Nik&Dale
diva...@my-deja.com
ephiphany. Nik & Dale might be the same person.Alter egos..... Nik provides
the fire and passion. Dale provides the cynisism.and insults.Each goading yet
seemingly obsessed. If one quit posting here, would the other? Same person,
two egos sharing the same body? What a strategy.Are we dancers to their
drums? Paranoia is a beautiful word.............I'm just playing....am
Iam.......Mayhaps I am the third ego..no not word smart...enough..... I like
both Nik&Dale...I like them lots.Nik likes me okay perhaps....Dale
doesn't.....but that otay.. cause I like him. brenda
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brandon J. Freels
> When I was dozing off for my once in a lifetime nap today..I had an
> ephiphany. Nik & Dale might be the same person.
We might be the same person too.
Nikolaus Maack
> the fire and passion. Dale provides the cynisism.and insults.
It's possible. Some would suggest that identity is an illusion. Others
would go so far as to say that there is no line between a SELF and the
WORLD. It is one thing. If two quantuum particles with seemingly no real
connection can do the tango together, why not me and Dale?
>If one quit posting here, would the other?
At one point Dale had me in his killfile. He answered material of mine
that people quoted in their messages. Eventually he took me out of his
killfile.
At one point I got tired of explaining myself over and over again, and I
left alt.surrealism to take a much needed break. A few weeks later, I was
back. I could not stay away.
There seems to be no escape.
> Mayhaps I am the third ego..no not word smart...enough.....
Not to take away from your fun, but I suspect the third ego might be
Andrea Chen. She very rarely pops up between Dale and I and offers some
material. Sometimes she mocks Dale, sometimes she mocks me. (Usually she
mocks Dale, though.)
> I like
> both Nik&Dale...I like them lots.Nik likes me okay perhaps....Dale
> doesn't.....but that otay.. cause I like him.
I think Dale must like me, despite all his protests. Why else would he
spend so much time talking to me, insulting me, etc? Perhaps screaming
out insults and wild hatred is his way of keeping people at a
safe, emotional distance. He doesn't want people to get too close, so he
has a veneer of arrogant snarls as armour.
That's okay. I've learned to love Dale. Don't let him know, though. He
might find it embarrassing, despite having lived through "the sixties" and
the age of brotherly love.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Dale Houstman
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8b96n...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
> >I think Dale must like me, despite all his protests. Why else would he
> >spend so much time talking to me, insulting me, etc? Perhaps screaming
> >out insults and wild hatred is his way of keeping people at a
> >safe, emotional distance. He doesn't want people to get too close, so he
> >has a veneer of arrogant snarls as armour.
>
>
>
> As thinkers, we cannot sit to be insulted.
>
> As instinctual beings, we cannot lay while we defend.
>
> orlan
>
I don't know about you... but if this is all the profundity that Nik can
squeeze out of his insipid notions of "biographical vivisection" then surely
I can't be the only one who smells cheap psychology every time he enters the
room?
I give a personal detail: he comes back with superifical intellectalisms
about "atheists hate Daddy and all Gods are Daddies." I answer him in detail
about the rather lame quality of this observation given the quite accessible
literature on gods. He ignores it (I assume because he is only good at
surface thought). He goes on and on about how knowing biographical details
allows one to more fully comprehend a person's motivations. I give him more
details, plus examples of the myriad cases where biography is NOT revealing
of a person's character or actions. He can't come up with anything. Again he
personalizes everything. He does not seem capable of having his ideas
challenged without feeling personally insulted. Yet he insults people all
the time and with no thought at all behind it.
Sigh... what can one do with dim children, especially when they are
surrounded and encouraged by all the other dim children?
DMH
Aeon
>spend so much time talking to me, insulting me, etc? Perhaps screaming
>out insults and wild hatred is his way of keeping people at a
>safe, emotional distance. He doesn't want people to get too close, so he
>has a veneer of arrogant snarls as armour.
As humans, we cannot stand to be misunderstood.
As thinkers, we cannot sit to be insulted.
As instinctual beings, we cannot lay while we defend.
orlan
--
- What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
- remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
diva...@my-deja.com
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> "Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn8b96n...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
> > >spend so much time talking to me, insulting me, etc? Perhaps screaming
> > >out insults and wild hatred is his way of keeping people at a
> > >safe, emotional distance. He doesn't want people to get too close, so he
> > >has a veneer of arrogant snarls as armour.
> >
> >
> > As humans, we cannot stand to be misunderstood.
> >
> > As thinkers, we cannot sit to be insulted.
> >
> > As instinctual beings, we cannot lay while we defend.
> >
> > orlan
> >
> squeeze out of his insipid notions of "biographical vivisection" then surely
> I can't be the only one who smells cheap psychology every time he enters the
> room?
>
> I give a personal detail: he comes back with superifical intellectalisms
> about "atheists hate Daddy and all Gods are Daddies." I answer him in detail
> about the rather lame quality of this observation given the quite accessible
> literature on gods. He ignores it (I assume because he is only good at
> surface thought). He goes on and on about how knowing biographical details
> allows one to more fully comprehend a person's motivations. I give him more
> details, plus examples of the myriad cases where biography is NOT revealing
> of a person's character or actions. He can't come up with anything. Again he
> personalizes everything. He does not seem capable of having his ideas
> challenged without feeling personally insulted. Yet he insults people all
> the time and with no thought at all behind it.
>
> Sigh... what can one do with dim children, especially when they are
> surrounded and encouraged by all the other dim children?
>
> DMH
>
(((( Dale )))).
diva...@my-deja.com
> spend so much time talking to me, insulting me, etc? Perhaps screaming
> out insults and wild hatred is his way of keeping people at a
> safe, emotional distance. He doesn't want people to get too close, so he
> has a veneer of arrogant snarls as armour.
>
> might find it embarrassing, despite having lived through "the sixties" and
> the age of brotherly love.
>
> Nik
>
> --
> DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
>
My mama once said I was like a puppy, I wiggled my tail at anyone who came my
way. brenda
diva...@my-deja.com
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> brenda wrote
> > When I was dozing off for my once in a lifetime nap today..I had an
>
> We might be the same person too.
>
>
Or are you making fun?
Nikolaus Maack
>My mama once said I was like a puppy, I wiggled my tail at anyone who
>came my way.
We are all puppies. We all like to be scratched between the ears. We all
like wagging our tails. We all like to be fed the gourmet dog food. We
all like going for walks. We all mark our territory.
Sometimes I think Dale's just an old crazy hound, trying to bite
everybody. What he needs is for someone to pet him, even though he
doesn't want to be petted.
"You're not biting me, I'm petting you between the ears. That's just the
way it is."
You know that once he gets past his initial urge to bite, he'll
calm down, be your best friend, go on long walks with you in the woods.
He loves to have his ears scratched, just like the rest of us.
I bet if I keep telling Dale that he and I are friends, it will eventually
be true. Just you watch. I like Dale more and more each day. Someday,
he'll stop snapping at my hand every time I try to pet him. Someday soon.
Wait and see.
Leo Sgouros
<diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:894tnm$tge$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <pWbt4.18982$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com>,
> "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > brenda wrote
> > > When I was dozing off for my once in a lifetime nap today..I had an
> > > ephiphany. Nik & Dale might be the same person.
> >
> > We might be the same person too.
> >
> >
> You think Brandon?
> Or are you making fun?
You could be leo next week.
he's a pain in the neck tho'
diva...@my-deja.com
Andrea Chen
> I give a personal detail: he comes back with superifical intellectalisms
> about "atheists hate Daddy and all Gods are Daddies." I answer him in detail
> about the rather lame quality of this observation given the quite accessible
> literature on gods. He ignores it
You ignore it Dale. You equated gods with forces of nature, an idea
you learned in junior high schoo when a great deal of the literature
indicates that "gods" were a way of channeling unconscious thoughts and
ideas and perhaps these "possessions" were the first source of
consciousness. Your model of gods simoly doesn't stand up, it's not
taken seriously by anyone except 7th grade teachers (and evern they
started to know better about 1965) and yet you pompously refer to a
"literiture" you never read. Your ignorance applies to everything you
talk about including surrealism. Remember how ignorant you were about
Breton's dependance on Freud which he was exposed to in the war (don't
ask which war please) or how you thought the Weimar Republic was formed
in 1929? One could go on and on including your concept of anarchy. You
are uneducated Dale. Don't pretend otherwise.
Nikolaus Maack
> Remember how ignorant you were about
> Breton's dependance on Freud which he was exposed to in the war (don't
> ask which war please) or how you thought the Weimar Republic was formed
> in 1929?
One of the reasons I am attracted to surrealism is its connection with
Freud and psychoanalysis. Surrealism was originally founded under the
principle of making subconscious material conscious. This is why there is
an emphasis on dreams, and superstitious devices like tarot, astrology,
and finding messages from the universe. These are tools used to draw
forth subconscious materials.
This is also why surrealists played games like "truth or dare" and took it
very seriously. This is why they talked about their sex lives with a
shocking level of openness. All of it was about making subconscious
material conscious, and exploring their own minds. The sex game chatter
clearly recognizes Freud's own obsession with sexuality.
In this newsgroup, the so called "hard core" surrealists -- Barrett, Dale,
Bradon -- don't seem too keen on any of these "old school" games. I don't
think they like Freud very much, either. Not that long ago Barrett said
he doesn't even believe in the subconscious, and sees it as an outdated
model. If I recall correctly, Dale & Brandon immediately agreed.
Perhaps, like Breton, they are a little miffed at Freud. When Breton went
to see Freud, he expected the founder of psychoanalysis to show him
respect, to treat him like an equal. Breton felt he was furthering the
psychoanalytic cause in France, adapting it to the world of art and
poetry, through surrealism.
Freud thought of Breton as just another fan of psychoanalysis. He didn't
seem to understand what Breton was talking about -- Freud had never even
heard of surrealism before -- and eventually dismissed Breton from the
room with a smile and a handshake after a short interview.
This upset Breton so much that he wrote a nasty account about their
meeting, trying to portray Freud in as bad a light as possible. The
resulting piece only made Breton sound petty and childish. (Sound like
anyone we know?)
To further Breton's ire, Dali met Freud many years later, and charmed and
amused the shrink. By this time Breton despised Dali and Dali's
grandstanding. Dali and Freud getting along must have also increased
Breton's dislike of Freud.
Poor Breton. So often he comes across as such a self-important, serious,
miserable little monster. If only he could smile, on occasion, and play
without being goaded into playing.
Andrea Chen
> In this newsgroup, the so called "hard core" surrealists -- Barrett, Dale,
> Bradon -- don't seem too keen on any of these "old school" games. I don't
> think they like Freud very much, either. Not that long ago Barrett said
> he doesn't even believe in the subconscious, and sees it as an outdated
> model. If I recall correctly, Dale & Brandon immediately agreed.
>
The Freudian model is certainly debatable. But it's also epic poetry.
The unconscious as a basic reality is obvious. There is a vast amount
of processing that we know nothing about and it's results pop up
unexpectedly. There are also border zones. For example you migyt not
know the exact number of stairs, but if one is missing you will notice
it. You may not be able to say there is a picture on a wall (it's not
concious) but if changed you will notice it. The primary Freudian
method which Breton emulated was simply observing and at times
triggering directions in the (Jamesian) "flow of consciousness." This
as I pointed out is also a basic form of Taoism meditation piced up by
Cha'n (Zen) Buddhism.
The subject area is vast and any modern surrealist would have a rich
area of things and ideas to explore. I think Jaynes (and his origin of
consciousness) is fun because he is poetic. He is also taken seriously
by those who work with more orthodox models of the mind (eg. Dennett.)
There are also fascinating ideas related to language which again can get
pretty interesting if one starts thinking of things like Chomsky's
univeral grammar. I've tried to raise such ideas, they are of no
interest. Stupid and stupidest (stupider remains silent on this issue)
will simply mutter things about "science" and not actually try to play
with any real theories. The problem about these idios is that they are
cmpletely ignorant. Stupid (Dale) once claimed that there was no
contradiction between Einsteinian physics and Newtonian physics when any
high school student knows that Newtonian physics offers no reason why an
object can't go faster than light.
Freud might be outdated, but the surrealist project of exploring the
sources "consciousness" and other things remains valid. This doesn't
just deal with the brain, but society. The eraly surrealists were
fascianted by billboards, radio etc. They may have been in conflict
with society but they still found the tools of "mass mind" of
importance. Stupid, stupider and stupidest think they understand these
things and like good fifies (this is were there minds seemed to have
stopped) turn up their noses and drink their expresso.
Your mention of "truth and dare" is interesting because it was a
symptom of what the early surrealists intended. They weren't simply
putting on a fancy word which would make impress the local librarian.
They thought they were creating a movement which would alter society by
making the rveltion of hidden forces standard. It never got far, but
truth and dare is part and parcel of personality altering, of creating a
new human. One should note that this kind of tchnique is the stuff of
cults and Maoism, it's vry powrful, very dangerous and completely
threttening to our middle class ideas of privacy and comfort. It is a
revolutionary act and it's no surprise our smug 3 stooges fear you. You
are a buffoon Nik (but so was Dosteovsky's Idiot) and you (often
clumsily) tromp off to disturbing places. Dale must focus on yoyur
faults and continually reject you because more than any one here you are
bumbling towards what the original surrealism was about.
As I've stated before I have both sympathies and fears about this
direction. Remember how Brandon and friends used to spout about
"liberating the unconscious" until I pointd out that liberating
unconscious forces is what the Nazis did. Then it became "liberating
the imagination." Which is fine enough, but it's a struggle as
practcing artists will tell you. Sadly stupidist (Barrett) and stupider
(Brandon) don't realize this. To them it's a state of grace which they
have achieved and which stupidist can endow on others (such as Lucky
Elag) by provisionally allowing them into the project (*). Stupid
(Dale) perhaps senses it isn't so easy. Which is why he alwys fights
you. You blunder and are absurd which is a necessary step for those who
truly want transformation.
This is why I'm rather serious when I beg him to take you on his
teacher. But he dares not.
*: What is the surrealist project? The surrealist project is what
surrealists do. How do you tell a surrealist? He (women are not
allowed, look how they ignored that groupie Kristina) is in the
surrealist project.
Aeon
>I don't know about you... but if this is all the profundity that Nik can
>squeeze out of his insipid notions of "biographical vivisection" then surely
>I can't be the only one who smells cheap psychology every time he enters the
>room?
And whether we smell it or not, why is it that we should feel compelled to
do anything about it?
>I give a personal detail: he comes back with superifical intellectalisms
>about "atheists hate Daddy and all Gods are Daddies." I answer him in detail
>about the rather lame quality of this observation given the quite accessible
>literature on gods. He ignores it (I assume because he is only good at
>surface thought). He goes on and on about how knowing biographical details
>allows one to more fully comprehend a person's motivations. I give him more
>details, plus examples of the myriad cases where biography is NOT revealing
>of a person's character or actions. He can't come up with anything. Again he
>personalizes everything. He does not seem capable of having his ideas
>challenged without feeling personally insulted. Yet he insults people all
>the time and with no thought at all behind it.
How dare he keep spouting his own thoughts after you've gone and carefully
pointed out how wrong he is!
And to insult people with no thought! It's appalling.
(please note, since you don't know me at all, that this sarcasm is not meant
as an insult, but rather to make my particular point obvious beyond a doubt)
>Sigh... what can one do with dim children, especially when they are
>surrounded and encouraged by all the other dim children?
To be surrounded by those pointing out how "dim" you are certainly doesn't
encourage anything positive to happen.
Regardless of who is right or wrong...
who insulted who....
who is more stupid, who is dim....
what does it really matter? What is it that drives the conversation beyond
a loud "we disagree!"?
I feel that all there is to it is what you will find at the core of any
heated argument that occurs anywhere in the world.... the drive to be right,
the drive to sound smart, the drive to be understood, the drive to be
accepted, the drive to know that someone feels for you, the drive to be
heard.
What more could there be to any of the posts between you and Nik?
Aeon
>like wagging our tails. We all like to be fed the gourmet dog food. We
>all like going for walks. We all mark our territory.
<snip>
Oh yes, we are all dogs...
but I think any "war" on a newsgroup could be summarized like this:
dog pisses on tree
another dog sniffs, and pisses on the tree too
first dog comes back, pisses again
second dog repeats earlier step
this goes on for awhile, and before you know it, they are pissing all
over each other in their hurry to hit the tree
eventually, there's so much piss, and trees, and dogs... nobody knows
what the hell is going on.
Dale Houstman
> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't know about you... but if this is all the profundity that Nik can
> >squeeze out of his insipid notions of "biographical vivisection" then
surely
> >I can't be the only one who smells cheap psychology every time he enters
the
> >room?
>
> And whether we smell it or not, why is it that we should feel compelled to
> do anything about it?
Why not? Choosing to do (or at least say) something about it is as valid as
not, especially on Usenet, where the only "value" lies in response and
reading. And I for one believe ideas are worth explicating and - in the case
of a supposedly surrealist group - defending agsinst those whose knowledge
has gone from nil to nothing.
>
> >I give a personal detail: he comes back with superifical intellectalisms
> >about "atheists hate Daddy and all Gods are Daddies." I answer him in
detail
> >about the rather lame quality of this observation given the quite
accessible
> >literature on gods. He ignores it (I assume because he is only good at
> >surface thought). He goes on and on about how knowing biographical
details
> >allows one to more fully comprehend a person's motivations. I give him
more
> >details, plus examples of the myriad cases where biography is NOT
revealing
> >of a person's character or actions. He can't come up with anything. Again
he
> >personalizes everything. He does not seem capable of having his ideas
> >challenged without feeling personally insulted. Yet he insults people all
> >the time and with no thought at all behind it.
>
> How dare he keep spouting his own thoughts after you've gone and carefully
> pointed out how wrong he is!
Again this is dualistic: he can go on spouting all the ideas he wants to,
and it makes no difference to me. Yet if he writes to me claiming certain
pyschological insights based on his "biographical model" and I respond in
length with a post he mainly ignores, it isn't a matter of his being inanely
"right" or "wrong" or of changing his ideas, but only - let's say - one of
intellectual hit and run, in which subjects taken up by him are discarded as
soon as others address them. I have little hope or desire of changing Nik's
ideas, but I do not see why (in a public forum) we shouldn't at the very
least expect a response with some thought behind it.
>
> And to insult people with no thought! It's appalling.
>
> (please note, since you don't know me at all, that this sarcasm is not
meant
> as an insult, but rather to make my particular point obvious beyond a
doubt)
Yes, but your point isn't all that valid anyway.
>
> >Sigh... what can one do with dim children, especially when they are
> >surrounded and encouraged by all the other dim children?
>
> To be surrounded by those pointing out how "dim" you are certainly doesn't
> encourage anything positive to happen.
Look: you say you're new. We all have a longer history with Nik than you,
and several of us realize his intransigient games (impenetrable egoism
diguised as sentimental concern). First you sarcastically berate me for
supposedly trying to change his mind, and now you berate me for doing things
that make changing his mind unlikely. Maybe I am not trying to change his
mind, but only confront what has hardened into a shell of limited response
and tics? Maybe you don't know what is going on?
>
> what does it really matter? What is it that drives the conversation
beyond
> a loud "we disagree!"?
And the problem with this is...? And - as I explained - this isn't simply a
matter of diagreeing with Nik, but of attempting to engage him in a true
conversation AT ALL. Surely this is the least one can expect?
>
> I feel that all there is to it is what you will find at the core of any
> heated argument that occurs anywhere in the world.... the drive to be
right,
> the drive to sound smart, the drive to be understood, the drive to be
> accepted, the drive to know that someone feels for you, the drive to be
> heard.
>
> What more could there be to any of the posts between you and Nik?
And the problem with this is...? So there is something innately wrong with
wanting to be understood?
And really - are you claiming that some heated arguments (or even tepid
ones) don't also have an intellectual side to them, that ideas (maybe ideas
of some value) are not often at stake? Why shouldn't one argue for ideas
they find worthwhile? Or should be all be like Caspian Fluke, and
blitherblather endlessly about nothing?
DMH
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca
Aeon said:
> eventually, there's so much piss, and trees, and dogs... nobody knows
> what the hell is going on.
Yeah, that's pretty true. Now that you've noticed the urinating
habits, you can try to play with them in order to challenge them. For
example, peeing on oneself, or, not on trees, but clouds. By
deliberately going against the patterns, you can make other people
aware of just how ridiculous the patterns are.
I try to do this every once in a while, but unfortunately, most people
-- Dale -- don't notice. He usually thinks of it as an intellectual
retreat from battle, as opposed to, "Let's try pissing on something
other than each other" manoeuvre.
Nik
Aeon
>soon as others address them. I have little hope or desire of changing Nik's
>ideas, but I do not see why (in a public forum) we shouldn't at the very
>least expect a response with some thought behind it.
You expect too much.
I can understand wanting a response of a certain kind, but by the very
point that there doesn't have to be a point, a response can be as lacking
or as loaded in thought as anyone wants it to be.
>Yes, but your point isn't all that valid anyway.
Not valid to you? Not valid to the group? Not valid as a post on usenet?
Not valid in that you feel my opinion is incorrect?
>Look: you say you're new. We all have a longer history with Nik than you,
>and several of us realize his intransigient games (impenetrable egoism
>diguised as sentimental concern). First you sarcastically berate me for
>supposedly trying to change his mind, and now you berate me for doing things
>that make changing his mind unlikely. Maybe I am not trying to change his
>mind, but only confront what has hardened into a shell of limited response
>and tics? Maybe you don't know what is going on?
Maybe I don't.
>> what does it really matter? What is it that drives the conversation
>beyond
>> a loud "we disagree!"?
>
>And the problem with this is...? And - as I explained - this isn't simply a
>matter of diagreeing with Nik, but of attempting to engage him in a true
>conversation AT ALL. Surely this is the least one can expect?
Maybe you've discovered that having a true conversation with him is not
going to work?
>> I feel that all there is to it is what you will find at the core of any
>> heated argument that occurs anywhere in the world.... the drive to be
>right,
>> the drive to sound smart, the drive to be understood, the drive to be
>> accepted, the drive to know that someone feels for you, the drive to be
>> heard.
>>
>> What more could there be to any of the posts between you and Nik?
>
>And the problem with this is...? So there is something innately wrong with
>wanting to be understood?
Surely not a problem, and certainly nothing wrong with wanting to be
understood. It was an observation.
With that said, are you willing to attempt to understand someone like Nik?
Are you willing to admit that you just don't understand him? Are you
willing to let down the defenses and have him attempt to understand you?
Is it worth trying to understand each other at all? If you could understand
each other, would there be anything intellectual left to discuss?
>And really - are you claiming that some heated arguments (or even tepid
>ones) don't also have an intellectual side to them, that ideas (maybe ideas
>of some value) are not often at stake? Why shouldn't one argue for ideas
>they find worthwhile? Or should be all be like Caspian Fluke, and
>blitherblather endlessly about nothing?
Oh they certainly have something to them... but I feel that over time they
simply degrade as people lose sight of the original debate and spiral down
into a situation that will never resolve and will only lead to further
misunderstanding.
Arguing is great... don't get me wrong. With my very small view into what
is happening between you and Nik though, all I can see is a struggle to
prove who is smarter or better, not trying to exchange ideas or reveal
them.
Dale Houstman
>
> >soon as others address them. I have little hope or desire of changing
Nik's
> >ideas, but I do not see why (in a public forum) we shouldn't at the very
> >least expect a response with some thought behind it.
>
Yeah - well - hope springs eternal and all that. The truth is though that I
HAVE had quite number of contemplated responses over the last few years, so
I will keep expecting that as a standard, despite the awful failings seen
here and there.
Otherwise Usenet isn't worth anything... Uselessnet...
>
> I can understand wanting a response of a certain kind, but by the very
> point that there doesn't have to be a point, a response can be as lacking
> or as loaded in thought as anyone wants it to be.
>
> >Yes, but your point isn't all that valid anyway.
>
> Not valid to you? Not valid to the group? Not valid as a post on usenet?
Well not valid as a reasonable standard of discourse, it seems to me. And -
to reiterate - I don't expect every post to be an intellectual stunner, but
it is not unreasonable to at least vaguely hope that a person who does put
forth an idea ("Daddy is God" "biography is destiny") is also the same
person who is willing to discuss and defend that idea. That - in Nik's
case - this NEVER happens is perhaps obvious (and this is the reason I
killfiled him for months, while he kept doggedly answering my posts), but it
happens often enough to make it not a bizarre hope.
Maybe you don't know what is going on?
>
> Maybe I don't.
Maybe I don't.
>
>
> Maybe you've discovered that having a true conversation with him is not
> going to work?
Yes - and that is why I ignored him (and shall again). But it isn't so much
my attempting to engage him in human discourse (which IS futile) but trying
to make sure any newcomer doesn't see his shallow comprehension as the true
depiction of surrealism. That this ends up in long and (because of Nik's
willed density disguised as "the common touch of the heart") frsutrating
threads is regrettable no doubt. But now we know what those in the know
always knew: Andrea considers Nik her second-best tool. He should be proud.
>
> With that said, are you willing to attempt to understand someone like Nik?
> Are you willing to admit that you just don't understand him? Are you
> willing to let down the defenses and have him attempt to understand you?
But this is precisely the point: I DO understand Nik. As for understanding
me: he has had every opportunity, and he claims that biographical detail is
the goor to comprehension for him. I gave him tons.
>
> Is it worth trying to understand each other at all? If you could
understand
> each other, would there be anything intellectual left to discuss?
All interesting questions: No... But as I explained I long ago gave up
thinking these discussions were about Nik. They are about those who might
otherwise be trapped into thinking Nik is THE voice of surrealism, when - in
fact - he literally knows nothing, and is rather proud of that fact.
>
>
> Oh they certainly have something to them... but I feel that over time they
> simply degrade as people lose sight of the original debate and spiral down
> into a situation that will never resolve and will only lead to further
> misunderstanding.
This is true, and is why I have again killfiled him. But - as explained
above - the discourse is NOT for his elucidation, as he is beyond it.
>
> Arguing is great... don't get me wrong. With my very small view into what
> is happening between you and Nik though, all I can see is a struggle to
> prove who is smarter or better, not trying to exchange ideas or reveal
> them.
Well - I tried...
DMH
Aeon
>Yeah - well - hope springs eternal and all that. The truth is though that I
>HAVE had quite number of contemplated responses over the last few years, so
>I will keep expecting that as a standard, despite the awful failings seen
>here and there.
>Otherwise Usenet isn't worth anything... Uselessnet...
naw. One person's posts do not make the whole of usenet.
>Maybe you don't know what is going on?
>>
>> Maybe I don't.
>
>Maybe I don't.
no... maybe I DON'T!!!! heh.
>Yes - and that is why I ignored him (and shall again). But it isn't so much
>my attempting to engage him in human discourse (which IS futile) but trying
>to make sure any newcomer doesn't see his shallow comprehension as the true
>depiction of surrealism. That this ends up in long and (because of Nik's
>willed density disguised as "the common touch of the heart") frsutrating
>threads is regrettable no doubt. But now we know what those in the know
>always knew: Andrea considers Nik her second-best tool. He should be proud.
Is there only one true depiction in surrealism? Why would anyone be stupid
enough as to assume that one person's ideas and works are the living breathing
definition of the whole movement?
I feel that Nik's works (particularly his artwork) fit rather nicely into
surrealism as far as I can see at this moment.
And again, what if I ran around believing that Nik's beliefs, ideas, art,
and so on were the end all be all depiction of surrealism and I ran around
trying to be like him?
My view is different than yours, but I do not feel that Nik somehow gives
Surrealism a bad name, and that we must protect everyone from his views.
I feel that the surrealist movement should embrace him as simply another
extension of a wonderful movement. Surely there's room for him, despite
the fact that he doesn't fit into your tight definition of surrealism?
>> With that said, are you willing to attempt to understand someone like Nik?
>> Are you willing to admit that you just don't understand him? Are you
>> willing to let down the defenses and have him attempt to understand you?
>
>But this is precisely the point: I DO understand Nik. As for understanding
>me: he has had every opportunity, and he claims that biographical detail is
>the goor to comprehension for him. I gave him tons.
You do understand Nik?
I'm sorry, but I feel the need to disagree... but it isn't worth us arguing
over that.
>thinking these discussions were about Nik. They are about those who might
>otherwise be trapped into thinking Nik is THE voice of surrealism, when - in
>fact - he literally knows nothing, and is rather proud of that fact.
Do you really believe that Nik knows nothing, and has nothing valuable to
contribute?
Quite honestly, I've rather enjoyed his posts and his opinions. Regardless of
whether he IS the epitomy of surrealism or not, I think he's doing good.
I guess I have some different ideas when it comes to art (and the world for
that matter).
If someone is truly a cubist, and yet they want to call themselves a
surrealist, who am I to say they shouldn't gain entrance to this special
little club? And what if a newbie thought that cubism was what surrealism
was all about?
Surely they have their own brains and can research. ;)
Aeon
>> I feel that Nik's works (particularly his artwork) fit rather nicely into
>> surrealism as far as I can see at this moment.
>
>of imagination? Strikes me as a less than compelling vision of anything much
>less surrealism. But it goes to show that misunderstandings about surrealism
>can arise easier than you might think.
What is it that makes his portraiture sloppy and lacking in imagination as
opposed to an artist making what he might feel is a surreal image of someone?
Is it sloppy because the lines are thick and rampant? Does it lack imagination
because he chooses to use wild colors? Is it not surreal because it lacks
the strange elements seen in works by Dali?
Maybe you can explain further why his artwork doesn't fit under the definition
of surrealism as opposed to why you don't like it.
>Good for you. But these repeated assertions of yours without any explanation
>do not constitute either conversation or argument, civil or otherwise. "I
>think the sky is blue." "Well I think the sky is pink." Rather lacking...
Just as your comments of Nik knowing nothing do.
>> Surely they have their own brains and can research.
>
>Talking to others IS part of research. Why shouldn't we attempt to make a
>forum an academy also? I see no reason to spread half-truths and outright
>lies just because Nik is full of himself and you like it anyway you can get
>it.
What I see is Nik exploring his own imagination, his own dreams. He explores
some of the psychological ideologies of people like Freud and seeks their
applications in this world. He seeks truth in his own experiences, and
attempts to see it in others.
Exploring truth was part of the surrealist movement.
Exploring psychology was a large part of the movement.
Exploring imagination and dreams was also a large part of the movement.
Am I right in the above three statements? If so, how is it that Nik does not
fit into these broad parts of the movement?
Fascinan
>>>> i'll quote from my "book of definitions" posted in dec '98 >>>
>
>
>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
>
>
>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.
>
>
>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.
This helps for understanding your perspective. Have your definitions changed
at all during the time of your intellectual pursuit? Arguing from the
point-of-view of your own definitions can only lead to the communicative
problems that have been occuring. You are assuming that your definitions
constitue the "correct" way to approach Surrealism. While your project may be
popular among "surrealists", should one conform to these definitions?
Fas
Dale Houstman
>
>
>
> What is it that makes his portraiture sloppy and lacking in imagination as
> opposed to an artist making what he might feel is a surreal image of
someone?
His work (both visual and textual) shows a desparing lack of anything that
could compell one to dream. His portraitures of famous people (taken from
photographs) are merely icons of celebrity.
>
> Is it sloppy because the lines are thick and rampant? Does it lack
imagination
> because he chooses to use wild colors? Is it not surreal because it lacks
> the strange elements seen in works by Dali?
It is sloppy because there is no apparent connection between what he is
copying from the photograph and what he is imagining he is doing. It has no
content to speak of beyond the recognition of the celebrity beneath the
colors. As such it is at most a parlor game of fame.
>
> Maybe you can explain further why his artwork doesn't fit under the
definition
> of surrealism as opposed to why you don't like it.
I already have.
>
>
> Just as your comments of Nik knowing nothing do.
But he has proven it himself repeatedly. There are months of travail you are
missing; he has been debated and has shown a disregard for human discourse.
As such, I say my point is proven.
>
>
> What I see is Nik exploring his own imagination, his own dreams. He
>explores some of the psychological ideologies of people like Freud and
seeks >their applications in this world. He seeks truth in his own
experiences, and
> attempts to see it in others.
Some examples and explication of this process?
>
> Exploring truth was part of the surrealist movement.
Nik has repeatedly said that there is no such thing as truth, or of any
objective reality. His tautological knots and insipid aphorisms ("Everything
is the same as everything else" "Nothing is the same as everything") have
nothing to do with exploration, but instead challenge us to forgo human
activity in the face of nothingness.
>
> Exploring psychology was a large part of the movement.
Nik knows nothing about psychology: he really believes that bare biography
constitutes knowledge, but when given these details can do nothing with
them.
>
> Exploring imagination and dreams was also a large part of the movement.
Nik doesn't believe in exploration, only in dictating the responses of
others. When we do attempt to engage him in exploratory conversation, he
simply refuses not only to respond, but also to simply lie about what has
occurred. For example: a week ago I was engaged with Andrea in a
conversation about Breton's use of the Tarot. Whether or not you agree with
my conclusions (although there is a substantial body of texts to support my
notions), it must strike you as odd that now Nik is claiming that on one has
ever deigned to discuss precisely this point with him and Andrea. Truth is
we have dicussed it over and over, and I must assume that - unless Nik is an
idiot - he knows this. So, does his lying about truth constitute an
expedition for truth? Does his lying about what he and we have said
constitute a clebration of human imagination, or merely a turning away from
same?
The answer seems clear to me...
DMH
barrett john erickson
news:20000227161733...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
>
>
> This helps for understanding your perspective. Have your
definitions changed
> at all during the time of your intellectual pursuit? Arguing
from the
> point-of-view of your own definitions can only lead to the
communicative
> problems that have been occuring. You are assuming that your
definitions
> constitue the "correct" way to approach Surrealism. While your
project may be
> popular among "surrealists", should one conform to these
definitions?
>
those definitions evolved over a period of time in the early to
mid 90's as a result of discussions among surrealist friends when
we realized none of us had a clear answer to the common problem of
how to explained its vital exploratory nature in a way that
avoided petrification as a style or ideology.
i've posted my analysis of what is at the core of the surrealist
project here repeatedly. it should be no surprise to anyone who
has read this newsgroup for more than a few months.
as far as "assuming that [my] definitions constitute the 'correct'
way to approach Surrealism" i can only point out that these are
descriptive (drawn from observation of surrealists and surrealist
history) not proscriptive and ask where you think they are
deficient?
[referring here to the definitions dealing with "surrealism" --
the specialized perspective on reality evolved more recently from
contemplation of the enactive model of cognition, and it is
non-essential to the other definitions. but we can discuss that
also if you wish.]
"andrea" has criticized them for being simply circular and
meaningless in their self-reference, i.e., they don't really
define anything. of course, they do say quite a bit or your
comments wouldn't mean anything.
the truth is, i think they succeed quite well in clearly
describing in very few words, what is identifiable at the core of
a process of immense complexity that is manifestly unique to each
individual.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"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."
...André Breton
==============================================
Brandon J. Freels
> What is it that makes his portraiture sloppy and lacking in imagination as
> opposed to an artist making what he might feel is a surreal image of
someone?
imagination
> because he chooses to use wild colors? Is it not surreal because it lacks
> the strange elements seen in works by Dali?
Surrealism has nothing to do with how a picture *appears* but how it was
created. If Nik created his pieces autonomously or by a method that bypasses
conscious control then it can be consider Surrealist, but if he is simply
relying on a photograph or model [or other traditional forms] than I
wouldn't consider it Surrealist.
Besides, from the art historical standpoint he is more Fauvist than
anything...
Brandon J. Freels
> Are you attempting to say that the only art that falls under the title of
> surrealism was the product of automatism or some other uncontrolled
> method?
Yes, and the usual argument against such a statements as the one I have made
is this: but what about Dali, and Magritte? And my usual response is that
Dali is not a Surrealist, and that Magritte's juxtapositioning of objects is
just a method of painted collage which is an *uncontrolled method*.
Aeon
>Surrealism has nothing to do with how a picture *appears* but how it was
>created. If Nik created his pieces autonomously or by a method that bypasses
>conscious control then it can be consider Surrealist, but if he is simply
>relying on a photograph or model [or other traditional forms] than I
>wouldn't consider it Surrealist.
>
>Besides, from the art historical standpoint he is more Fauvist than
>anything...
>
Are you attempting to say that the only art that falls under the title of
surrealism was the product of automatism or some other uncontrolled
method?
orlan
Dale Houstman
> >
> >Surrealism has nothing to do with how a picture *appears* but how it was
> >created. If Nik created his pieces autonomously or by a method that
bypasses
> >conscious control then it can be consider Surrealist, but if he is simply
> >relying on a photograph or model [or other traditional forms] than I
> >wouldn't consider it Surrealist.
> >
> >Besides, from the art historical standpoint he is more Fauvist than
> >anything...
> >
>
> Are you attempting to say that the only art that falls under the title of
> surrealism was the product of automatism or some other uncontrolled
> method?
>
He isn't "trying" to say it, this is precisely what he is saying. Various
artists tried different ways to achieve this (the difficult of being
"automatic" with painting was one of Breton's reasons for not embracing it
at first); decalomaina, frottage as an inspiration, Tanguy's painting upside
down, etc. Barring these "at the canvas" approaches (with Magritte and Dali
say) a certain "pre-canvas" autmoatic process took place: Magritte actually
has extensive work journals filled with images, but it is obvious that
"inspiration" for an idea strikes him quickly, and the very "collage-like"
nature of his work often precludes the easy settling for some cliched
subject. Dali used to work in a frenzy, until Catholicism made him think of
suitable subjects.
But - in general - yes, the tendency in surrealist art is this run-around
the lines of preparation and/or "ideas."
Any glance at a gallery of surrealist art will quickly convince you that
style is not the defining aspect of its character.
By "style" alone Nik's work is Fauvist, although not a particulary
intriguing exmaple of such it seems. By process - as he has explained his
working from photographs - the work is not surrealist. By his blatant
commercial appeals and flogging of his "product" I also consider the work
tainted.
But - hell - I suppose he's better than Leroy Nieman, who is also basically
a sloppyist.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
a dead bird, which was inspired by a "vision" he had while watching her eat
a chocolate bird. Now that's a chance encounter.
Aeon <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8bm94...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
> >Aeon wrote
> >> Are you attempting to say that the only art that falls under the title
of
> >> surrealism was the product of automatism or some other uncontrolled
> >> method?
> >
> >Yes, and the usual argument against such a statements as the one I have
made
> >is this: but what about Dali, and Magritte? And my usual response is that
> >Dali is not a Surrealist, and that Magritte's juxtapositioning of objects
is
> >just a method of painted collage which is an *uncontrolled method*.
>
> I'm going to do a little bit of checking and reading, and I'll reply again
> at a later date.