everyone holds their cards close to their
chest, trying to come across as sophisticated without revealing too much.
And that's pathetic.
Nik
--
"I say everything well. Nik is an asshole."
--Brandon J. Freels, published author
Perceptor
"Give me chastity and continence, but not yet. "
- Saint Augustine (354-430)
"Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis. "
- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Perceptor
scot...@earthlink.net
It's been raining in Seattle for months, and the paper today says some
kind of fucking record has been broken. And I never bothered to buy
that kind of light bulb that tricks the skin and the body into
thinking its a sunny day out there.
I'd gotten so tired.
But there is snow in the mountains.. YES!!!
And two days ago ... I've got my skis, and my sun glasses, (and my
twirly bird hat that admits quite clearly that this old guy's skill
level is zilch), and I want to scream as I try to put to put one knee
forward and one knee down. ....And it is good to be alive!
And then here I see Barrett say:
"reality ....recognized as an enactive process ...."
and I go: YES!!!
and I see Andrea say of this newsgroup:
"It sits here with the grandest publishing medium in the history of
the world (which is offered free) and rather than figure out how to
take this medium and use it to compete with the social order...."
And I go: YES!!!
And I see your straight talk about this fucking rain that has been
going on here... that's gotten me so god damn tired....
and I go: YES!!! THANK YOU!!!
Its good to be alive!
Andrea Chen
>
> That's about all I have on my chest for the moment, BCNU
> don wheeler-mings aka perceptor
Thankyou for this. In the original neu neutopian experiment many
pieces were missing. One was a habit of personal revelation, of being
human. In this memory tour a number of people have dared this reminding
me of what is (very) important.
Regardless of artistic abilities (and your potential may be awesome),
there is much an individual can do. Simply praising things of value or
if a newcomer comes in and is confronted by Brandon, you may remark that
Brandon is very smart and a valuable contributor to this group, but also
a bit abrasive so not to take it personally.
There are many buttons (including dancing temple maids), but the most
common seem to be (perhaps because they are so obtrusive) the ones which
lock us into loops of flames (a foretaste of hell where heaven is people
learning to watch the patterns in themselves to detach, to remember that
a little heat is useful, but...)
Admitting (public confession in the Usenet mirror) your past mistakes
is so essential! It's odd because so many flames followed me and as a
matter of mantaining reputation I was often cruel; BUT one of the
techniques that gave me power was learning not to get addicted. Some
people could successfully push my buttons, I rarely read them. Instead
I jumped from issue to issue (weaving them together the best I could),
my purpose was to entertain and to play with the wide array of subjects
which interest my mind.
Anyone can do this. And doing what you just did is a valuable
addition.
Thankyou and I apologize that this response is hurried. It didn't come
out the way it should. But you have (at least briefly) added to my
humanity by reminding me that many people are insecure about their
education and ability. And even those with more confidence such as
Talyman, Nik, Stefan and even Brandon have been hurt in deep and
fundamental ways by the reactions of this medium. So have I, but I've
also got more acclaim than most, yet at times my confidence has been
close to shattered and only through statements such as your have I been
reminded of the value of what I attempted.
I wish to thank you and many others (including that nagging mommy in my
mind named Leo who may also be a knight templar (pretending to be CIA)
mind control device inserted up my nose) for the beauty briefly shown in
a place where it seems so dangerous.
Perceptor
> "You can pound and fondle the keys until your fingers bleed and fall off,
> but when you're finished the silence will still eat you alive,
> just like the friendliest school of sharks on the block."
>
> ---Oscar Levant
"Well-timed silence hath more eloquence than speech. "
- Martin Fraquhar Tupper
scot...@earthlink.net
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> being human.
We are human beings. I am a wild animal.
Human beings are more capable of understanding the real meaning in the
smell of a dead dog in the grass than the words on a computer screen
reporting the murder of eight thousand men and boys.
In a natural environment wild animals don't kill each other for fun.
Unnecessary acts of aggression are avoided because it cost energy that
is very hard to come by.
The buttons of wild animals.... color, scent, movement... inform and
construct what the hard realities of a situation will be. There
will be life or there will be death. The belly will be filled or it
will not be. There will be procreation... yes or no. There are no
endless loops. Something really happens.
I am built so my body reacts to color, scent, movement, the taste of
something on my tongue, and the feel of something pressing against my
skin. My dreams demand these things.
I demand you add some kind of scent to your buttons. Or at least
show us your eyes when you type.
Your buttons cause loops, and loops, and loops because they are not
capable of connecting fully with the human body. They enter through a
narrow passage into those parts of the brain that are sexless whores
of the culture and deal with text recognition and language. Then they
spread through the body system like bastard children looking for some
father to hug or kick. But there is no father. There is no resolution
available.
If you do want a real revolution for human beings you will have to
fuck up the language. But if you just use text you will be eaten by
an empty box and when you drop your bombs you will not even hear the
BOOM. ...And that is the direction culture has taken us anyway.
Endless loops of text regarding the deaths of large numbers of people.
And we don't notice any funny smells.
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.pouting.sandwich, scot...@earthlink.net wrote:
>If you do want a real revolution for human beings you will have to
>fuck up the language. But if you just use text you will be eaten by
>an empty box and when you drop your bombs you will not even hear the
>BOOM. ...And that is the direction culture has taken us anyway.
>Endless loops of text regarding the deaths of large numbers of people.
>And we don't notice any funny smells.
EVERYBODY GO OUT AND HUG THE NEAREST WALL.
I'm serious.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Spunky Lucy
Stefan Kapusniak wrote:
> EVERYBODY GO OUT AND HUG THE NEAREST WALL.
>
> I'm serious.
>
> -- Kapusniak, Stefan m
May Stefan have commenced a turnaround to a tenderness and---
Oh, look! A flight of zebra-geese!
Perceptor
humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
My eyes raced from word to word eagerly seeking the next sentence. It must
be what they call prose when the words are like candy that just tastes TOO
good , or perhaps it is just gluttony on my part.
PS
Eight thousand dead men and boys still can produce a stench from the words
on my monitor even if their only mentioned in passing.
Thank you , don....
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning. And if I may
:)humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
yes, I agree. I saved that one.
Scott's got it on the ball.
I think posting that to Usenet, or printing it on leaflets
and slipping them under doors in the mid of night, or shouting
it out at the mall ... *those* are surreal acts.
--
Give me ambiguity or give me your TV!
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
deri...@my-dejanews.com
taly...@softhome.net (Talysman) wrote:
> in amazement, I beheld Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net>
> write in alt.surrealism:
>
> :)Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning. And if I may
> :)humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
>
> yes, I agree. I saved that one.
> Scott's got it on the ball.
>
> I think posting that to Usenet, or printing it on leaflets
> and slipping them under doors in the mid of night, or shouting
> it out at the mall ... *those* are surreal acts.
>
I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...but I dispute the fact that
posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act." True, Usenet is a part of the
world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by. Usenet is surreal
almost by definition, when inhabited by the minds of those who think
sideways.
> --
> Give me ambiguity or give me your TV!
> His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
>
>
--Viz
Definition of terms is the whole argument.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Perceptor
> In article <b0fa2UMJ...@softhome.net>,
> taly...@softhome.net (Talysman) wrote:
> > in amazement, I beheld Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net>
> > write in alt.surrealism:
> >
> > :)Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning. And if I may
> > :)humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
> >
> > yes, I agree. I saved that one.
> > Scott's got it on the ball.
> >
> > I think posting that to Usenet, or printing it on leaflets
> > and slipping them under doors in the mid of night, or shouting
> > it out at the mall ... *those* are surreal acts.
> >
>
> I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...
Here is the thread:
Scottyes post--------
loading the busses according to plan/maintaining the equilibrium of
the scene. two variations, both the same at certain level.
1.
A pretense that no one dies (at least on this side of the sea):
One day in the spring when I was nineteen I was working hard to fuck
the traffic up. The cops were shooting tear gas into the park. I
noticed the gas didn't bother me much. I chased the canisters down
and kicked them along like soccer balls. I was good at placing them
under commuter busses. I did my part.
After about ninety minutes I decided I'd be arrested.
I walked about a quarter mile to where the police busses were
waiting. There were about three hundred of us at that place. I sat on
a little rise.
Four cops came carrying a young man. He was kicking at them. He
wasn't cool. I suspected he was insane. The cops started punching him
and he fell to the ground. Then they kicked him.
When he lay quiet the cops left. No one helped the young man. He
hadn't been cool. He wasn't hurt bad. He was a fuck head big time.
The national guard were there loading the police busses. Fuck head's
antics had attracted the attention of one of the guardsmen: a big guy.
When fuck head got up the big guy came and moved him along to one of
the lines for a police bus. Fuck head tried to elbow the big guy.
But the big guy had a club and began hitting him in the back with it.
The big guy went insane and kept hitting fuck head in the back with
the club. The big guy had become some kind of machine and didn't know
how to stop.
Fuck head had stopped resisting and was pathetic now. His head was
down and with every blow his body jerked.
I guessed the big guy didn't like what he was doing, but he'd gone
insane and didn't know how to stop. He was a shit head.
After a while I got sick of shit head. He'd gone insane, but didn't
liked it. I guessed he would let me intervene if he didn't see my
eyes.
I moved to the line and without letting shit head see my face I
pushed myself into the space between he and fuck head. I raised my
right arm and pushed the club to the side. I could feel shithead's
body against my back. I pushed him two steps back and then stood
still. The beating stopped. Shit head then moved away from the line
At the time I thought I'd committed some kind of humanitarian act.
Later it occurred to me that I'd only brought that scene back into
equilibrium. It all left a bad taste in my mouth.
2.
Eight thousand men and boys die:
In 1995 after the Bosnian 'safe area' of Srebrenica fell eight
thousand men and boys were killed. The following excerpt from
'Srebrenica - Record of a War Crime' (Jan Willem Honig and Norbert
Both) provides a small glimpse into what went on for a several week
period in mid July of that year:
...The men were taken to large classrooms. Others were crammed into a
gymnasium. During the day and evening, individuals and small groups
were taken away for interrogations, beatings and selective executions.
The men were ordered to strip to the waist and take off their shoes.
In the classroom, once darkness had set in, the same survivor recalls:
[we] were ordered to run out into the corridor. We were running
barefoot on a floor which was covered in blood. I saw about 20
corpses lying near the front door. They beat us while we climbed into
the trucks with our hands tied behind our backs. I got into the truck
when it was just half full. The Cetniks kept on yelling to load more
and more people into the truck until it was crammed full, and then
they closed the back. They ordered everyone to sit, but we couldn't
because it was so tightly packed with people whose hands were tied
behind their backs. The Cetniks started to shoot at people in order
to make us sit down.
------------------------------------------------------
perceptors reply--
Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning.
And if I may
humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
My eyes raced from word to word eagerly seeking
the next sentence. It must
be what they call prose when the words are like
candy that just tastes TOO
good , or perhaps it is just gluttony on my part.
PS
Eight thousand dead men and boys still can produce
a stench from the words
on my monitor even if their only mentioned in
passing.
Thank you , don....
> but I dispute the fact that
> posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act."
If not an "act" then what?
If not here then Where?
If not now then when?
> True, Usenet is a part of the
> world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
> I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
> strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
> transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
> sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by.
One is limited there by the volume of ones voice,
by the number of people in the crowd, oo by the number of people who can pass by
on a given sitting.
> Usenet is surreal
Yes it is. when I write here I must assume that I am talking to myself. But it
always makes me feel better and gives the illusion of hope.
>
> almost by definition, when inhabited by the minds of those who think
> sideways.
>
> > --
> > Give me ambiguity or give me your TV!
> > His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
> >
> >
>
> --Viz
> Definition of terms is the whole argument.
Yes I agree.
don wheeler-mings
It is in lower case as a expression of humility
in case anyone ever wondered.
deri...@my-dejanews.com
Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...
>
> Here is the thread:
[snip thread]
This, is seems, has turned out to be one of those occasions where ignorance
of the past creates idiocy in the present. The scales fall from my eyes to
the floor, where I trip on them and sprain my ass. Business as usual, I see.
>
> > but I dispute the fact that
> > posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act."
>
> If not an "act" then what?
> If not here then Where?
> If not now then when?
>
Upon reflection I have to concede the point. My confusion, at core, is over
whether there is indeed a difference between thought and action. I view
Usenet as belonging to the realm of thought, since it exists as a means of
quasi-direct memetic communication between thinking beings. A sort of
nicotene patch for the mind until telepathy becomes workable. Thus anything
existing within the framework of Usenet does not belong on the "active" plane
of the physical world.
> > True, Usenet is a part of the
> > world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
> > I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
> > strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
> > transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
> > sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by.
>
> One is limited there by the volume of ones voice,
> by the number of people in the crowd, oo by the number of people who can pass by
> on a given sitting.
>
This is true. But one is limited on Usenet by the textual format, the finite
time frame other people have in which to read one's post, and the relatively
small number of people with the time or inclination to do so. In person,
surreal acts are less easy to ignore.
> > Usenet is surreal
>
> Yes it is. when I write here I must assume that I am talking to myself. But it
> always makes me feel better and gives the illusion of hope.
>
Talking to oneself is regarded, by the astute and under the right
circumstances, as one of the most clinching proofs of sanity.
> > Definition of terms is the whole argument.
>
> Yes I agree.
> don wheeler-mings
> It is in lower case as a expression of humility
> in case anyone ever wondered.
>
I hadn't, but now that you've brought it to my attention I shan't be able to
stop myself henceforth.
--Viz
What you can take generally depends on what you're given.
Perceptor
> In article <366C9C99...@optonline.net>,
> Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...
> >
> > Here is the thread:
> [snip thread]
>
> This, is seems, has turned out to be one of those occasions where ignorance
> of the past creates idiocy in the present. The scales fall from my eyes to
> the floor, where I trip on them and sprain my ass. Business as usual, I see.
>
> >
> > > but I dispute the fact that
> > > posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act."
> >
> > If not an "act" then what?
> > If not here then Where?
> > If not now then when?
> >
>
> Upon reflection I have to concede the point. My confusion, at core, is over
> whether there is indeed a difference between thought and action. I view
> Usenet as belonging to the realm of thought, since it exists as a means of
> quasi-direct memetic communication between thinking beings. A sort of
> nicotene patch for the mind until telepathy becomes workable. Thus anything
> existing within the framework of Usenet does not belong on the "active" plane
> of the physical world.
>
> > > True, Usenet is a part of the
> > > world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
> > > I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
> > > strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
> > > transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
> > > sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by.
> >
> > One is limited there by the volume of ones voice,
> > by the number of people in the crowd, oo by the number of people who can pass by
> > on a given sitting.
> >
>
> This is true. But one is limited on Usenet by the textual format, the finite
> time frame other people have in which to read one's post, and the relatively
> small number of people with the time or inclination to do so. In person,
> surreal acts are less easy to ignore.
>
> > > Usenet is surreal
> >
> > Yes it is. when I write here I must assume that I am talking to myself. But it
> > always makes me feel better and gives the illusion of hope.
> >
>
> Talking to oneself is regarded, by the astute and under the right
> circumstances, as one of the most clinching proofs of sanity.
>
> > > Definition of terms is the whole argument.
> >
> > Yes I agree.
> > don wheeler-mings
> > It is in lower case as a expression of humility
> > in case anyone ever wondered.
> >
>
> I hadn't, but now that you've brought it to my attention I shan't be able to
> stop myself henceforth.
>
> --Viz
Yes , I feel your points in this post are correct and applicable. And, pleasingly
leave enough room
for further embslishment and additional commentary.
> What you can take generally depends on what you're given.
"There are people in the world so hungry, that God
cannot appear to them except in the form of bread."
- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Thank you for your time.
don ........