A Genuine Question
Nikolaus Maack
At its core, surrealism is about promoting the usefulness of the
irrational, the "insane", the dream, and how this material contains an
"intelligence" that goes beyond rationality and logic.
(Feel free to question this premise if you'd like.)
My genuine question: Given the above, what possible difference would it
make HOW you go about promoting this usefulness, so long as you're
promoting it?
Automatism or not, adopting irrationality yourself or recommending it to
others, painting, writing, dance, theatre, accosting people on the street,
leafleting, whatever -- all of these are valid approaches, so long as they
meet the core criteria. The process that makes the promotion? It seems
secondary, to me.
You can pore over the history of surrealism and demand certain political
approaches. You can insist that certain areas have been explored to
satisfaction and need no further investigation. You can claim that
"mental freedom" is a necessary component of the whole game. All of this
is just limitation on the core principle -- irrationality is good.
Ironically, all these limitations and rules are rational crud building up
on the core belief. What was once a love of the irrational and the dream
becomes a codified misery of rules, laws, etiquette, judgements, and
logic. The art of controlled madness becomes over controlled and chokes
to death on its own bureaucracy.
Nik
--
Licking clouds while my toes
touch the centre of the earth.
Brandon Freels
> At its core, surrealism is about promoting the usefulness of the
> irrational, the "insane", the dream, and how this material contains an
> "intelligence" that goes beyond rationality and logic.
>
> (Feel free to question this premise if you'd like.)
I question it.
[snip]
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:96jon9$fkd$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Some thoughts I had while cleaning the house.
>
> At its core, surrealism is about promoting the usefulness of the
> irrational, the "insane", the dream, and how this material contains an
> "intelligence" that goes beyond rationality and logic.
at its core "surrealism" has nothing to do with "usefulness".
nik, in all seriousness and with no intention for this to sound like an
attack, you'll never understand "surrealism" as long as you think in terms
of utility. it isn't a tool to improve your creativity, your art or your
life. the very act of framing your approach in these terms distances you
from it.
this is because "surrealism" isn't something a surrealist does to achieve
some goal.
"surrealism" can only be defined as the aggregate activity of all
surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project. and the surrealist
project is "SURReality" (i.e., the full integration of the liberated
imagination into the reality of everyday living).
and even this isn't some end to be achieved, but rather a process from which
both means and end emerge simultaneously from the spontaneous actions of the
_liberated_ imagination in the pursuit of _intuitive_ desire.
"SURReality" is created and discovered in the same instant.
which is to say: it is the orgasm in process -- not the man, not the woman,
not the flirting, not the date, not the wine, not the shy and hesitating
invitation upstairs, not the barry white/manilow records, not the "something
more comfortable", not the black leather and handcuffs, not the hot wax, not
the cock, not the cunt, not the cum, not the contractions, and not even the
fucking, but the perpetual orgasm in process -- _shared by as many people as
possible_.
and as i see it, the only difference between this and automatism (as the
term is used by surrealists), is the number of people involved.
-- 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
==============================================
The Lemming
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a8da393$0$62900$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
> "surrealism" can only be defined as the aggregate activity of all
> surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project. and the surrealist
> project is "SURReality" (i.e., the full integration of the liberated
> imagination into the reality of everyday living).
>
And this, if I understand surrealism and Dali, is why Dali became
unconnected from surrealism, since he wanted the irrational to move as far
away from reality as possible; where surrealists bring the two together so
that the differences between them are nonexistent, Dali wanted them as far
apart as possible.
Nick the Lemming
--
Happy VHEMT Volunteer
May we live long and die out
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Sven
> "surrealism" can only be defined as the aggregate activity of all
> surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project. and the surrealist
> project is "SURReality" (i.e., the full integration of the liberated
> imagination into the reality of everyday living).
>
> and even this isn't some end to be achieved, but rather a process from which
> both means and end emerge simultaneously from the spontaneous actions of the
> _liberated_ imagination in the pursuit of _intuitive_ desire.
>
> "SURReality" is created and discovered in the same instant.
>
> which is to say: it is the orgasm in process
<snip candid confessions from barrett's last date>
Very well; that is the surrealist project, as far as you see it.
What I'm left thinking is: where do I hang my hat? Not that I need to, but
I'm curious as to what it is I'm interested in, according to you.
i) In terms of a personal response, I'm not interested in the actual process
of accessing the "liberated imagination", as you put it. However, I do
utilise it a lot, not as a means to its own end (see ii) but as a method of
generating stimulating sequences of words and ideas. During the process of
creating these words and ideas automatically, I feel nothing at all. The
gratification I get, and the reason I do it at all, arises entirely from the
*product*, or the combination of words/ideas I end up with.
When I read through this, and if I have been successful, I might smile or I
might feel a thrill of exhiliration at creating such a unique concept.
ii) I am only interested in this process as far as it allows me to write,
and write things that I find interesting. I will insert the ideas I come up
with into a piece that is not at all automatic in nature. Furthermore, I
will edit and improve as I see fit.
---
What am I? (You have 20 questions...)
Nikolaus Maack
> at its core "surrealism" has nothing to do with "usefulness".
It seems quite clear to me that a philosophy is always about usefulness.
If it served no purpose, if it had no use, why would you pick it up and
use it?
Philosophies are tools to deal with reality. We each individually choose
whatever philosophy works for us. When we find one that works, we declare
it to be TRUE. It's not true, universally. It is personally true, "for
me", because it serves a valuable function.
You, believing in objective reality and pure universal truth, probably
disagree entirely with this notion. I know you do, because we've had this
conversation before many, many times.
> nik, in all seriousness and with no intention for this to sound like an
> attack, you'll never understand "surrealism" as long as you think in terms
> of utility. it isn't a tool to improve your creativity, your art or your
> life. the very act of framing your approach in these terms distances you
> from it.
I think you don't entirely understand the concept of "usefulness".
Consider the notion of a psychosis. A man believes that his toaster is
telling him he's human garbage. It insults him day and night. He is
tormented by his toaster, but cannot bring himself to destroy it.
This psychosis, it can be argued, serves a use. Perhaps the real voice
that hates him is inside his own head. He hates himself. But being
incapable of dealing with his self-loathing -- it would kill him -- he
projects the nagging voice into his toaster. By removing the
self-loathing from inside his own head, the psychosis serves a valuable
function.
And perhaps the voice is female. Perhaps the real source of the voice
inside his head is his mother. He was raised by some shrewish,
controlling, mother monster. He's internalized that mother voice into his
own mind. Unable to ackowledge the original source -- he is not allowed
to hate his mother -- he has to distance it. The voice starts coming from
the toaster.
The psychosis serves a use. The irrationality has a function, a purpose.
This is both an example of surrealism's message -- irrationality has truth
in it -- and an example of how surrealism works. The function surrealism
serve, its usefulness, may not be pleasant. It might not "improve your
life", or better your art, or what have you. It simply allows a person to
access more information about the world. Its philosophy allows one to
embrace irrationality.
When I grab some wood off the street, nail it together into a box shape,
paint it red, string wire in a grid pattern in the box, and then lace the
grid with strips of canvas -- I'm devoting a heck of a lot of time to a
seemingly irrational act. Why am I doing all this? I can't tell you. I
don't consciously know. But I do it knowing it is important and serves a
purpose, even though it appears to be irrational. That, to me, is the key
to surrealism. The irrational serves a function, even though we may not
be immediately certain of what that function is.
> this is because "surrealism" isn't something a surrealist does to achieve
> some goal.
All behavior is goal-oriented, whether we're talking about picking up a
philosophy and using it, or stabbing a steak knife through one's own
cheek. There is always a purpose behind behavior. Yes, even in
irrational behavior. Perhaps especially in irrational behavior.
The original process behind "automatism" embraced this notion -- Dr. Freud
tells you to babble endlessly, without thinking. Doing so, you produce
material that contains the pattern describing your neurosis. Dr. Jung
understood this entirely, and came up with the notion of word association.
Seemingly random associations in your mind reveal your repressed
obsessions and miswired connections.
"Say the first word that comes to your mind. Mother."
"Toaster."
"Breakfast."
"Nagging."
When I speak of surrealism embracing the notion that the irrational has
use, I'm not talking about how it'll make your car drive faster or get you
a girlfriend. I'm saying that there's some heady messages, some potent
truths, that can be found in seemingly "irrational" acts and thoughts and
visions. Deliberately embracing the irrational, letting yourself act in
seemingly illogical ways, will give you access to more material about
yourself and the world. That is useful.
This, I believe, is what you call "liberating the imagination". I find
that terminology rather jargon-ish and silly.
> "surrealism" can only be defined as the aggregate activity of all
> surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project. and the surrealist
> project is "SURReality" (i.e., the full integration of the liberated
> imagination into the reality of everyday living).
The original expression of this idea was stated as integrating the
unconscious and the conscious mind. This was based on the Freudian model
of the mind, and the notion that the "irrational" is often ignored or
discarded. You know this, of course, but you seem to feel surrealism has
"moved on" to some sort of higher plane. I disagree. We're still right
where we started.
Before Freud picked up the notion of dreams, it didn't have a very good
reputation. It still doesn't. Dreams tend to be viewed as an area for
mystics and charlatans. Both Freud and Breton wanted to indicate that,
no, there is material of worth here, in dreams.
I think you have an anti-psychology bias, and are desperate to move
surrealism out of the realm of Freud. But all you've really done is
change the terminology. After all, how is "integrating the liberated
imagination" any different from the original notion of "integrating the
unconscious" or "integrating the irrational and the rational"?
Why have you changed the terms? Probably to distance yourself from a
particular philosophical approach (psychoanalysis) which gives you the
heebeejeebies. Did a therapist beat you as a child? Did you have a
particularly unpleasant stay in a mental hospital? Did you watch a parent
get dragged off by the men in white coats?
This reminds me of the time you tried to lecture me on the topic of
"authentic desire" and "inauthentic desire". About three-quarters through
your lengthy post, you finally defined your terms. "Authentic desire",
you said, referred to the desires that were genuinely yours, not thrust
upon you by some outside source. Society stuffs you with "inauthentic
desires" for things like Coca-Cola and BMWs.
Suddenly it became clear that you were using jargon to express a
relatively simple notion. Follow your heart. Trust your instincts. Be
yourself. Be true to you. Unable to express yourself so simply, you
resorted to jargon. When I pointed this out, you hemed and hawed and
insisted that the jargon said more than "follow your heart" does. You
never really explained HOW the words said more.
I think you're going through the exact same process when you say things
like "integrating the liberated imagination" and "an aggregate of all
activity by surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project". For
some reason you feel the need to make things overly complicated. I
suspect you speak in such convoluted gobbledeegook to make yourself feel
more important.
"Surrealism is the aggregate of all activity by surrealists in furtherance
of the surrealist project."
Breaking this down, what you're saying is:
"Surrealism is what all surrealists do for surrealism."
Which could be stated so much simply -- surrealism is a collective.
There are simpler and saner ways to express what you're struggling to
express. Why not lose the jargon? I don't think it's helping you get
your ideas across. Quite the opposite -- you're fogging your own message.
Brandon Freels
all cultures have their own "common sense" (i.e. their own form of public
rationalism) then they also have their own form of "irrationalism". The word
means nothing in its global or even primeval aspect. In other words, if
rationalism is subjective then so is the irrational.
Barrett has simply tried to clarify matters beyond the empty facade of the
word "irrational". For example, in the FAQ rather than use the word
"unconscious" I chose to use words like "interior necessities" or "interior
and emotional order." People who are unfamiliar with Siggy tend to interpret
the word "unconscious" [like they do "irrationalism"] to mean a bundle of
things, many of which are not the slightest degree of what I was referring
to. So, you see, the change in terminology is really about clarity.
How do you define "irrational" and "unconscious"?
"Nikolaus Maack" wrote
> This, I believe, is what you call "liberating the imagination". I find
> that terminology rather jargon-ish and silly.
[snip, snip, snip]
Nikolaus Maack
> "Irrational" is a vague term that says absolutely nothing.
Webster's defines irrational as:
"not rational: (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) :
lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or
according to reason"
Why do you have a problem with this term? "Not governed by or according
to reason." Sounds pretty clear to me.
> Considering that
> all cultures have their own "common sense" (i.e. their own form of public
> rationalism) then they also have their own form of "irrationalism". The word
> means nothing in its global or even primeval aspect. In other words, if
> rationalism is subjective then so is the irrational.
I happen to believe that everything is subjective, but I still think
you're making things more complicated than they have to be. Yes, different
cultures have different definitions of "normal" and "abnormal". So what?
If you're a surrealist in Europe, embrace European irrationality. If
you're a surrealist in the Congo, embrace Congonian irrationality.
Each surrealist, after all, has to work within their own particular
cultural context. I don't see this as a big problem.
> Barrett has simply tried to clarify matters beyond the empty facade of the
> word "irrational".
("Empty facade"? Another fine example of your misuse of English.)
Barrett provided two definitions in an attempt to define surrealism:
An aggregate of surrealists furthering the surrealist cause.
The surrealist cause is SURReality, the integration of the liberated
imagination into every day living.
It's not unreasonable to ask, "Integration of the liberated imaginaion?
What the hell does that mean?" Which would require yet ANOTHER definition.
Three definitions to define the word "surrealism"? This is clarification?
I don't think so.
> For example, in the FAQ rather than use the word
> "unconscious" I chose to use words like "interior necessities" or "interior
> and emotional order."
And you really think this clarifies things? What the hell are "interior
necessities"? What is "interior and emotional order"? I can make a
guess, but I wouldn't know, unless you "clarified" it some more for me.
> So, you see, the change in terminology is really about clarity.
I see no such thing. The construction of jargon and buzzwords and
catchphrases doesn't make your point any more clear.
> How do you define "irrational" and "unconscious"?
Do you not own a dictionary? Check out Webster's online at www.m-w.com --
it's a terrific site. They define "unconscious" (the noun) as:
"the part of the psychic apparatus that does not ordinarily enter the
individual's awareness and that is manifested especially by slips of the
tongue or dissociated acts or in dreams"
Again, where's the problem with the term? Sounds pretty clear to me.
You once accused me of defining words any way I choose. It strikes me as
odd that I, of all people, have to lecture you about the proper use of the
English language.
Brandon Freels
> Why do you have a problem with this term? "Not governed by or according
Can you define "reason" for me? According to your dictionary definition the
only way to understand the "irrational" is by first understanding what
"reason" is. Do you?
> And you really think this clarifies things? What the hell are "interior
> necessities"? What is "interior and emotional order"? I can make a
> guess, but I wouldn't know, unless you "clarified" it some more for me.
Some people interpret the word "unconscious" differently, depending on their
background. So I chose not to use "catch words" (like unconscious, or
irrational) which can be misunderstood, but instead try to talk about the
thing in itself. Whenever I hear someone speak of "the unconscious" or "the
irrational" I always tend to assume that that individual hasn't a clue what
s/he means, but rather they would like to avoid the topic altogether,
fearing they might get confused and humiliated.
> "the part of the psychic apparatus that does not ordinarily enter the
> individual's awareness and that is manifested especially by slips of the
> tongue or dissociated acts or in dreams"
Perfect example. This doesn't say what I want the word "unconscious" to
express. Therefor, I chose not to use the word.
Brandon Freels
not replace the two phrases I used to fill its void ("interior necessities"
and "interior and emotional order").
According to the Columbia Encyclopedia the "unconscious" is:
"in psychology, that aspect of mental life that is separate from immediate
consciousness and is not subject to recall at will. Sigmund Freud regarded
the unconscious as a submerged but vast portion of the mind. In his view,
the unconscious was composed of the id, which accounts for instinctual
drives, acts as the motivating force in human behavior, and contains desires
and wishes that the individual hides-or represses-from conscious
recognition; and part of the superego, the system that acts to restrain and
control id impulses. Conscious cognitive processes, such as thinking, are
performed by the ego and part of the superego (see psychoanalysis). Conflict
between conscious and unconscious impulses are said to give rise to anxiety,
then to defense mechanisms, which counteract this anxiety. To tap the
unconscious, Freud used a variety of techniques, including hypnosis, free
association, and dream interpretation. C. G. Jung expanded on the Freudian
concept, adding the idea of an inherited unconscious, known as the
collective unconscious. The idea of the unconscious has been rejected by
some psychological schools, although it is still used by many
psychoanalysts. The term unconscious is also used to describe latent, or
unretrieved, memories, or to describe stimuli too weak to enter an
individual's conscious awareness."
From this I can say that what Surrealism is interested in is not the
"unconscious" but rather what is defined in Freudian terms as the "id". The
decision not to use the Freudian name for these "drives" and "motivating
forces" is based purely on my attempt not to confuse the laymen, or to
alienate those who are not Freudians. I prefer to talk about these interior
processes without the use of catchwords, or simple phrases that only cause
misunderstandings or lack of understanding. It is the idea that I value, not
the word.
As for "irrationalism," let us consult the dictionary again.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
"1. Irrational thought, expression, or behavior; irrationality. 2. Belief in
feeling, instinct, or other nonrational forces rather than reason."
Only the second definition holds any relavence to Surrealism. When the
original surrealists used to word "irrational" or when they set themselves
against "reason" it was only to do so for the empowerment of instinct and
feeling, not, as Nik would have it, to create calculated weird pictures, or
to act illogical for the sake of the illogic. It is due to this
mistranslation that I avoid the word "irrational". Again, it is the idea,
not the word, that is important.
Now, Nik, let us talk of ideas...
Parry
>
> barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> news:3a8da393$0$62900$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
> > "surrealism" can only be defined as the aggregate activity of all
> > surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project. and the surrealist
> > project is "SURReality" (i.e., the full integration of the liberated
> > imagination into the reality of everyday living).
> >
>
> And this, if I understand surrealism and Dali, is why Dali became
> unconnected from surrealism, since he wanted the irrational to move as far
> away from reality as possible; where surrealists bring the two together so
> that the differences between them are nonexistent, Dali wanted them as far
> apart as possible.
I’d say you were closer to the facts in your earlier post (I don’t have
it handy to quote; you mentioned “anathema” in it). Dali’s divergence
from surrealism had not to do with a position on the irrational but
rather with his evolution into an idiot and a whore. This was not an
overnight transformation, and some surrealists such as Ernst were
discomfited by Dali earlier than others. From Dali’s entry in the
Glossary of “What is Surrealism?”: “Excluded from surrealism for
increasingly rightist tendencies and commercialism;” -- the former would
include his praise for the colonialist painter Meissonier, the latter
the debasement of his own paranoiac-critical method in the production of
optical illusions laced with Freudian symbols -- “subsequently avowed
racist views and supported Hitler; was converted to Catholicism. Became
an academic painter just before World War II.” Little of Dali’s work
after the 40’s has significance to surrealists or anyone else.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nikolaus Maack
> From this I can say that what Surrealism is interested in is not the
> "unconscious" but rather what is defined in Freudian terms as the "id".
I think you're over-simplifying the notion of unconscious, but don't feel
bad. Freud oversimplified it too.
When you say surrealists are only interested in the id, it's kind of like
saying that a mechanic fixing your car should only be interested in the
fan belt. Hacking the id out of the model simply doesn't work. Id, ego,
and superego are meant to be understood as forces working in unison and
opposition. Together they form the engine of the car.
That and these three pieces are but a minor aspect of Freudian theory.
The notion of unconscious drives, unconscious motivation, repressed
emotion -- these are the important bits of what Freud talked about.
You sound like you don't want to use the word "unconscious" because you
don't want to come across as a Freudian and have to wallow in all that
Freudian terminology. You'll be pleased to know that the word
"unconscious" doesn't belong to Freud. The unconscious is much bigger
than he is. Jung, for example, postulates a much more interesting, far
more enjoyable, much more creative unconscious world -- a model that is
more useful for surrealist purposes than Freud's view.
> When the
> original surrealists used to word "irrational" or when they set themselves
> against "reason" it was only to do so for the empowerment of instinct and
> feeling, not, as Nik would have it, to create calculated weird pictures, or
> to act illogical for the sake of the illogic.
I would have no such thing. Here's my stance...
Human beings are inherently irrational. We pretend not to be. We are
constantly pretending that we know why we're doing what we're doing. Even
the stupidest of us will offer up "logical" explanations for the acts we
take and the emotions we feel. These explanations are often utter tripe.
In truth, we often act and then later make up explanations for the action.
We rationalize our behavior. We don't know why we did what we did. We
are motivated by unconscious impulses that we don't want to look at.
For me, embracing irrationality has two components to it. The first is
admitting that I'm irrational, just like other human beings. The second
is recognizing that my so-called irrational behavior often has a purpose
and a meaning to it.
When a schizophrenic "irrationally" decides he's Napoleon, why is he doing
so? Why Napoleon and not Jesus, or Hitler, or Fred Astaire? The
selection, while based on madness, serves a purpose. Napoleon was a
tyrant. He got his way. He ruled the world for a little while. Perhaps
the schizophrenic has deliberately chosen to be Napoleon because he wishes
to be like Napoleon -- in control, in charge, in power. He's trying to
find courage and strength to deal with his conflicts and his icky world.
Dadaists say human beings are irrational and stupid and random.
Surrealists aren't quite so dismissive of humanity, and say human beings
are irrational and clever and not random. There is a pattern in
irrationality. There is sense in the nonsense.
By embracing illogical behavior, we recognize there is meaning behind it.
When I act at random, I'm not. That's why acting at random is so
fascinating. That's why embracing the irrational is so useful.
You say embracing irrationality is about embracing instinct and feeling.
That's true. But there's more to it than that. It's recognizing that
logic is a slave to passion and reason is often nothing more than a mask
for desire.
> It is the idea that I value, not
> the word.
Alas, unless you're telepathic, you're going to have to communicate your
ideas using words.
Parry
> Little of Dali’s work
> after the 40’s has significance to surrealists or anyone else.
That should have been "30's."
The Lemming
Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A91D2...@perfectOMITmail.com...
> The Lemming wrote:
> >
> I'd say you were closer to the facts in your earlier post (I don't have
> it handy to quote; you mentioned "anathema" in it). Dali's divergence
> from surrealism had not to do with a position on the irrational but
> rather with his evolution into an idiot and a whore. This was not an
> overnight transformation, and some surrealists such as Ernst were
> discomfited by Dali earlier than others. From Dali's entry in the
> Glossary of "What is Surrealism?": "Excluded from surrealism for
> increasingly rightist tendencies and commercialism;" -- the former would
> include his praise for the colonialist painter Meissonier, the latter
> the debasement of his own paranoiac-critical method in the production of
> optical illusions laced with Freudian symbols -- "subsequently avowed
> racist views and supported Hitler; was converted to Catholicism. Became
> an academic painter just before World War II." Little of Dali's work
> after the 40's has significance to surrealists or anyone else.
My bad. I meant to say one of the reasons, not *the* reason.
Brandon Freels
> That and these three pieces are but a minor aspect of Freudian theory.
> The notion of unconscious drives, unconscious motivation, repressed
> emotion -- these are the important bits of what Freud talked about.
Read the article from the Columbia Encylopedia again. The "id" is the
accumulation of the "instinctual drives, acts as the motivating force in
human behavior, and contains desires and wishes that the individual hides-or
represses-from conscious recognition." It is, as stated in the article on
psychoanalysis, "the deepest level of the unconscious, dominated by the
pleasure principle, with its object the immediate gratification of
instinctual drives."
Surrealist have no need for the "unconscious" as a whole for part of the
dynamic system of the "unconscious" is the repression peformed by the
superego. The superego, "originating in the child through an identification
with parents, and in response to social pressures, functions as an internal
censor to repress the urges of the id," is the very part of the
"unconscious" that the surrealist project revolts against.
> Human beings are inherently irrational.
[snip]
My only objection is your use of the catchword "irrational." Again, there
are too many misconceptions about this word. For example, you yourself said
of my understanding of your use of the word: "I would have no such thing."
How am I to know what you mean if you use such vague catchwords?
All you are really saying is that humans, in their naked and savage state,
are creatures driven by their passions. I don't think anyone here would
disagree with that, and I don't think the word "irrational" captures the
essence of this theory. Furthermore, it is not that we are not born
"inherently" irrational, but rather that rationalism (and common sense) as a
system is "inherently" founded against what our minds naturally are (in
other words, the ir/rationalism dichotomy is a social construction and
therefore it comes after us).
Brandon Freels
What I wanted to write was:
We are not born "inherently" irrational, because the dichotomy of
rationalism/irrationalism is developed (dare I say intellectually implanted)
after our birth. We are born free and at the dictation of our interior
drives (necessities). It is only later, and at the demand of rationalists
and religion, that this primeval freedom is then desecrated with words such
as "irrational" and "sin." While you are free to use such words, I feel they
are too confusing and too open for interpretation, not to mention tools of
repression. As I found out from working on the FAQ, surrealism is
complicated and easy words won't do.
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> ... Furthermore, it is not that we are not born
> "inherently" irrational, but rather that rationalism (and common sense) as
a
> system is "inherently" founded against what our minds naturally are (in
> other words, the ir/rationalism dichotomy is a social construction and
> therefore it comes after us).
I should also comment that your statement about the "unconscious" not
belonging to Freud only supports my claim that the word is too vague and too
susceptible to misinterpretation.
Nikolaus Maack
> We are not born "inherently" irrational, because the dichotomy of
> rationalism/irrationalism is developed (dare I say intellectually implanted)
> after our birth.
You worry too much about piddly semantics. You seem to be saying people
aren't "irrational" because the dichotomy of rational/irrational is a
social construct (ie. it's artificial). Therefore, irrational *is*
rational.
The problem you're having is assuming that "irrational" is a negative
thing. It sounds like you're defensively trying to "cleanse" the word by
destroying it. You don't have to do that. It's not necessary.
My point is that human beings aren't governed by reason, and they pretend
to be. That is, take a person, ask them what governs their actions, and
they respond with concepts like logic, conscious thought, decision making,
reason.
My stance is that they are actually behaving, overall, thanks to
unconscious material. For example, Bob finds a certain kind of woman
attractive because she reminds him of his mother. Bob can't admit this to
himself. Therefore he declares that he simply likes the way she looks,
the way she acts, etc. He can't admit (or does not have access to) his
unconscious motivations. He rationalizes his choices.
> We are born free and at the dictation of our interior
> drives (necessities). It is only later, and at the demand of rationalists
> and religion, that this primeval freedom is then desecrated with words such
> as "irrational" and "sin."
Blaming rationalists and religion is simple-minded. Consider that whoever
your parents are, they define your reality. There is no freedom. Even if
your parents totally let you be free, they're programming you in a "free"
manner. If your perfect free society existed, other people would complain
that they're being programmed by your values.
And it's likely that if your parents and your society raised you in a
"free" manner, you'd be irritated and rebel, demanding rules and
structure.
> While you are free to use such words, I feel they
> are too confusing and too open for interpretation, not to mention tools of
> repression.
Tools of repression? Explain.
> I should also comment that your statement about the "unconscious" not
> belonging to Freud only supports my claim that the word is too vague and too
> susceptible to misinterpretation.
I find your terminology (interior emotional order, or what have you?) far
more vague than the term "unconscious".
Brandon Freels
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:970ni2$ho$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:m0Wk6.437$rL4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'm bored.
Strange - for myself, Nik isn't interesting enough to become boring.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> I'm bored.
I once briefly got involved in a flirtation with a woman in Montreal. It
never went anywhere, much to the surprise of both of us. She was very
ordinary, but struck me as someone who could, at any moment, burst open
into song. I thought she had potential. She said to me once that she
found herself boring.
"But everyone gets bored of themselves, I think," she said.
"Not me," I replied. "I think I'm absolutely fascinating. I totally
entertain myself. I'm never quite sure what I'm going to do next. I'm my
best friend."
This seemed to take her completely by surprise. It had never occured to
her that such a thing was possible.
If you're bored, Brandon, whose fault is it, if not your own?
I worry about people like you who intellectualize everything. When you
feel that the word "irrational" and the word "unconscious" are too vague
-- why do you feel that way? I suspect you want hard, certain, clearly
defined rules that lock surrealism in your head like a gemstone lying on a
plain silk cloth. It all has to be precise, crisp, certain.
I say poppycock. Embrace the irrational. "But what does irrational mean?"
You know what it means. Not in your head, but in the twisted maze of
intestines underneath your bellybutton. Embrace your irrational nature.
"But what is irrationality?"
Is this a question asked by a person on a mission to embrace the
irrational? I don't think so. This is a person who is delaying the
mission, who is heming and hawing on the doorstep, his suitcases
packed, checking the map over just one last time, just one more check
before leaving. But then you get caught up in mapping the course and the
day goes by and you figure, "Well, it's too late to leave now."
So you close the door and stay home for another day.
You know what YOUR irrationality is, don't you? Isn't that enough?
How do you, personally, embrace your irrationality? Please tell me.
Because I think each of strives to do this in our own particular way.
I occasionally receive "messages" from the universe. I interpret every
day events as significant postcards from a fictional deity. It rained
because it needed to rain to keep me home to see a TV show about art
and writing. The program about Upton Sinclair was on to remind me of
my own journalistic tendencies so I'd take the crummy temp job in order to
have something to write about.
Embracing the irrational. How do you do it?
I have to go see a surgeon now, to find out why my gallbladder is totally
innocent of the crimes of which it is accused. The culprit might be my
intestines. Imagine my joy.
The Lemming
Brandon Freels <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:m0Wk6.437$rL4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'm bored.
How about something to discuss (FAQ stuff?)
"Dada was a foretaste of surrealism and, like many of it's practioners, was
subsumed into surrealism"
(snipped Nik's stuff)
Parry
>
> "Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:m0Wk6.437$rL4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > I'm bored.
>
> Strange - for myself, Nik isn't interesting enough to become boring.
Is that an “I told you so”? As I recall, Brandon’s original point was
simply that he knows words like “unconscious” and “irrational” are
loaded, so when working on the faq he was careful to not feed popular
misconceptions about surrealism. Not a complicated idea, but he’s
explained it to Nik at least three times at great length and it can’t
sink in. If this is supposed to be an example of using Nik to open
discussions on surrealism, it looks more like a hamster wheel.
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > "Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:m0Wk6.437$rL4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > I'm bored.
> >
> > Strange - for myself, Nik isn't interesting enough to become boring.
>
> Is that an "I told you so"?
Well - roughly. Although - at this farflung station of Nikland you'd think
Brandon wouldn't require such a thing. This might be put up to his
persistance of hope, but there should be a limit to that.
>As I recall, Brandon's original point was
> simply that he knows words like "unconscious" and "irrational" are
> loaded, so when working on the faq he was careful to not feed popular
> misconceptions about surrealism. Not a complicated idea, but he's
> explained it to Nik at least three times at great length and it can't
> sink in. If this is supposed to be an example of using Nik to open
> discussions on surrealism, it looks more like a hamster wheel.
Precisely, and a hamster wheel controlled by Nik. Why indulge the oaf? If it
supposed to generate - as Brandon optimistically hopes - at least a modicum
of interesting discussions on surrealism, it is a miserable failure by any
standard. It more often merely provides Nik with one more opportunity to
disseminate lhis umpy post-modern notions. I see no reason to allow
ourselves to treat him as a legitimate partner in a discussion he
disparages.
dmh
Brandon Freels
wheel. Is it really my failure that others declined to participate in the
conversation? It seems to me that the only time certain people decide to
converse in a thread at alt.surrealism is when Nik becomes the subject.
That's not my fault, nor is it Nik's.
The boredom that this thread has developed really has more to do with others
lack of participation, not Nik's level of understanding. I could care less
if Nik gets it. I know he'll never willingly agree with me. But he gave me a
good opportunity to flush out the terms "unconscious" and "irrational".
Consider it a exersice. Consider "him" an exersice. It would have been
interesting to see how others viewed my understanding, but again, the lack
of participation limited that possibility.
"Dale Houstman" wrote
> Precisely, and a hamster wheel controlled by Nik. Why indulge the oaf? If
it
> supposed to generate - as Brandon optimistically hopes - at least a
modicum
> of interesting discussions on surrealism, it is a miserable failure by any
> standard. It more often merely provides Nik with one more opportunity to
> disseminate his umpy post-modern notions. I see no reason to allow
Nikolaus Maack
> As I recall, Brandon’s original point was
> simply that he knows words like “unconscious” and “irrational” are
> loaded, so when working on the faq he was careful to not feed popular
> misconceptions about surrealism. Not a complicated idea, but he’s
> explained it to Nik at least three times at great length and it can’t
> sink in.
People assume, when I don't immediately agree with them, that I haven't
given their ideas enough thought. If only I would take the time to ponder
it a little longer, surely it would "sink in" how right they are. This is
an idiotic fallacy that demonstrates (yet again) the irrationality of
human beings.
"I hold my beliefs because I have given them careful consideration over
the years. You hold your beliefs because you've been brainwashed."
Brandon's alternatives for the words "unconscious" and "irrationality"
strike me as weak and watery and totally insufficient. And I find the
idea of avoiding these two words because they are "loaded" rather silly.
It's much like a person for women's rights trying to avoid saying
"feminist" because the term has had such a bad reputation lately.
The word "unconscious" and the word "irrationality" are perfectly fine and
good. Try using them yourself before you drag them out to the trash heap.
Parry
>
> Brandon Freels <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:m0Wk6.437$rL4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > I'm bored.
>
> How about something to discuss (FAQ stuff?)
>
> "Dada was a foretaste of surrealism and, like many of it's practioners, was
> subsumed into surrealism"
I’m not sure exactly what aspects of Dada you want to discuss.
Surrealism’s ideas developed among certain members of Dada, so some of
Dada resembles surrealism, some doesn’t. By the end, there were in
effect two factions: those who thought their activities should have
greater pointedness, and those who insisted there could be no point. The
former founded surrealism, the latter dispersed. The continuity between
Dada and Surrealism and divers post-WWII kin groups lay in the
fundamental principle of total revolt.
Parry
>
> Parry (pa...@perfectOMITmail.com) writes:
> > As I recall, Brandon’s original point was
> > simply that he knows words like “unconscious” and “irrational” are
> > loaded, so when working on the faq he was careful to not feed popular
> > misconceptions about surrealism. Not a complicated idea, but he’s
> > explained it to Nik at least three times at great length and it can’t
> > sink in.
>
> People assume, when I don't immediately agree with them, that I haven't
> given their ideas enough thought. If only I would take the time to ponder
> it a little longer, surely it would "sink in" how right they are. This is
> an idiotic fallacy that demonstrates (yet again) the irrationality of
> human beings.
>
> "I hold my beliefs because I have given them careful consideration over
> the years. You hold your beliefs because you've been brainwashed."
>
> Brandon's alternatives for the words "unconscious" and "irrationality"
> strike me as weak and watery and totally insufficient. And I find the
> idea of avoiding these two words because they are "loaded" rather silly.
So you’re arguing Brandon *should* use words that he knows will make the
faq confusing and self-defeating. Point tabled.
The faq compresses a lot of information into a small space, so there may
well be passages that are glib or inaccurate. Anyone who thinks so
should offer alternate phrasings or corrections.
Parry
>
> Any conversation that is one-on-one with Nik is going to end in a hamster
> wheel. Is it really my failure that others declined to participate in the
> conversation? It seems to me that the only time certain people decide to
> converse in a thread at alt.surrealism is when Nik becomes the subject.
> That's not my fault, nor is it Nik's.
>
> The boredom that this thread has developed really has more to do with others
> lack of participation, not Nik's level of understanding. I could care less
> if Nik gets it. I know he'll never willingly agree with me. But he gave me a
> good opportunity to flush out the terms "unconscious" and "irrational".
> Consider it a exersice. Consider "him" an exersice. It would have been
> interesting to see how others viewed my understanding, but again, the lack
> of participation limited that possibility.
I don’t remember seeing anything in your posts that I disagreed with,
and had nothing to add (my interest in psychology isn’t what it used to
be), so the thread didn’t appear to offer much opportunity for
participation. The superego-id stuff was interesting, but it’s a dead
model. The point for surrealism was that thoughts are subject to a
censoring agent, programmed from without by social institutions, and
Freud’s model providing a tool for understanding this operation. For
Freud, the censor was basically a good thing, and his aim was to cure
neuroses; surrealism’s aim was to use Freud’s work to evade the censor.
The Freud section of the faq is “under construction,” but I expect it
will come out looking something like the above. Hopefully, someone can
fill in the blanks about how surrealism approached psychology in the
latter half of the century.
-- Parry
> "Dale Houstman" wrote
> > Precisely, and a hamster wheel controlled by Nik. Why indulge the oaf? If
> it
> > supposed to generate - as Brandon optimistically hopes - at least a
> modicum
> > of interesting discussions on surrealism, it is a miserable failure by any
> > standard. It more often merely provides Nik with one more opportunity to
> > disseminate his umpy post-modern notions. I see no reason to allow
> > ourselves to treat him as a legitimate partner in a discussion he
> > disparages.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Brandon Freels
> People assume, when I don't immediately agree with them, that I haven't
> given their ideas enough thought. If only I would take the time to ponder
> it a little longer, surely it would "sink in" how right they are. This is
> an idiotic fallacy that demonstrates (yet again) the irrationality of
> human beings.
Is Nik equating "idiocy" with "irrationality"?
Nikolaus Maack
> So you’re arguing Brandon *should* use words that he knows will make the
> faq confusing and self-defeating. Point tabled.
Yes, I am going to marry a carrot.
The Lemming
Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "Dada was a foretaste of surrealism and, like many of it's practioners,
was
> > subsumed into surrealism"
>
> I'm not sure exactly what aspects of Dada you want to discuss.
> Surrealism's ideas developed among certain members of Dada, so some of
> Dada resembles surrealism, some doesn't. By the end, there were in
> effect two factions: those who thought their activities should have
> greater pointedness, and those who insisted there could be no point. The
> former founded surrealism, the latter dispersed. The continuity between
> Dada and Surrealism and divers post-WWII kin groups lay in the
> fundamental principle of total revolt.
>
> -- Parry
>
It was the prevalence on automatic poetry of Arp, Bell, Serner and the like
in 1916 that I was interested in, as it was this that was picked up
specifically by Breton in his manifesto of 1924 when he mentions the psychic
automatism at the centre of of surrealism. Somewhere in Breton's writings is
his notes on his own automatic poetry in 1919, where he states that from
that moment on, he was a surrealist, rather than a dadaist. Where dada
intended to destroy, and was the border between art and anti-art, to utilise
the tension and exploit this rage, surrealism seems to have offered some
method to the madness of dada. I suppose it was the fact that of the
dadaists, the main ones, Tzara, Arp, Picabia, Duchamp, Ernst, Man Ray, and
Breton himself all moved to (discovered? founded?) surrealism pretty much en
masse, bringing dada to a halt and creating surrealism from the ashes of
dada.
Like Brandon, I too was bored, hence the question. :-)
Dale Houstman
Don't we doubt Nik could make such a mistake?
The thing Nik fails to address with his usual demeanor of casual denseness
is that it is NOT a matter of his "agreeing" with us, or with this or that
aspect of the ongoing discussion, but that he fails to seriously engage, to
the point that he usually simplifies and - consequently - corrupts what is
being said. And even rather simple points of historical record are routinely
misstated by him, even when such things are repeatedly clarified. Early on,
I noticed this with the discussion of Breton's relation to mysticism, when
Breton's own statements on the subject - and there are many - were ignored
by Nik over and over again. It's not a matter of blind obediance - although
believing (or pretending to believe) it is so simplifies his role in the
group, and - in fact - constitutes his only function. One does not (can not)
believe (in the least) that Nik is giving serious thought to a statement
when he fails to comprehend the simplest facts in an argument. Nik can - and
should - believe anything he wishes to, but it is stupid of him to think
some of us will take him seriously when he refuses to even parse the
sentences correctly.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"The Lemming" <Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:978he6$4lr$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
dmh
Parry
> I am going to marry a carrot.
Congrats. A tube of K-Y from the Johnson & Johnson Gift Registry will be
waiting in your honeymoon suite.
Parry
>
> Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A96F1...@perfectOMITmail.com...
> > >
> > > "Dada was a foretaste of surrealism and, like many of it's practioners,
> was
> > > subsumed into surrealism"
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly what aspects of Dada you want to discuss.
> > Surrealism's ideas developed among certain members of Dada, so some of
> > Dada resembles surrealism, some doesn't. By the end, there were in
> > effect two factions: those who thought their activities should have
> > greater pointedness, and those who insisted there could be no point. The
> > former founded surrealism, the latter dispersed. The continuity between
> > Dada and Surrealism and divers post-WWII kin groups lay in the
> > fundamental principle of total revolt.
>
> in 1916 that I was interested in, as it was this that was picked up
> specifically by Breton in his manifesto of 1924 when he mentions the psychic
> automatism at the centre of of surrealism.
Which brings out the comedy of recent comments on this group that
automatism should be shunted aside for a return to surrealism’s roots.
> Somewhere in Breton's writings is
> his notes on his own automatic poetry in 1919, where he states that from
> that moment on, he was a surrealist, rather than a dadaist. Where dada
> intended to destroy, and was the border between art and anti-art, to utilise
> the tension and exploit this rage, surrealism seems to have offered some
> method to the madness of dada. I suppose it was the fact that of the
> dadaists, the main ones, Tzara, Arp, Picabia, Duchamp, Ernst, Man Ray, and
> Breton himself all moved to (discovered? founded?) surrealism pretty much en
> masse, bringing dada to a halt and creating surrealism from the ashes of
> dada.
I would disagree only with some of the particulars of the last sentence.
Dada fell apart gradually, eroded by its inherent contradictions. Some
like Tzara wanted to stay the nihilist course, while others like Breton
wanted forward movement. So there was internal controversy over such
proto-surrealist acts as the Barrés trial and the proposed international
congress of artists. Automatism provided the key to founding
surrealism’s “negation of the negation,” which became necessary as Dada
disintegrated in 1922.
Not all the main Dadaists went to surrealism. Whatever happened to
Huelsenbeck, for instance? Tzara didn’t involve himself in surrealism
until 1929.
> Like Brandon, I too was bored, hence the question. :-)
It’s a big enough question. The answers, along with Scott’s remarks
about the effects of WWI, are crucial if one wants to understand from
whence came the surrealist movement.
Brandon Freels
> Not all the main Dadaists went to surrealism. Whatever happened to
> Huelsenbeck, for instance? Tzara didn't involve himself in surrealism
> until 1929.
I believe Huelsenbeck changed his name and became a doctor.
The Lemming
Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> > It was the prevalence on automatic poetry of Arp, Bell, Serner and the
like
> > in 1916 that I was interested in, as it was this that was picked up
> > specifically by Breton in his manifesto of 1924 when he mentions the
psychic
> > automatism at the centre of of surrealism.
>
> Which brings out the comedy of recent comments on this group that
> automatism should be shunted aside for a return to surrealism's roots.
>
:-) I went looking through some books and magazines because I vaguely
remembered something from Breton about this.
> > Somewhere in Breton's writings is
> > his notes on his own automatic poetry in 1919, where he states that from
> > that moment on, he was a surrealist, rather than a dadaist. Where dada
> > intended to destroy, and was the border between art and anti-art, to
utilise
> > the tension and exploit this rage, surrealism seems to have offered some
> > method to the madness of dada. I suppose it was the fact that of the
> > dadaists, the main ones, Tzara, Arp, Picabia, Duchamp, Ernst, Man Ray,
and
> > Breton himself all moved to (discovered? founded?) surrealism pretty
much en
> > masse, bringing dada to a halt and creating surrealism from the ashes of
> > dada.
>
> I would disagree only with some of the particulars of the last sentence.
> Dada fell apart gradually, eroded by its inherent contradictions. Some
> like Tzara wanted to stay the nihilist course, while others like Breton
> wanted forward movement.
Then there was the less-political ones, like the German contingent of
Huelsenbeck, Hausmann, Mehring, Grosz etc I didn't intend to mean they all
jumped ship at the same time, was simplifying for those who don't seem to be
able to understand when we repeat our points to them. ;-)
I meant to show that a considerable amount of dadaists moved over to
surrealism, and within a relatively short time frame - even though Tzara
didn't move across till the late 20's, he had a lot of contact with Breton
and Aragon, and worked with them on undoubtedly surrealist works before he
joined in fully. It could be argued that he was approaching it from a
dadaist angle in the way that Breton approached his works in a surrealist
way back in 1919 though.
So there was internal controversy over such
> proto-surrealist acts as the Barrés trial and the proposed international
> congress of artists. Automatism provided the key to founding
> surrealism's "negation of the negation," which became necessary as Dada
> disintegrated in 1922.
>
> Not all the main Dadaists went to surrealism. Whatever happened to
> Huelsenbeck, for instance? Tzara didn't involve himself in surrealism
> until 1929.
>
Huelsenbeck did some expressionist stuff for a while, after fighting with
Hausmann over the leadership of the by-then almost defunct dada group, even
though he argued against expressionism beforehand. He was with the Neo-dada
group for a while, but seemed to lose interest, and became a ship's surgeon,
a journalist and then a psychoanalyst. In his later years, he turned back to
art, but was more of an existentialist. I found a nice quote, "he still
believes in dada - although dada responds by shaking its grey old head". He
died in 1971.
>
> > Like Brandon, I too was bored, hence the question. :-)
>
> It's a big enough question. The answers, along with Scott's remarks
> about the effects of WWI, are crucial if one wants to understand from
> whence came the surrealist movement.
>
> -- Parry
>
>
That was partly why I posted it, to try and get discussion moving again for
the FAQ. Would it be worthwhile commenting on the Futurists that helped
shape dada? Or the Constructivists? There were a couple of articles in
Anarchy magazine #50 about Man Ray and dada, the anarchist perspective on
surrealism, anarchists within dada and a long review of A Cavalier History
of Surrealism. Most of what was written seemed to misunderstand certain
points, and the anarchist perspective was blown up too much in the case of
surrealism, but they were thought provoking.
Brandon Freels
> That was partly why I posted it, to try and get discussion moving again
for
> the FAQ. Would it be worthwhile commenting on the Futurists that helped
> shape dada? Or the Constructivists?
I'm not sure how much mention the Futurists or the Constructivists will get
in the Dada section. I'm probably wrong, but I assumed that only the
"bruitist poems" were appropriated from Futurism. Did I miss something? As
for Constructivism, I don't remember what connections, if any, existed
between it and Dada. Any suggestions?
Nikolaus Maack
> And even rather simple points of historical record are routinely
> misstated by him, even when such things are repeatedly clarified. Early on,
> I noticed this with the discussion of Breton's relation to mysticism, when
> Breton's own statements on the subject - and there are many - were ignored
> by Nik over and over again.
I remember the early days of my alt.surrealism play. I casually suggested
that there seemed to be a lot of parallels between taoist philosophy,
buddhism, and surrealism. Surrealists seem to suggest that there is an
underlying flow to all the irrationality in the world. Taoists and
buddhists hold a pretty similar point of view. The tao is the flow of the
universe.
Much to my surprise, this rather simple idea was met with scorn, derision,
and mocking. "There is no room for religion in surrealism!" chanted the
masses. "And besides, buddhism is against pleasure whereas surrealism is
for it!"
The most disturbing aspect, for me, was how quickly people agreed.
Without thinking, without processing, without any thought at all --
"Religion bad! Surrealism good!" Everyone quickly picked the "correct"
side in the debate. Conformity was rampant. Open-mindedness was not.
Vainly I tried to defend Taoism. Repeatedly I was pissed on by ignorant
yes-men.
And then a fellow surrealist posted a quote from Andre Breton. The quote
said, explicitly, in no undertain terms, that there are obvious parallels
between surrealism and taoism. Andre Breton himself said this, clear as
day, in his later years, during an interview on the CBC.
There was a long silence after that quote was posted. I figured a lot of
people had been soundly put in their place, but didn't want to admit it.
No one commented on the quote for quite some time. Eventually, after
Andrea Chen whapped a few people across the side of the head with the
quote, the yes-men spoke about it.
"You have to take the quote in context! Breton said a lot of nasty things
about religion in his early days."
"We never said that religion was without use. Surrealists believe in
scraping the mysticism off the religion and using the material without the
awe or the ritual or any of that behumbling nonsense. That's all we were
saying."
"We never said there weren't similarities between taoism and surrealism --
we were just saying that they aren't the same thing."
"It's not that religious fields are without merit. It's just that there
has been enough exploration in the field of religion. Surrealism has
moved on to other things."
It was pathetic to watch this backpedaling. It was pathetic to see people
pretend they make sense.
And it is pathetic to see people constantly suggesting that I am the black
sheep of alt.surrealism, the one you're supposed to chuck stones at.
"Oh that Nik, he's a trouble maker! You watch out for him! He'll
misrepresent everything you say and misinform the masses!"
"But you know, the one good thing about him is that he keeps us talking
about surrealism."
"People say I give him too much attention, but really, I don't. I hardly
ever mention him at all. Okay, maybe I mention him in 75% of my posts.
So what? Alt.surrealism isn't really that important, in the grand scheme
of things."
Please. Have mercy on yourselves. Stop acting like a bunch of fucking
morons.
Dale Houstman
unless (as in the case of Futurism) one wished to illustrate that being an
artist doesn't necessarily save one from being a fascist. Other than that
they only serve (in this context) as a reminder of how rich a creative and
revolutionary field it was, and how the horrors of WWI birthed several
movements whose sole concern was not aesthetics, but social metamorphosis.
dmh
The Lemming
Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3a98f28e$0$62905$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
> >
> I don't think either Futurism or Constructivism would be usueful
additions,
> unless (as in the case of Futurism) one wished to illustrate that being an
> artist doesn't necessarily save one from being a fascist. Other than that
> they only serve (in this context) as a reminder of how rich a creative and
> revolutionary field it was, and how the horrors of WWI birthed several
> movements whose sole concern was not aesthetics, but social metamorphosis.
>
> dmh
>
>
I think I'd agree about the Constructivist parts, having considered my
earlier post, but I think some mention of Futurism would be helpful to place
dada, as long as the political side is stressed, that in no way was the
fascism of Futurism replicated within Surrealism. Then again, this is for
the FAQ, and should be kept short, I guess, and we could keep looking at the
influences of the influences all the way down the line. Perhaps a brief
paragraph in the dada section about the influence of Futurism would be ok?
And fully agreed on the political points about the WWI period and
revolutionary art movements.
The Lemming
Brandon Freels <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:yq5m6.3312$mX4.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The Lemming wrote
> > That was partly why I posted it, to try and get discussion moving again
> for
> > the FAQ. Would it be worthwhile commenting on the Futurists that helped
> > shape dada? Or the Constructivists?
>
> I'm not sure how much mention the Futurists or the Constructivists will
get
> in the Dada section. I'm probably wrong, but I assumed that only the
> "bruitist poems" were appropriated from Futurism. Did I miss something?
The first Cabaret Voltaire was dominated by Futurists until Tzara, Arp and
Janco turned up; as you say, Bruitism from Futurism tended to dominate the
early meetings there, and it could be argued were used effectively by Artaud
later. Quotes from Hans Richter -
"The youthful élan, the aggresively direct approach to the public, the
provocations, were products of Futurism, as were the literary forms in which
they were clothed; the manifesto and its visual format. The free use of
typography, in which the compositor moves over the page vertically,
horizomtally and diagomally, jumbles his type faces and makes liberal use of
his stock of pictorial blocks - all this can be found in Futurism years
before Dada. Bruitistic poems, in which words alternated with noises, had
shocked audiences under the Futurist motto that a new dynamic age had
dawned...in fact we had swallowed Futurism - bones, feathers and all"
Where Futurism (and surrealism) had a manifesto, dada had none, though. Of
course, the fascism within Futurism and the Communism and to an extent
Anarchism within both Surrealism and dada were antithetical.
As
> for Constructivism, I don't remember what connections, if any, existed
> between it and Dada. Any suggestions?
>
>
Much less contact between Constructivism and Surrealism, but there were some
flowing of ideas between the two, thanks to the links in communist groups.
The Exposition d'art international indépendant had works by Surrealist,
Futurist and Constructivist artists. Grosz, one of the more communistic
dadaists, worked with constructivists, especially when it was on the
down-turn in Russia and Social Realism was being looked at in favour by the
Russians. On the other hand, Breton later denounced the inclusion of
Futurist and Constructivist artworks being shown alongside Surrealist works,
so I guess your point rings truer than mine here.
The Lemming
>
> I remember the early days of my alt.surrealism play. I casually suggested
> that there seemed to be a lot of parallels between taoist philosophy,
> buddhism, and surrealism. Surrealists seem to suggest that there is an
> underlying flow to all the irrationality in the world. Taoists and
> buddhists hold a pretty similar point of view. The tao is the flow of the
> universe.
>
There aren't that many parallels with buddhism that I've noticed, except for
a basis in ego and sense of reality - within buddhism there is a main tenet
of the transient nature of reality, and this prefigures most other forms of
buddhist theory; within surrealism we dont have this. I could go on for
hours about buddhism if you really want (I'm a Mahayana Buddhist), but I
don't think there are enough links to Surrealism to make it worthwhile.
.
>
> And then a fellow surrealist posted a quote from Andre Breton. The quote
> said, explicitly, in no undertain terms, that there are obvious parallels
> between surrealism and taoism. Andre Breton himself said this, clear as
> day, in his later years, during an interview on the CBC.
>
Emphasis on later years. Breton himself says that in later years, the work
he was doing was not surrealist in nature, but that he'd moved on and that
it had become something more than surrealism. At the time of the
Surrealists' main period, Taosim and buddhism had hardly any influence. The
sense of Primitivism, Orientalism and non-western art that influenced some
of the stylistic achievements of Surrealism was minor compared to a lot of
other things. It could be argued that the Surrealist abhorrence for
organised religion in the form of Xianity means that is was thus an
influence, as something to be loathed, it had an effect on certain work. To
claim that Taoism and buddhism are strong influences on Surrealism is, I
think, to vastly overplay their influence.
> "You have to take the quote in context! Breton said a lot of nasty things
> about religion in his early days."
see above. If religion in general was an influence, it was more due to a
loathing of Xianity, hence one of the reasons for Dali being cast out when
he took to the church openly.
>
> "We never said there weren't similarities between taoism and surrealism --
> we were just saying that they aren't the same thing."
>
There are similarities between Surrealism and Impressionism, but it doesn't
make them the same thing; I don't see why this should be relevant? Taoism's
influence on Surrealism during the major canonical period was minor at best,
and ineffectual and irrelevant to my thinking.
Dale Houstman
Cabaret Voltaire, and Brandon's about "brutiste" poetry, this might not be a
bad idea. Also, something might be said about the age's tendency toward the
creation of manifestos: this was a common feature. I only mention this
because I feel it is centrally important to remind readers that it is not
the "tyrants at the surrealism ng" who claim that surrealism et al were not
primarily art movements, but the participants in the original groups
themselves, who took a political tool like the manifesto and applied it to
their activities. All these groups (and several others) indulged in the
creation of manifestos, personal ones (as in Schwitters case) and group
efforts.
dmh
elag
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > I am going to marry a carrot.
>
> Congrats. A tube of K-Y from the Johnson & Johnson Gift Registry will be
> waiting in your honeymoon suite.
but those mixed marriages never really work out... in a few months he'll
be calling her a vegetable.. and she'll swear off meat forever...
The Lemming
> Actually - in light of your comments about Futurist involvement at the
> Cabaret Voltaire, and Brandon's about "brutiste" poetry, this might not be
a
> bad idea. Also, something might be said about the age's tendency toward
the
> creation of manifestos: this was a common feature.
Yup, completely agree. The avant-garde art movements of the interwar period
especially were tied up with the political, and as you say, manifestoes were
being written every five minutes by various groups; to omit them would be a
little silly.
I only mention this
> because I feel it is centrally important to remind readers that it is not
> the "tyrants at the surrealism ng" who claim that surrealism et al were
not
> primarily art movements, but the participants in the original groups
> themselves, who took a political tool like the manifesto and applied it to
> their activities. All these groups (and several others) indulged in the
> creation of manifestos, personal ones (as in Schwitters case) and group
> efforts.
>
Sounds like an ideal paragraph for the FAQ to me. :-)
Nikolaus Maack
[buddhism and surrealism don't mix]
You may be right there. I think surrealism and taoism have more in
common, given that (in my mind, anyway) a taoist is a buddhist who can
laugh his own suffering. Buddhists -- in my experience -- are a little
too staid, serious, and grim. No offence.
> Emphasis on later years. Breton himself says that in later years, the work
> he was doing was not surrealist in nature, but that he'd moved on and that
> it had become something more than surrealism.
Some in this newsgroup argue that surrealism is a constantly evolving,
changing thing. So, presumably, the surrealism of today is bigger and
better than the surrealism of yesteryear. The parameters are constantly
shifting. So it's possible that Breton's "beyond surrealism" is actually
today's surrealism. That's one point of view, anyway.
On the other hand, perhaps we too should strive to be something more than
mere "surrealists".
> At the time of the
> Surrealists' main period, Taosim and buddhism had hardly any influence.
This is true, but I never suggested taoism was a big influence in the
olden years.
> There are similarities between Surrealism and Impressionism, but it doesn't
> make them the same thing; I don't see why this should be relevant?
If two philosophies share similar ideas and concepts, it might be useful
for members entrenched in either philosophy to share notes. For example,
I still feel that surrealists and Freudians share common ground, and can
learn a lot from each other. Same goes for surrealists and taoists, and
surrealists and Jungians.
If surrealists only read texts made by surrealists for surrealists, they
run the risk of become an inbred bunch of sickly psychopaths.
If I want to embrace the irrational and the "insane" -- I do -- I would
certainly benefit from reading about people with schizophrenia. Which is
one of the reasons I'm pouring over "Interpretation of Schizophrenia", a
big blue book on the dynamics of the mental illness, with great interest.
It descibes, for example, some of the patterns of schizophrenic thought.
More on that later, probably.
Brandon Freels
[Taoism and Buddhism are virtually the same thing]
If Surrealism and Buddhism don't mix, as Nik admits, how can Taoism, which
is, according to Nik, a laughing Buddhist, mix with Surrealism? Is Nik
implying that the ability to laugh automatically makes one mixable with
Surrealism?
As for Talisman's post about Breton's "so-called" embrace of Taoism, which
quoted an article from Arsenal #4: in the article Breton states that "only
unconscious action is natural" and that his interpretation of the ancient
Chinese philosophy was "to follow nature." Unfortunately, Andre did not
understand that to fallowing nature, in the Taoist sense, was to do nothing
and "abjure all striving."
Since I don't have the Tao Te Ching around (its in the attic where it
belongs) I'll have to rely, once again, on the Columbia Encyclopedia (Nik
won't mind) which states that the ideal Taoist state of being "is simplicity
and freedom from desire, comparable to that of an infant or an 'uncarved
block.'" [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ta/Taoism.html]
How can "freedom from desire" in anyway be compatible with Surrealism?
Nikolaus Maack
> As for Talisman's post about Breton's "so-called" embrace of Taoism, which
> quoted an article from Arsenal #4: in the article Breton states that "only
> unconscious action is natural" and that his interpretation of the ancient
> Chinese philosophy was "to follow nature." Unfortunately, Andre did not
> understand that to fallowing nature, in the Taoist sense, was to do nothing
> and "abjure all striving."
Doing without doing is the taoist equivalent of "authentic desire" -- that
is, do what feels right to you. Don't strive because the world tells you
to strive. Do what comes to you naturally. Trust your instinct. Follow
your unconscious.
Basically the Tao Te Ching says that chasing after riches, fame, fortune,
and all these other transitory things is a complete waste of time. What
you should be chasing after is yourself.
It is a common error among people who have read some taoist text to assume
that when they say "do without doing" that they're suggesting you just
slack off. They're not.
> Since I don't have the Tao Te Ching around (its in the attic where it
> belongs) I'll have to rely, once again, on the Columbia Encyclopedia (Nik
> won't mind) which states that the ideal Taoist state of being "is simplicity
> and freedom from desire, comparable to that of an infant or an 'uncarved
> block.'" [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ta/Taoism.html]
>
> How can "freedom from desire" in anyway be compatible with Surrealism?
To use terminology you understand, they are suggesting a freedom from
"inauthentic desire". Consider that the child they're suggesting you be
is entirely free from social programming. An "uncarved block" is a
perfect symbol for the appearance of the unconscious. Looking at it its
surface, it seems to have no form at all. Looking into its depths, you
realize its forms are limitless.
Andre Breton did not misunderstand taoism. You have.
Parry
>
> Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A98A6...@perfectOMITmail.com...
> > Huelsenbeck, for instance? Tzara didn't involve himself in surrealism
> > until 1929.
>
> Huelsenbeck did some expressionist stuff for a while, after fighting with
> Hausmann over the leadership of the by-then almost defunct dada group, even
> though he argued against expressionism beforehand. He was with the Neo-dada
> group for a while, but seemed to lose interest, and became a ship's surgeon,
> a journalist and then a psychoanalyst. In his later years, he turned back to
> art, but was more of an existentialist. I found a nice quote, "he still
> believes in dada - although dada responds by shaking its grey old head". He
> died in 1971.
Thanks for the details. He sounds like an intriguing character.
> There were a couple of articles in
> Anarchy magazine #50 about Man Ray and dada, the anarchist perspective on
> surrealism, anarchists within dada and a long review of A Cavalier History
> of Surrealism. Most of what was written seemed to misunderstand certain
> points, and the anarchist perspective was blown up too much in the case of
> surrealism, but they were thought provoking.
Do you happen to have a text scanner? The articles would probably be
worth posting.
The Lemming
> "The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> [buddhism and surrealism don't mix]
>
> You may be right there. I think surrealism and taoism have more in
> common, given that (in my mind, anyway) a taoist is a buddhist who can
> laugh his own suffering. Buddhists -- in my experience -- are a little
> too staid, serious, and grim. No offence.
>
None taken. I disagree though. Most buddhist paths assume that suffering
exists and will eventually be overcome; as such, it's unimportant. We would
neither laugh or shrink from it. It's just something there.
> > Emphasis on later years. Breton himself says that in later years, the
work
> > he was doing was not surrealist in nature, but that he'd moved on and
that
> > it had become something more than surrealism.
>
> Some in this newsgroup argue that surrealism is a constantly evolving,
> changing thing. So, presumably, the surrealism of today is bigger and
> better than the surrealism of yesteryear. The parameters are constantly
> shifting. So it's possible that Breton's "beyond surrealism" is actually
> today's surrealism. That's one point of view, anyway.
>
Changing doesn't mean it automatically gets better; if it takes on too
different a form through having changed, is it surrealism anymore, or is it
something different?
> On the other hand, perhaps we too should strive to be something more than
> mere "surrealists".
>
That depends on what you mean by surrealist, and ewhat you mean by "more
than". :-)
> > There are similarities between Surrealism and Impressionism, but it
doesn't
> > make them the same thing; I don't see why this should be relevant?
>
> If two philosophies share similar ideas and concepts, it might be useful
> for members entrenched in either philosophy to share notes. For example,
> I still feel that surrealists and Freudians share common ground, and can
> learn a lot from each other. Same goes for surrealists and taoists, and
> surrealists and Jungians.
Well, if you think you can learn something from taoists or Jungians, by all
means seek them out and ask them. I don't think you'll find many that
believe they share much of an affinity though.
>
> If surrealists only read texts made by surrealists for surrealists, they
> run the risk of become an inbred bunch of sickly psychopaths.
>
Hurrah for sickly psychopaths! We all get influenced by things around us,
and those influences can affect us all in different ways; when looking at
something as a surrealist. however, those influences that do not resonate on
the same level are discarded.
The Lemming
Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
<snipped stuff on Huelsenbeck>
> Thanks for the details. He sounds like an intriguing character.
>
Np. It's just about everything I know about his post-dada life though. If I
find out anything else, I'll post stuff here.
>
> > There were a couple of articles in
> > Anarchy magazine #50 about Man Ray and dada, the anarchist perspective
on
> > surrealism, anarchists within dada and a long review of A Cavalier
History
> > of Surrealism. > Do you happen to have a text scanner? The articles
would probably be
> worth posting.
>
I'll see what I can do. Some of them are quite lengthy, but I could split
them up a little. I have a scanner, but it doesn't like text too much - some
comes out, but other bits warp into silliness. I'll have a playa round this
weekend if I can though.
Treeclimbr
>at its core "surrealism" has nothing to do with "usefulness".
>
>nik, in all seriousness and with no intention for this to sound like an
>attack, you'll never understand "surrealism" as long as you think in terms
>of utility. it isn't a tool to improve your creativity, your art or your
>life. the very act of framing your approach in these terms distances you
>from it.
How can you read Breton and come away with this statement???
___________________
Robert Pearson
Creative Virtue: http://www.eskimo.com/~telical/
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net/
R.S. Pearson Music Page http://users.50megs.com/rspearson/
Nikolaus Maack
of surrealism changing over the years:
"The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> Changing doesn't mean it automatically gets better; if it takes on too
> different a form through having changed, is it surrealism anymore, or is it
> something different?
This got me to thinking -- who should I (or for that matter, each of us)
be loyal to: myself, or surrealism? The answer is clear -- I come first.
And each of you should view yourselves as more important than surrealism
alone. Don't shape yourself to fit surrealism -- shape surrealism to fit
you.
After all, if you're really going to embrace a philosophy that promotes
freedom, you will eventually have to cast off that very philosophy. Much
like the buddhist seeking enlightenment will never find it. You don't
find it because you're looking. It finds you when you're not looking.
I have always been rather fierce and sloppy with my philosophical musings,
and people who come after me and try to tidy up my mess make me yawn. My
surrealism may not be THE surrealism. So what? But I imagine every other
surrealist -- who insists there are rules governing who can join this
"exclusive club" -- do have a problem with it. My response? Fuck 'em.
Unlubed assholes on display, the lot of them.
Reading Salvadore Dali's autobiography has shown me what I already
suspected -- he was the only surrealist with a sense of humour. He also
seemed to understand that a philosophy based on embracing dream and
irrationality and the unconscious is inevitably personal. After all, my
dreams are quite different from your dreams. My irrationality and how I
express it will be very different from your irrational expressions.
I sometimes get this feeling that people who emphasize the political and
communal aspects of surrealism are really missing something. They cling
to one another and to rigid, sensible ideas, and this keeps them from
experiencing the delirium that is their own madness. After all, how can
you be pleasantly insane and dreaming if you're constantly worried about
what your friends think, and whether or not you're a good
communist/atheist/whatever?
Dali (in his autobio) at one point bemoans the fact that surrealists had
hierarchies aplenty. He did a painting of a person wearing underwear full
of shit, and all the surrealists were greatly concerned, Andre Breton
amongst them. Is Dali a shit-eating pervert? Dali assured them he was
not, but inside he sighed with despair.
What difference does it make what the symbol is, so long as it came from
the right place -- the unconscious? Whether it's shit or shamrocks
shouldn't make a lick of difference. But somehow, it does now, and it did
then. Because even in the good old days of surrealism, people knew what
proper, clean, and correct material they were meant to dredge from the
depths of their own soul. Leave the shit in your skull. Bring up the
fluffy, wacky, kooky stuff.
Is that freedom? Is that genuine exploration of the unconscious?
> Well, if you think you can learn something from taoists or Jungians, by all
> means seek them out and ask them. I don't think you'll find many that
> believe they share much of an affinity though.
Upon rereading, something about the above strikes me as odd -- the way
you're speaking, it sounds like you can't even imagine a world where
surrealist, taoist, and Jungian have overlaps. F'rinstance -- I declare
myself to be all three.
If you're in one camp, you seem to be saying, you can't possibly be in
another. This strikes me as a position people tend to believe in without
thinking about it. A little consideration reveals that many of us ride
several ISMS at the same time all day long.
(You probably aren't saying what I hear you saying, given that you're a
buddhist surrealist.(
I recently posted a quote from Robert A. Johnson, a Jungian, who argues
that many of life's miseries today come from ignoring the unconscious. He
explicitly states that a unity needs to be struck between conscious and
unconscious. This was so similar to surrealist thinking that I was quite
startled by his words.
Unfortunately, though, you're right. Many surrealists are unwilling to
look at material outside their world. And many Jungians, taoists,
Freudians, etc, etc, are unwilling to consider belief systems outside of
their own.
Once an individual finds a way of thinking that suits them, they're
usually unwilling to contemplate anything else. Except, perhaps, as an
amusing diversion from "real" work.
> Hurrah for sickly psychopaths! We all get influenced by things around us,
> and those influences can affect us all in different ways; when looking at
> something as a surrealist. however, those influences that do not resonate on
> the same level are discarded.
Nothing should ever be discarded, so long as it is genuine. Many things
supposedly outside the scope of surrealism are genuine, and surrealists
would benefit greatly by embracing them -- or at least ackowledging their
existence.
Nikolaus Maack
> clearly, he sees "surrealism" as something apart from his living reality,
> something he can "be loyal to" or not.
>
> a surrealist wouldn't pose such an opposition because, at the most
> fundamental visceral level, a surrealist has discovered that he/she _is_
> surrealism.
Change the word "surrealism" to "Christianity" in the above. A true
Christian doesn't "use" Christianity -- he/she is Christianity! Do you
see what a sickness you are creating for yourself with your dogmatic
drool? Philosophies are tools -- we choose what we like. When you pick
up surrealism and enjoy its heft in your hand, it's not because you ARE
surrealism.
Losing your identity is a favorite passtime of the modern world. You can
identify with your home. I am where I live. You can identify with your
possessions. I am my car, I am my stereo, I am my leather sofa. Or you
can identify with your beliefs. I am surrealism, I am Christianity, I am
anarchy.
All of this is bullshit. I am a fire of inconsistency and a lake of
impenetrable depths. I float in cloud, and I crawl 80 feet under the
earth in hidden tunnels. You are these things too, you do these things
too.
To say you ARE surrealism -- to suggest that a "real surrealist" is
surrealism -- is to tear off your own wings and cave in the tunnels with
explosives. You just chained your identity to a pile of dust that can
never be swept up.
Say "I am surrealism" if you must. You'll be guilty of the same hubris
that both Dali and Breton displayed. You'll be aping the same idiocy of
fools who strut around saying, "I am American!" or "I am Canadian!" or "I
am a black man!" or "I am a white man!" or "I am a mathematician!" or "I
am an athlete!"
What you say, when you say these things, is, "I am a mask! I am a
tablecloth! I am a bra! I am a dustcover! I am an orange rind!"
You are no such thing, silly. But if you ask for limitations, they shall
be yours, and you seem so very keen on living inside such a very small
box. One fart too many could determine whether you live or die.
cythera
<3a9bcbea$0$62907$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net> :
>
>"Treeclimbr" <treec...@aol.comnospamma> wrote in message
>news:20010227005322...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>> >
>> >at its core "surrealism" has nothing to do with "usefulness".
>> >
>> >nik, in all seriousness and with no intention for this to sound like an
>> >attack, you'll never understand "surrealism" as long as you think in
>terms
>> >of utility. it isn't a tool to improve your creativity, your art or your
>> >life. the very act of framing your approach in these terms distances you
>> >from it.
>>
>> How can you read Breton and come away with this statement???
>
>my point is one of scope and integration.
>
>nik thinks only in terms [...]
How is one person able to know what another person _thinks_?
(this is not a question about Nik.).
cythera.
of how he can _use_ things to further his
>_personal_ (i.e. small) ends. it is this truncated worldview that cripples
>his attempts to understand "surrealism". it prevents him from understanding
>the concept of SURreality as it emerges from the full integration of the
>liberated imagination into everyday living on a social scale.
>
>instead, he thinks there is a "surrealism tool" he can pull down from the
>pegboard and use to manipulate mundane reality. in thinking this way he
>defines himself as something separate from "surrealism" and reality can only
>remain mundane for him.
>
>
>
>take for example what he wrote elswhere today:
>
>"This got me to thinking -- who should I (or for that matter, each of us)
>be loyal to: myself, or surrealism? The answer is clear -- I come first.
>And each of you should view yourselves as more important than surrealism
>alone. Don't shape yourself to fit surrealism -- shape surrealism to fit
>you.
>
>"After all, if you're really going to embrace a philosophy that promotes
>freedom, you will eventually have to cast off that very philosophy..."
>
>
>
>clearly, he sees "surrealism" as something apart from his living reality,
>something he can "be loyal to" or not.
>
>a surrealist wouldn't pose such an opposition because, at the most
>fundamental visceral level, a surrealist has discovered that he/she _is_
>surrealism.
>
>
>
>
>-- 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
>
>==============================================
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
barrett john erickson
"cythera" <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
news:3A9CF5CF...@interbulletin.com...
> "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in article
> <3a9bcbea$0$62907$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net> :
> >
> >"Treeclimbr" <treec...@aol.comnospamma> wrote in message
> >news:20010227005322...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >> >
> >> >at its core "surrealism" has nothing to do with "usefulness".
> >> >
> >> >nik, in all seriousness and with no intention for this to sound like
an
> >> >attack, you'll never understand "surrealism" as long as you think in
> >terms
> >> >of utility. it isn't a tool to improve your creativity, your art or
your
> >> >life. the very act of framing your approach in these terms distances
you
> >> >from it.
> >>
> >> How can you read Breton and come away with this statement???
> >
>
> >my point is one of scope and integration.
> >
> >nik thinks only in terms [...]
>
> How is one person able to know what another person _thinks_?
> (this is not a question about Nik.).
>
point taken.
i should have said something more along the lines of:
nik frames every issue and subject only in terms of how he can _use_ things
to further his _personal_ (i.e. small) ends... etc.
barrett
cythera
<97gr68$jm1$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> :
>>news:97fgc7$ko$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
[...]
>> (You probably aren't saying what I hear you saying, given that you're a
>> buddhist surrealist.(
>>
>
>:-)
How can there be such a thing as a "buddhist surrealist"? Buddhism (1)presupposes the existence of supernatural beings, (2) seeks as its ultimate goal nirvana, which in Sanskrit literally means "act of extinquishing" (desire, pain, rebirth, etc.).
cythera.
Alejandro Fernandez
>
> "The Lemming" <Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk> wrote in article
> <97gr68$jm1$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> :
> >
> >
> >>Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >>news:97fgc7$ko$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> [...]
>
> >> (You probably aren't saying what I hear you saying, given that you're a
> >> buddhist surrealist.(
> >>
> >
> >:-)
>
> How can there be such a thing as a "buddhist surrealist"? Buddhism (1)presupposes the existence of supernatural beings, (2) seeks as its ultimate goal nirvana, which in Sanskrit literally means "act of extinquishing" (desire, pain, rebirth, etc.).
>
I'm a buddhist, new to this forum. I don't regard myself as a
surrealist, but maybe I can clear your statement up a bit:
There are lots of different types of buddhism. Some are quite
traditionalist (theravadic, or hinyana), and others are more modern,
like tibetan or some japanese forms (including the one I practice). I
can't speak for the others, but there are just so many different
interpretations of the various sutras, that you can't really say for
sure wether buddhism as a whole presupposes anything! I'd tend to say
though, that the theravada buddhists would probably believe more in the
supernatural beings as real living entities.
I'm a soka gakkai buddhist, and every morning I pray to strengthen the
protective forces inherent in life and the environment. So what may have
once been stuff like "god of thunder" has now changed, although we still
chant to that generic thing... Hope I explain myself ok here... So there
are supernatural beings in the scriptures that we base our faith on, but
they're not understood to be more than forces inherent in everyday life,
described in the way people used to when the sutras were written.
And about the goal of nirvana, the entire Nichiren school(japan), as
well as some chinese forms of buddhism would tend to disagree. We see
nirvana as very much an everyday phenomenon, of great connection, rather
than disconnection with our feelings and desires. Yes, that may be the
sanscrit meaning, but you tend to see a progression amongst the buddhist
schools where people will be said to reach nirvana in many
reincarnations, within your lifetime, or in the present moment. Again,
for theravada buddhists, and Hare Krishas, you are probably right.
Any theravada or brahmin surrealists on this newsgroup?
Ale
> cythera.
> _______________________________________________
> Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
--
Alejandro Fernandez Bscp 5 Caledonian University
0141 586 3913 - a...@nin.cx
The Lemming
Alejandro Fernandez <a...@nin.cx> wrote in message
news:3A9D2712...@nin.cx...
> Any theravada or brahmin surrealists on this newsgroup?
>
> Ale
Nope, Mahayana here. :-)
The Lemming
cythera <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
> >> (You probably aren't saying what I hear you saying, given that you're a
> >> buddhist surrealist.(
> >>
> >
> >:-)
>
> How can there be such a thing as a "buddhist surrealist"? Buddhism
(1)presupposes the existence of supernatural beings, (2) seeks as its
ultimate goal nirvana, which in Sanskrit literally means "act of
extinquishing" (desire, pain, rebirth, etc.).
>
>
> cythera.
Not all forms of buddhism presuppose supernatural entities. Tibetan buddhism
does, to an extent, but many other paths do not. I see nothing wrong with
describing myself as buddhist and atheist, since I believe in no god figure
of any kind.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
>
> >
> >nik thinks only in terms [...]
>
> How is one person able to know what another person _thinks_?
> (this is not a question about Nik.).
>
form, rather than as any reference to the total complexity of cognitive
function: one knows how another thinks by the forensic evidence of his/her
statements and actions. And I think we can agree that there is enough
evidence in this group over the course of several years to make such an
assumption of Nik's thoughts.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"The Lemming" <Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97jeuo$n1l$4...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> cythera <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
> news:3A9CFF93...@interbulletin.com...
> > >> (You probably aren't saying what I hear you saying, given that you're
a
> > >> buddhist surrealist.(
> > >>
> > >
> > >:-)
> >
> > How can there be such a thing as a "buddhist surrealist"? Buddhism
> (1)presupposes the existence of supernatural beings, (2) seeks as its
> ultimate goal nirvana, which in Sanskrit literally means "act of
> extinquishing" (desire, pain, rebirth, etc.).
> >
> >
> > cythera.
>
> Not all forms of buddhism presuppose supernatural entities. Tibetan
buddhism
> does, to an extent, but many other paths do not. I see nothing wrong with
> describing myself as buddhist and atheist, since I believe in no god
figure
> of any kind.
>
am not by any means an expert on Buddhism - all texts I have read on the
subject raise serious doubts that buddhism and surrealism are comfortable
bunkmates. But I do know there are many different "sects" so to speak. Yet
all the work I have read eventually gets around to detailed discussions of a
denial and avoidance of desire, or of the idea that the physical world is an
illusion, etc. These are serious barricades to conjoining. Can you shed some
light on these - and other related matters, as you find them pertinent?
dmh
The Lemming
>
> > Not all forms of buddhism presuppose supernatural entities. Tibetan
> buddhism
> > does, to an extent, but many other paths do not. I see nothing wrong
with
> > describing myself as buddhist and atheist, since I believe in no god
> figure
> > of any kind.
> >
> I see no problem with joining buddhism and atheism either. But - although
I
> am not by any means an expert on Buddhism - all texts I have read on the
> subject raise serious doubts that buddhism and surrealism are comfortable
> bunkmates.
Which is why I commented to Nik that buddhism and Surrealism aren't
particularly close as he suggested.
But I do know there are many different "sects" so to speak. Yet
> all the work I have read eventually gets around to detailed discussions of
a
> denial and avoidance of desire, or of the idea that the physical world is
an
> illusion, etc.
This is based on the view that the world is dhukka, suffering,
unsatisfactory, insecure. This concerns the 4 noble truths; the existence of
sorrow, the cause of suffering, the cessation of sorrow and the path that
leads to the cessation of sorrow
These are serious barricades to conjoining. Can you shed some
> light on these - and other related matters, as you find them pertinent?
>
> dmh
>
>
I could, but it would take a long time to do so, would be mostly boring to
the majority of you, and irrelevant to surrealism. To explain the
circumstances and causes of various parts of the buddhist belief system (for
want of better words) would mean having to explain various other parts in
order to make the explanation intelligible. I'm also not an expert. :-)
Buddhism says that everything is temporary; recognising the transience of
all is one of the main tenets of most paths of buddhism. Thus the physical
world is not something permanent; attachment to "permanent" things is silly
when you consider nothing is permanent. Whether you see this as inimical to
surrealism is something we'd have to discuss in greater detail. I would
quote from Breton in "Secrets of the Art of Surrealist Magic" though:
"Supply yourself with writing materials, after having settled yourself in a
place as favourable as possible to the mind's concentration on itself.
Attain the most passive or receptive state of mind possible. Forget your
genius, your talents, and those of everyone else...Write quickly with no
preconceived subject, so quickly that you retain nothing."
This seems to mirror the use of similar phrases and states of mind found
within buddhist meditation, especially vipassana (insight) meditation. The
advice to find a favourable place, to allow the mind to concentrate on
itself, to attain a passive or reeptive state of mind, and to forget the
self are all things used in meditation. Because of this, and other things
like it, I would say that buddhism and Surrealism are not antithetical, but
I would also point out that this doesn't mean that Surrealism and buddhism
are in any way necessarily related. I don't know ewhether or not this helps,
but at short notice and off the top of my head, I hope it'll point you in th
direction I'm looking.
Brandon Freels
> This is based on the view that the world is dhukka, suffering,
> unsatisfactory, insecure. This concerns the 4 noble truths; the existence
of
> sorrow, the cause of suffering, the cessation of sorrow and the path that
> leads to the cessation of sorrow
Basically, this has been the source of my objection to any
Surrealist-Buddhist connection. Although your wording of the four noble
truths is different than I was taught it all amounts to the same thing. I
believe I was taught: 1. life is suffering 2. suffering is caused by desire
3. you must cease the desire 4. and fallow the 8-fold path (basically a list
of morals).
> This seems to mirror the use of similar phrases and states of mind found
> within buddhist meditation, especially vipassana (insight) meditation ...
There may be some weak similarities, but this was never denied. I have
always held that the basic premise behind pretty much any religion or
philosophy will clash with the basic premise behind Surrealist ideas, with
the exception of a slim few.
cythera
news:3A9CF5CF...@interbulletin.com...
> <3a9bcbea$0$62907$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net> :
> >
> >"Treeclimbr" <treec...@aol.comnospamma> wrote in message
> >news:20010227005322...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >nik, in all seriousness and with no intention for this to sound like
an
> >> >attack, you'll never understand "surrealism" as long as you think in
> >terms
> >> >of utility. it isn't a tool to improve your creativity, your art or
your
> >> >life. the very act of framing your approach in these terms distances
you
> >> >from it.
> >>
> >> How can you read Breton and come away with this statement???
> >
>
> >
>
> How is one person able to know what another person _thinks_?
> (this is not a question about Nik.).
>
>point taken.
>i should have said something more along the lines of:
>nik frames every issue and subject only in terms of how he can _use_ things
>to further his _personal_ (i.e. small) ends... etc.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you should have said something different, but rather, was approaching the issue of perception, which I think you've answered.
john adams
This was mostly my contention too, as I have friends who are
Soka Gokkai of America buddhists and have been to several
of the meetings and gatherings and so on since my teens.
If anything it does concern bringing desires into the forefront of
reality, through chant over goals particular to oneself, and in addition a
kind of meditation towards world peace.
I guess you could say I'm essentially draconian-brahmin, with druid
monk leanings, for what it's worth.
john
cythera
<3A9D2712...@nin.cx> :
>>
>> "The Lemming" <Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk> wrote in article
>> <97gr68$jm1$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> :
>> >
>> >
>> >>Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> >>news:97fgc7$ko$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> (You probably aren't saying what I hear you saying, given that you're a
>> >> buddhist surrealist.(
>> >>
>> >
>> >:-)
>>
>> How can there be such a thing as a "buddhist surrealist"? Buddhism (1)presupposes the existence of supernatural beings, (2) seeks as its ultimate goal nirvana, which in Sanskrit literally means "act of extinquishing"
(desire, pain, rebirth, etc.).
>>
>
>
>surrealist, but maybe I can clear your statement up a bit:
>
>There are lots of different types of buddhism.
Yes, a Soto Zen priest once told me that there are as many types of Buddhism
as there are of Christianity.
>Some are quite traditionalist (theravadic, or hinyana), and others are more >modern, like tibetan or some japanese forms (including the one I practice).
>I can't speak for the others, but there are just so many different
>interpretations of the various sutras, that you can't really say for
>sure wether buddhism as a whole presupposes anything!
Oh, I think it does, certainly. But I really don't want to get into a religious/spiritual discussion, even of my own particular favorites, paleo through neolithic goddess worship, and the purposes of European stone monuments. :).
I wrote a post to Nick (the Lemming) and it has some questions and comments. If it doesn't show up I'll repost it in a few days. It was for you as well
as him.
Thanks for the info, I'll think about what you wrote.
cythera.
>I'd tend to say though, that the theravada buddhists would probably believe
>more in the supernatural beings as real living entities.
>
>I'm a soka gakkai buddhist, and every morning I pray to strengthen the
>protective forces inherent in life and the environment. So what may have
>once been stuff like "god of thunder" has now changed, although we still
>chant to that generic thing... Hope I explain myself ok here... So there
>are supernatural beings in the scriptures that we base our faith on, but
>they're not understood to be more than forces inherent in everyday life,
>described in the way people used to when the sutras were written.
>
>And about the goal of nirvana, the entire Nichiren school(japan), as
>well as some chinese forms of buddhism would tend to disagree. We see
>nirvana as very much an everyday phenomenon, of great connection, rather
>than disconnection with our feelings and desires. Yes, that may be the
>sanscrit meaning, but you tend to see a progression amongst the buddhist
>schools where people will be said to reach nirvana in many
>reincarnations, within your lifetime, or in the present moment. Again,
>for theravada buddhists, and Hare Krishas, you are probably right.
>
>Any theravada or brahmin surrealists on this newsgroup?
>
>Ale
>
>> cythera.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
>
>--
>Alejandro Fernandez Bscp 5 Caledonian University
>0141 586 3913 - a...@nin.cx
_______________________________________________
The Lemming
cythera <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
> Oh, I think it does, certainly. But I really don't want to get into a
religious/spiritual discussion, even of my own particular favorites, paleo
through neolithic goddess worship, and the purposes of European stone
monuments. :).
> I wrote a post to Nick (the Lemming) and it has some questions and
comments. If it doesn't show up I'll repost it in a few days. It was for
you as well
> as him
supernatural beings and suchlike that started this part of the thread off,
but not any since...
If it wasn't that one, could you repost?
Thanks,
The Lemming
Brandon Freels <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hOfn6.6419$mX4.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "The Lemming" wrote
> > This is based on the view that the world is dhukka, suffering,
> > unsatisfactory, insecure. This concerns the 4 noble truths; the
existence
> of
> > sorrow, the cause of suffering, the cessation of sorrow and the path
that
> > leads to the cessation of sorrow
>
> Basically, this has been the source of my objection to any
> Surrealist-Buddhist connection. Although your wording of the four noble
> truths is different than I was taught it all amounts to the same thing. I
> believe I was taught: 1. life is suffering 2. suffering is caused by
desire
> 3. you must cease the desire 4. and fallow the 8-fold path (basically a
list
> of morals).
>
The difference in wording can be put down to different traditions and
different languages, since there are two main canons, the Pali and Sanskrit
ones. After translation from either language, there are bound to be some
variances. The ones you mention are the same as the ones I mention.
> > This seems to mirror the use of similar phrases and states of mind found
> > within buddhist meditation, especially vipassana (insight) meditation
...
>
> There may be some weak similarities, but this was never denied. I have
> always held that the basic premise behind pretty much any religion or
> philosophy will clash with the basic premise behind Surrealist ideas, with
> the exception of a slim few.
>
>
I agree; hence my posts to Nik concerning the lack of similarity between the
two to any meaningful degree. As Cythera has mentioned elsewhere, there are
many, many paths within buddhism, and to some extent every buddhist forms
his or her own path. Since there is no "bible" in buddhism (although there
are the Pali and Sanskrit canons, they vary in a lot of ways depending on
the tradition and path), and since the fundamental values of different paths
vary considerably, I feel that some parts of buddhism are incompatible with
the underlying premise of surrealism, but that others are compatible. I
disagree with Nik that one can be a buddhist surrealist, or a (put anything
here) surrealist - either one *is* a surrealist, or one *isn't* a
surrealist.
cythera
<97m4b8$ta1$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> :
>Brandon Freels <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:hOfn6.6419$mX4.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "The Lemming" wrote
>> > This is based on the view that the world is dhukka, suffering,
>> > unsatisfactory, insecure. This concerns the 4 noble truths; the
>existence
>> of
>> > sorrow, the cause of suffering, the cessation of sorrow and the path
>that
>> > leads to the cessation of sorrow
>>
>> Basically, this has been the source of my objection to any
>> Surrealist-Buddhist connection. Although your wording of the four noble
>> truths is different than I was taught it all amounts to the same thing. I
>> believe I was taught: 1. life is suffering 2. suffering is caused by
>desire
>> 3. you must cease the desire 4. and fallow the 8-fold path (basically a
>list
>> of morals).
>>
>
>The difference in wording can be put down to different traditions and
>different languages, since there are two main canons, the Pali and Sanskrit
>ones. After translation from either language, there are bound to be some
>variances. The ones you mention are the same as the ones I mention.
>
>> > This seems to mirror the use of similar phrases and states of mind found
>> > within buddhist meditation, especially vipassana (insight) meditation
>>
>> There may be some weak similarities, but this was never denied. I have
>> always held that the basic premise behind pretty much any religion or
>> philosophy will clash with the basic premise behind Surrealist ideas, with
>> the exception of a slim few.
>>
>>
>
>I agree; hence my posts to Nik concerning the lack of similarity between the
>two to any meaningful degree.
>As Cythera has mentioned elsewhere, there are many, many paths within >buddhism,
Well, that's what I was told. :) I was out of there pretty quickly and never explored any of those paths deeply. What drew me to Zen (Soto, the one with zazen, i.e. sitting meditation) was its emphasis on compassion, mindfulness, and intention. What turned me off was the lengthy meditations (one was
enough: I felt drained of desire), and also the hypocrisy of some priests and "bodhisattvas." How, for instance, a person can vow to "save _all_ life" and then turn around and eat animals and wear their skins I don't fucking know.
(yes I have been told I'm an animal nut.).
And I don't see how these people can keep their doors closed to the homeless. It was damn depressing all in all, probably something like being with Moonies.
>and to some extent every buddhist forms
>his or her own path. Since there is no "bible" in buddhism (although there
>are the Pali and Sanskrit canons, they vary in a lot of ways depending on
>the tradition and path), and since the fundamental values of different paths
>vary considerably, I feel that some parts of buddhism are incompatible with
>the underlying premise of surrealism, but that others are compatible. I
>disagree with Nik that one can be a buddhist surrealist, or a (put anything
>here) surrealist -
>either one *is* a surrealist, or one *isn't* a surrealist.
>
>Nick the Lemming
Nick (and Alejandro), I'm going to email both of you that post of mine that didn't show up here.
I was wondering though in what ways you both have found Buddhism to be similar to surrealism. A fair number of Buddhists have been posting on this group since I began to read it, and I'm wondering too what it is about surrealism that has drawn you here.
cythera.
>
>
>--
>Happy VHEMT Volunteer
>
>May we live long and die out
>
>www.vhemt.org
>
>In Your Face, Space Coyote!
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Alejandro Fernandez
So the question is: what attracts me to surrealism, given that I'm a
buddhist?
There's the issue of buddhist art, which can be said to create buddhist
influenced art, in the same way much western art has historically had a
christian influence. But that's not what I considered when I joined this
newsgroup.
I think the buddhism I practice is a lot about applying the concepts of
buddhism to my daily life, and I see enlightenment as being able to show
my full potential in my life. So although I don't base every decision I
make on what the lotus sutra says, I see it more as the roots, the
foundations, to what I believed in anyway even before I was a buddhist.
A simple way to explain might be to say, before I met buddhism, I was
like a tree, with many branches, but insecure roots. The more I thought
profoundly about my most important values: creativity, science,
happiness, the more I got lost. Buddhism added a foundation to what I
already believed, because it's mostly common sense anyway, but based on
complex interpretations of the lotus sutra, and now I consider myself to
be like a flourished tree with strong roots.
I always had a seeking spirit, I love expression, as free as possible
please, thank you very much, and I think surrealism is a beautiful form
of art. I used to have a lot more time for it before, and it's been
great to be refreshed with links to people like Jodorowsky or man ray
since I've been on this newsgroup, stuff that's reminding me for example
of the music I used to play and listen to as a classical guitarist, and
the films I used to watch, before work, family and university took over!
Hope that's a good answer! I hope to receive that post you were talking
about.
Ale
Nikolaus Maack
>I
> disagree with Nik that one can be a buddhist surrealist, or a (put anything
> here) surrealist - either one *is* a surrealist, or one *isn't* a
> surrealist.
What a depressing thought. I would imagine that surrealists, of all
people, would recognize that something can be up and down, inside and
outside, thirsty and quenched, dead and alive, black and white, surreal
and unsurreal, all at the same time.
Either one is a surrealist or one isn't? Pah! How incredibly
short-sighted and rational. Blah.
The Lemming
cythera <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
> >I agree; hence my posts to Nik concerning the lack of similarity between
the
> >two to any meaningful degree.
>
> >As Cythera has mentioned elsewhere, there are many, many paths within
>buddhism,
>
> Well, that's what I was told. :)
It's true too. If anything, there are more buddhist groups than Xian groups
out there. When the Aum Shinrikyo were bombing subways, there were reports
that Tokyo alone had 5,000 registered buddhist groups.
> I was out of there pretty quickly and never explored any of those paths
>deeply. What drew me to Zen (Soto, the one with zazen, i.e. sitting
>meditation) was its emphasis on compassion, mindfulness, and intention.
Quite a few of the buddhist paths do the same. Zen is quite accessible to
english speakers though, especially Americans, who generally seem to think
that Zen *is* buddhism in its entirety.
>What turned me off was the lengthy meditations (one was
> enough: I felt drained of desire), and also the hypocrisy of some priests
>and "bodhisattvas." How, for instance, a person can vow to "save _all_
>life" and then turn around and eat animals and wear their skins I don't
>fucking know.
The meditations don't have to be long; some of the best forms of meditation
are short in nature. Hinayana (Theraveda) meditation techniques tend to be
lengthy though...And like I said, there are many paths, and people tend to
interpret the Pali and Sanskrit canons in different ways. Some buddhist
groups verge on the Jains attitude to life, others are quite scarily
militaristic.
> (yes I have been told I'm an animal nut.).
> And I don't see how these people can keep their doors closed to the
>homeless. It was damn depressing all in all, probably something like being
>with Moonies.
>
Sounds like you met some pretty crap buddhists. :-|
>
> Nick (and Alejandro), I'm going to email both of you that post of mine
that didn't show up here.
>
thanks Cythera, look forward to it. send to nick at justonelife dot
freeserve dot co dot uk please.
> I was wondering though in what ways you both have found Buddhism to >be
similar to surrealism. A fair number of Buddhists have been posting on
>this group since I began to read it, and I'm wondering too what it is about
>surrealism that has drawn you here.
>
I was interested in surrealism before I became interested in buddhism, so I
can't answer that part I'm afraid; my being drawn to surrealism and my being
drawn to buddhism are both different but both are the result of many, many
disparate elements. I didn't wake up one morning to discover I was suddenly
a buddhist, it was something that happened over time. I've already posted a
few thinsg that seem (to me) to suggest that there are some things in common
with surrealism, but I don't think there are enough to prove any kind of
causal link or relationship. There are things in common with surrealism and
going to the laundrette, but it doesn't make them related in any way.
Nick the Lemming
The Lemming
> "The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> >I
> > disagree with Nik that one can be a buddhist surrealist, or a (put
anything
> > here) surrealist - either one *is* a surrealist, or one *isn't* a
> > surrealist.
>
> What a depressing thought. I would imagine that surrealists, of all
> people, would recognize that something can be up and down, inside and
> outside, thirsty and quenched, dead and alive, black and white, surreal
> and unsurreal, all at the same time.
>
> Either one is a surrealist or one isn't? Pah! How incredibly
> short-sighted and rational. Blah.
>
Could you explain how one is partly surrealist then? Can you suggest a
partly surrealist work?
Nikolaus Maack
> Could you explain how one is partly surrealist then? Can you suggest a
> partly surrealist work?
*sigh*
I swear on all that is unholy that the world is getting more and more
rational every day. And rational people rarely ever understand anything.
Using logic and reason, any human can defend the most ridiculous of
positions. It's when we recognize that these seemingly "rational"
positions were selected for emotional purposes and then are justified
after the fact with logic that life begins to make sense.
By the way, that's what shizophrenics do. I'm beginning to suspect that
the world is rapidly becoming schizophrenic too.
"I believe in letting hunters kill as many deer as they'd like. It
logically makes sense."
("Emotionally I enjoy killing things and love the taste of meat.")
"I am against abortion and I can offer you all sorts of logic for it!"
("I was raised catholic.")
"I am an atheist for the following logical reasons..."
("I hate my father.")
The problem with people believing in this faux logic is they believe they
are being rational, and so insist that everyone else around them be
rational as well. Unfortunately, what this translates to is -- if you
don't demonstrate the same biased beliefs that I hold, then you're being
"unreasonable".
All this said -- a partial surrealist, David Lynch. A partially surreal
work -- the holy bible, specifically, Revelations. Or how about
children's TV shows? Bask in the semi-surreal world of The Polka-Dot Door
(perhaps a little obscure, as it's Canadian) or PeeWee Herman.
There's a billion examples of the semi-surreal and the semi-surrealist.
There are billions of gray areas. Do you really need me to point them out
to you?
Forgive me. I am tired and grumpy and my cat needs petting.
Dale Houstman
"informed" by the surrealist "tradition" or one might say that it partakes
(selectively) of surrealist-like techniques or images. This is little
different that people referring to musak as "semi-classical" simply because
it uses strings. In essence it is a way to claim a certain "pomposity" of
position without actually having to learn anything about that position. One
might (with no validity) claim to be "semi-catholic" simply because one
likes to eat wafers with bread while worshipping Zeus, but it doesn't really
fly: it's a popular notion with no real basis in reality.
By the way, a rather civil question was asked of you: your adolescent rant
just seems to be bad camouflage for your continuing inability to engage
people in real communication. A good example of how your aggressively
contrarian stance really functions as a way of avoiding the obvious (i.e.:
your starved idea of surrealism and almost every other subject) is seen in
how The Lemming - although he professes to be a buddhist - has not drawn to
himself the same aggravations you did in a similar conversation. The
difference being that he seems to know something about both buddhism and
surrealism, seems to know how they differ, and is willing to discuss and
explain. In contrast, your knowledge continues to be entirely superficial on
all points.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> A "semi-surrealist" work is NOT surrealist. It might be referred to as
> "informed" by the surrealist "tradition" or one might say that it partakes
> (selectively) of surrealist-like techniques or images.
Of course something that is partially a thing is also partially not a
thing. So something semi-surrealist is also semi-not-surrealist. I don't
even know why you'd take the time to express such an obvious notion.
> In essence it is a way to claim a certain "pomposity" of
> position without actually having to learn anything about that position.
On the contrary, it's a recognition that the world is far more complex
than the categorizing of the universe that our brains are so prone to.
Isn't this a rather obvious and basic notion? In fact, isn't it a
"surrealist" notion? Up is also down, in is also out, black is also
white, and surreal is also not-surreal. Is this not the surrealist way of
thinking? Or is the word "surreal" somehow exluded from this list of
opposites?
Consider:
> One
> might (with no validity) claim to be "semi-catholic" simply because one
> likes to eat wafers with bread while worshipping Zeus, but it doesn't really
> fly: it's a popular notion with no real basis in reality.
One MIGHT claim to be semi-catholic because one likes organ music,
religious ceremony, and holds some Catholic beliefs, but doesn't go to
church. With this kind of an example -- as opposed to your ridiculous one
-- it's clear to see that what I'm suggesting is quite obvious and not all
that contraversial. This is why we have the term lapsed catholic, after
all.
What is REALLY amusing is your actions are proving the other statement I
made in my post -- people react emotionally and then explain their
behavior with "faux logic".
Why, after all, would it possibly matter to you if there are
semi-surrealists? I think you have invested a great deal of your own
identity in the word "surrealism", to the point where you might call
yourself Dale Surrealism Houstman. To hear someone use the word
differently than your liking is to hear them mis-use your own name, your
own identity. It makes you emotionally volatile.
So you react emotionally and then make up some spurious logic to defend
your position. "That's like calling muzak 'semi-classical music!' You
can't do that!"
Sure you can. Muzak is semi-classical. I can say it. Why the fuck not?
Will the muzak police come beat me up? The classical music police? Muzak
*IS* semi-classical. It also happens to be very bad. It however strives
to emulate classical music in a sort of wishy-washy way.
And then you get all snotty:
> A good example of how your aggressively
> contrarian stance really functions as a way of avoiding the obvious (i.e.:
> your starved idea of surrealism and almost every other subject) is seen in
> how The Lemming - although he professes to be a buddhist - has not drawn to
> himself the same aggravations you did in a similar conversation. The
> difference being that he seems to know something about both buddhism and
> surrealism, seems to know how they differ, and is willing to discuss and
> explain. In contrast, your knowledge continues to be entirely superficial on
> all points.
Not to knock Nick the Lemming, but I think he's being polite in order to
avoid a serious conflict. I, alas, am not as polite as he is. Sven, by
the way, does the same thing. He is not a confrontational person. He
avoids fisticuffs by saying things like, "Now, I don't know if I'm a
surrealist or not -- I just like to write."
This doesn't mean these people agree with you -- or even like you -- it
just means they don't want to fight with you. Probably because they've
watched you take a dozen punchdrunk swings at me and seen what an annoying
boob you can become.
But as for your beliefs about me... I'm not sure it's possible to explain
to you why I think what you're saying is very silly.
You see, from my perspective, this is what happens. I express a point of
view. You tell me I'm wrong -- rarely, if ever, offering any reason for
why I'm wrong. For example, all you state in the above is, "your
knowledge continues to be entirely superficial on all points" without
offering any proof or explanation.
Hey, I'm reading surrealist texts and studies on schizophrenia and on
Jungian dream analysis and I see them all as connected. Sounds to me like
I'm informed. Perhaps just not in the areas of surrealism you prefer, but
which bore me to tears -- ie. politics and automatic poetry.
In other words, once again you're engaged in spurious logic. I express an
opinion different than yours, and you merely dismiss it, assuming my point
of view is uninformed (irrational) because it's different from your point
of view.
I often defend my position with facts and arguments. For example, I
recently posted a number of quotes from Salvadore Dali where he dismisses
automatic processes in the most obvious way. Does this not make it clear
that there are two schools of surrealism -- one automatic, one not? This
goes ignored. You continue to tell me I'm wrong -- offering, again, no
explanation. Your words usually amount to "That's just the way it is and
everyone knows that. All real surrealists know you're full of shit."
I boggle over your lack of sense. I marvel at your ability to put on this
phony look of reason and logic on your face while expressing pure
unreason. The fact that, while you're doing all this, you call yourself a
surrealist -- that's the cherry on top.
You're pretending to be logical and rational. You're ignoring the fact
that you're engaged in illogic and unreason. And you believe in a
philosophical stance that praises the embracing of the illogical.
Now THAT is funny!
Morpheal
>
> I swear on all that is unholy that the world is getting more and more
> rational every day. And rational people rarely ever understand anything.
Soon it will all be one big machine ? With completely interchangable and
disposable "parts" ? (pun intended)
M.
Morpheal
> >I disagree with Nik that one can be a buddhist surrealist, or a (put anything
> > here) surrealist - either one *is* a surrealist, or one *isn't* a
> > surrealist.
Disagree.
The difference between the average common perceptions and Buddha's perceptions
was essentially comparable to the difference between realism and surrealism.
M.
The Lemming
> Not to knock Nick the Lemming, but I think he's being polite in order to
> avoid a serious conflict. I, alas, am not as polite as he is. Sven, by
> the way, does the same thing. He is not a confrontational person. He
> avoids fisticuffs by saying things like, "Now, I don't know if I'm a
> surrealist or not -- I just like to write."
>
Nope, I made the point beforehand that I didn't think that surrealism and
taoism / buddhism / whatever else it was where connected. I have
consistently agreed that they do not form any kind of symbiotic
relationship. If you read my previous messages on this thread, you will see
this quite clearly. Lok for the ones where I ask you to go and see Taoists
and see if they think they're even remotely connected to surrealists. I'm
not trying to avoid conflict because I'm polite, I'm in agreement that
surrealism and buddhism are not connected. There is no conflict that I can
see in me stating that and Dale, Parry or Brandon stating essentially the
same thing.
> This doesn't mean these people agree with you -- or even like you -- it
> just means they don't want to fight with you. Probably because they've
> watched you take a dozen punchdrunk swings at me and seen what an annoying
> boob you can become.
Nope, again. I disagreed with the stuff you said about surrealism and dali,
but I was (I hope) polite about it; I disagreed with some of what Andrea was
saying, and was again (hopefully) polite; I've agreed with Dale and others
about there being no connection between surrealism and buddhism, and where
Dale believed there were serious differences between surrealism and
buddhism, I quoted a couple of things to try and show that some paths in
buddhism are different to the way he thought that buddhism *in general* was.
I have tried to give information to support my opinion where possible, and
hopefully where I have, my case has been convincing. Where others have
provided information that makes my case look wrong, I've admitted that I
could be wrong. Where buddhism has been mentioned, I've tried to provide
more information for those who aren't particularly knowledgeable on the
subject, but just because I haven't instantly flamed people doesn't mean
that I agree or disagree on a stated position.
> Hey, I'm reading surrealist texts and studies on schizophrenia and on
> Jungian dream analysis and I see them all as connected. Sounds to me like
> I'm informed. Perhaps just not in the areas of surrealism you prefer, but
> which bore me to tears -- ie. politics and automatic poetry.
>
> In other words, once again you're engaged in spurious logic. I express an
> opinion different than yours, and you merely dismiss it, assuming my point
> of view is uninformed (irrational) because it's different from your point
> of view.
>
I don't see this as spurious logic, I see it as you taking one very small
part of surrealism and disregarding the rest; to ignore politics in
surrealism, and to ignore psychic automatism in poetry is to ignore
surrealism.
> I often defend my position with facts and arguments. For example, I
> recently posted a number of quotes from Salvadore Dali where he dismisses
> automatic processes in the most obvious way. Does this not make it clear
> that there are two schools of surrealism -- one automatic, one not?
No, to my mind, it suggests that when Dali disregarded the surrealist
manifestoes, disregards the political manifestation of surrealism,
disregards pretty much all precepts of surrealism, he's disregarding
surrealism, and to claim that he is then surrealist is rather silly.
The Lemming
Morpheal <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AA144D3...@sympatico.ca...
> > "The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> > >I disagree with Nik that one can be a buddhist surrealist, or a (put
anything
> > > here) surrealist - either one *is* a surrealist, or one *isn't* a
> > > surrealist.
>
> Disagree.
>
> The difference between the average common perceptions and Buddha's
perceptions
> was essentially comparable to the difference between realism and
surrealism.
>
b) buddhists aren't Buddha.
Nikolaus Maack
[A bunch of stuff about how Nick isn't avoiding conflict deleted]
Fine, you're not avoiding conflict. It's a happy coincidence that you and
Dale agree on every topic. My mistake.
> I don't see this as spurious logic, I see it as you taking one very small
> part of surrealism and disregarding the rest; to ignore politics in
> surrealism, and to ignore psychic automatism in poetry is to ignore
> surrealism.
Clearly I disagree. I don't see psychic automatism or politics to be
necessary components of surrealism. In fact, they often seem
distractions, to me, of the real purpose of surrealism -- uniting the
unconscious and the conscious minds.
This was, after all, the original intention of surrealism as stated in the
very first manifest -- was it not? As I stated previously, this unity
might have certain political implications, but politics are a side effect
of the above. As for "psychic automatism", it is but one way to explore
the unconscious, and therefore (in my mind, anyway) is an optional
component of surrealism.
And here, by the way, is the link between buddhism, taoism, and surrealism
-- unity. The Tao Teh Ching, for example, speaks a great deal about
opposites and balance and what we were before we started naming things.
Also, I don't think it's that much of a leap to suggest that when
surrealists speak of uniting conscious and unconscious, that they are
speaking of a state of mind similar to buddhist "enlightenment".
I also consider surrealist art as an attempt to create small "satori" in
the viewer. For example, a Dali painting is meant to surprise you by how
its irrational logic is perfectly rational. Its concrete depiction of
dream logic causes a pleasant twinge of awe and recognition.
To me, this is what surrealist art -- be it painting, drama, dance,
whatever -- strives to do. Small satoris for all my friends.
> No, to my mind, it suggests that when Dali disregarded the surrealist
> manifestoes, disregards the political manifestation of surrealism,
> disregards pretty much all precepts of surrealism, he's disregarding
> surrealism, and to claim that he is then surrealist is rather silly.
I think Dali pursued his own surrealist enlightenment, while the other
surrealists got side-tracked into politics, poetry, and suicide.
Dale Houstman
really wish you could understand that I am not talking TO you, I am talking
ABOUT you. You are - as far as I'm concerned - a pathological case. You
could be in the same room, and I'd refer to you in the third person. "It's
never going to wake up, is it?" Etc.
dmh
john adams
>recently posted a number of quotes from Salvadore Dali where he dismisses
>automatic processes in the most obvious way. Does this not make it clear
>that there are two schools of surrealism -- one automatic, one not? This
>goes ignored. You continue to tell me I'm wrong -- offering, again, no
>explanation. Your words usually amount to "That's just the way it is and
>everyone knows that. All real surrealists know you're full of shit."
Simply put, there was no second school of surrealism that flourished
because as we know dali branched off into his own self-professed style of
mystical painting (though initially this was supposed to be his version of
surrealism
coming to america), more and more becoming cookie cutter repros. of the
same themes. You mine as well say there were 30 or more different main schools
of surrealism as past surrealists went on to define their own paths, although
that still would be almost as innaccurate or misleading a way to describe it.
Secondly, don't your commie-comments and 'worship of the automatic'
arguments ever start to sound funny, even to yourself, after so much
repetition?
An honest question, because really you seem particularly stubborn in getting
any
strong grasp on what it is you so adamantly argue over. This can cause much
difficulty through the course of human interactions in general. It was Jesus
Christ,
perhaps, who once said: to stand in the pool of one's own stagnant framework
is but to become a hethen emerged through the ritual of worship and slave among
the
race of dunderheads. How this later become somewhat twisted around, I don't
know,
but I only repeat it here as a sincere gesture to throw away your anchors and
open your
heart and mind.
john
Brandon Freels
> Clearly I disagree. I don't see psychic automatism or politics to be
> necessary components of surrealism. In fact, they often seem
> distractions, to me, of the real purpose of surrealism -- uniting the
> unconscious and the conscious minds.
The uniting of (or shale we say the desolving of boarders between) the
unconscious desires (i.e. interior necessities) and the conscious life can
only be realized via pure psychic automatism. From the first manifesto (p.
26) pure psychic automatism was recognized as the fundemental and guiding
principle of Surrealism (see also p. 298).
[The problem with Nik is that he thinks "freedom" is impossible. I think the
most important question for us to ask ourselves at this point is: "where did
he learn this?"]
> This was, after all, the original intention of surrealism as stated in the
> very first manifest -- was it not? As I stated previously, this unity
> might have certain political implications, but politics are a side effect
> of the above. As for "psychic automatism", it is but one way to explore
> the unconscious, and therefore (in my mind, anyway) is an optional
> component of surrealism.
Again, you fail to understand the difference between "pure psychic
automatism" (a state of mind) and "automatism" (a creative act). You don't
"explore" the unconscious with "pure psychic automatism" for in this state
of mind the repressive un/conscious dychotomy ceases to exist. Creative acts
such as automatic writing and the paranoia-critical method are used in hopes
of capturing these breif moments of trance visions (moments of pure psychic
automatism) with physical material.
cythera
<97rqqp$19i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> to
>"The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) about:
>[...] uniting the unconscious and the conscious minds.
This "split mind" that you speak of needs to be not _united_, but fully and permanently _reunited_.
>[...]. As I stated previously, this unity might have certain political >implications, but politics are a side effect of the above.
On the contrary, they're necessary to achieve the above, even if your desire
is for only your _own_ freedom.
cythera.
"Excuse my absolute freedom."
--Antonin Artaud.
_______________________________________________
Nikolaus Maack
> The uniting of (or shale we say the desolving of boarders between) the
> unconscious desires (i.e. interior necessities) and the conscious life can
> only be realized via pure psychic automatism. From the first manifesto (p.
> 26) pure psychic automatism was recognized as the fundemental and guiding
> principle of Surrealism (see also p. 298).
My problem, as you have accurately noted, is with the phrase "pure psychic
automatism". I think the phrase itself is nigh gibberish, and yes, I
think it's a state that's impossible to achieve. I don't think we can
behave automatically (or achieve some special mental state) and thus be
free. I think we have to use both reason and unreason -- let the ideas
bubble forth and then critically assess them.
(Also, it's not enough to just let the ideas bubble forth. You
occasionally have to put on a scuba suit, dive into the unconscious and
hunt the images down.)
I'm sort of surprised that lucid dreaming doesn't get talked about more
often in this newsgroup. Here's a tool that allows you to explore the
unconscious face to face. In the lucid dream state, the conscious self
(the ego) is in the environment of the unconscious (dream), and can
actively get involved in the myth and mystery. You can hobnob with the
very guts of your deepest self.
Where else can we find an experience that so clearly unites the conscious
and unconscious?
> [The problem with Nik is that he thinks "freedom" is impossible. I think the
> most important question for us to ask ourselves at this point is: "where did
> he learn this?"]
I don't think freedom is impossible. I believe it is possible. I also
recognize that is a highly valuable commodity that is constantly being
taken away from us -- by the government, by corporations, and by each
other. It will take more than automatism (or "pure psychic automatism" or
whatever you want to call it) to achieve that freedom.
Insight rarely comes from sitting around waiting for it to happen. You
have to fight the world and yourself to get it. You also have to trust
the world and yourself to get it. You have to dive into your own guts and
struggle with them. Dali knew this. It's why he valued discipline and
serious art over mere spontaneous splashes of pain thrown any which way,
without control, without thought, without discipline.
Barrett (and some others amongst you) seem to have little respect for the
realm of psychology and psychotherapy. This is a shame, because much of
the material you seem to hold dear has a strong basis in this world. A
treasure trove of material awaits you.
For example, Robert A. Johnson (the Jungian analyst who wrote "Inner
Work") suggests that our neuroses and our mental troubles originate from
contradiction and imbalance between conscious and unconscious forces.
Say you want to be an important businessman. You work hard, you play
hard, you drink a lot, you sacrifice family and friends, all for a key to
the executive washroom. Meanwhile some part of your unconscious wants to
kick back and relax a bit. Maybe paint, or write, or just lie on the
beach.
That unexpressed, repressed aspect of yourself will manifest in oddity and
dementia. Your unconscious will deliberately seize a portion of your
brain power in an attempt to get you to recognize this unexpressed need.
Maybe it will make you sick -- crippling you so you can't get to the
office. Maybe it will make your performance at work lousy, constantly
distracting you with daydreams and fantasies. It will throw up a dozen
red flags, saying, "Look over here! You're ignoring this! It's important
you look at all of this!"
But it's unfair to call this unconscious "it", to suggest it's a separate
force, a seperate voice, attacking the ego. Because it is also you. It
is a part of you you're ignoring. That thing that is crippling you, that
businessman in the office, is also you.
Can you see how this model is extremely relevant to surrealism? How what
Robert Johnson has to say on this is important for surrealists?
Then there's the material I'm reading about in "Interpreting
Schizophrenia". In this book, the author, Silvano Arieti, suggests that
at least one component of schizophrenia is the inability for a person to
express their feelings.
Say you've got a tyrant of a father who controls your every waking move.
His behavior will mould you into a certain shape. You might want to
rebel, but you find it difficult to do so, because every time you try an
alarm goes off in your head. Father would be displeased if I did this
thing. I'd better not.
But under the strain of trying to conform to father, and the strain of
being true to yourself, you eventually snap. The unexpressed material,
the material you want to scream out but cannot, bursts from you in the
form of schizophrenia. Now you get to express the material you want to
express -- you can be free, in a psychotic way. You can spew a word salad
that expresses your real feelings, and engage in psychotic ritual that
lets loose the inner you.
Can you see how this relates to surrealism? How it is important for
surrealism? Can you see how these ideas have far greater value than the
near-nonsense phrase "pure psychic automatism"? These are practical
models that discuss ways our minds work.
Robert A. Johnson's book "Inner Work" is rife with practical methods for
finding the repressed you, the buried you, and letting it speak. I highly
recommend it to ever surrealist and non-surrealist.
> Again, you fail to understand the difference between "pure psychic
> automatism" (a state of mind) and "automatism" (a creative act). You don't
> "explore" the unconscious with "pure psychic automatism" for in this state
> of mind the repressive un/conscious dychotomy ceases to exist.
I think saying things like, "All you need to be free from dichotomy is to
enter this one particular state of mind," is a simplistic, misleading, and
dangerous notion. There is always dichotomy, there is always division.
Parts of the unconscious are fighting amongst each other. Parts of the
conscious are fighting as well. And sometimes conscious and unconscious
fight too. All these interior battles -- that all of us are constantly
undergoing -- will not be resolved by simply putting on a state of "pure
psychic automatism".
> Creative acts
> such as automatic writing and the paranoia-critical method are used in hopes
> of capturing these breif moments of trance visions (moments of pure psychic
> automatism) with physical material.
Perhaps. But they are not the only methods, as some of you seem to
suggest. After all, people tell me, "Nik, if you remove 'pure psychic
automatism' from surrealism, there is no surrealism!' Utter nonsense.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "automatism" and the "critical
paranoiac method" are both pretty lousy, given how poorly defined and
impractical they are.
Here's how Dali defines the "critical paranoiac method" in "The Secret
Life of Salvadore Dali":
"Everyone throughout the world, and especially in America, wants to know
the secret formula for so much success. There really is such a formula --
it is called the 'critical paranoiac method.' I conceived it over thirty
years ago and have applied it profitably ever since, although I do not
know, even to this day, what it consists of exactly. On the whole, it is
the systematic association, in the strictest sense, of the most delirious
phenomena and elements, so as to give tangible creativness to my most
obsessively dangerous ideas; but this activity can only be set into motion
by a soft motor of divine origin, a living nucelus -- in short, a Gala --
and there is only one Gala."
While this paragraph is highly amusing, witty, and entertaining, I'm not
sure that it really helps us understand what the hell Dali does. In fact,
Dali admits -- both out of false modesty and as a half-joke -- that he
himself has no idea what it is he does. Shall we follow his example? How
the hell to even begin?
Not only that, but Dali (like all good messiahs) tells us NOT to follow
his example. Follow your own example, he says. The world does not need a
hundred faux Dalis wandering the streets. The world needs INDIVDUALS who
are truly individuals.
In other words, Dali suggests the creation of our own, personal, ideal
psychological madnesses. Each of us needs to chase our own tail, and no
one else's.
On the topic of the critical paranoiac method and automatism being
compatible methods, Dali seems to disagree:
"Soby had also been among the first to consider 'critical paranoiac
activity' as destined to succeed the excitement over automatic experiments
which was wearing itself out in a boring repetitiveness and in an
exasperating and interminable marking of time.
"I had sad confirmation of this interminable marking of time when upon my
arrival in Paris I learned that the surrealist group had found nothing
better to do during my absence than to set up the weariless continuation
of the more or less flying small beans of pure automatism in opposition to
my new search for the esthetic hierarchization of irrational imagination.
The answer to my hierarchization was a surrealist exhibtion in which the
entries were arranged according to the perfectly collectivist criterion of
the order of the alphabet!"
In any case, I think it would be a step in the right direction if
surrealists stopped worshipping the old school methods. There are many
new (and not so new) tools for accessing unconscious material that are
going ignored. This is thanks to a dogma that has established "pure
psychic automatism" and the "critical paranoiac method" as holy,
unquestionable, and true.
Nikolaus Maack
> When just about everyone connected to surrealism, and Breton writes it very
> clearly in the manifestoes, that the political and pa are main parts of
> surrealism, why do you insist that they're somehow optional?
I think there is historical evidence that both these things -- politics
and psychic automatism -- have been little more than distractions, whether
they were there from the beginning or not. Consider the whole mess of how
the surrealists became communists (or got kicked out of the group) then
ceased being communists (or got kicked out of the group). Politics simply
caused trouble, and never stayed very consistent for very long.
As for psychic automatism, I've quoted Dali quite a bit lately on this
topic -- he saw this approach as undisciplined laziness. I tend to agree
with him on this.
> In your mind maybe, but in th eminds of the surrealists, it was not
> optional. Surrealism was based upon it. Have you ever read the Manifesto of
> Surrealism? I will quote from Breton's definition of surrealism:
>
> "SURREALISM, n. Psychic automatism in its pure state..."
What does this prove? Andre Breton felt that psychic automatism was a
major part of surrealism. Dali, later on, dismissed it. Is Andre Breton
surrealism? Is Salvadore Dali surrealism? Which one is right? Or is
surrealism bigger than both these men combined?
It's my understanding that the Church of Freud (psychoanalysis) gets
muddled in similar problems when disciples of Freud begin to wander off
from the ways of the master. For example, what it the oedipal complex
isn't so much about sex but the natual fear a father has of aging, and the
natural fear a son has about pleasing his father? At some point,
inevitably, the son will have to outclass the father, given that the son
is growing more powerful and the father more old and feeble.
Taking the sex out of the oedipal complex is sacrilege for many Freudian
analysts. My god, it's heresy! Is it?
You seem to be having the same reaction to my wanting to remove "pure
psychic automatism" from surrealism. My god, it's heresy! Is it?
Ideas exist to be tinkered with. Just because they are old or because
they were established by venerable and dead white European men doesn't
mean we cease to tinker. In fact, we probably SHOULD tinker all the more,
given that so many will simply respect the ideas because they are old,
established, and have become a part of a "tradition".
[Enlightenment can be seen as a uniting of conscious and unconscious, of
personal unity.]
> I think its a huge leap...I'd advise you to go to your nearest buddhist
> sangha and chat with them about the nature of enlightenment. Go and pick up
> a book on buddhism and have a read.
Which particular flavour of buddhism would you have me turn to? Not all
enlightenments are created equal, after all. I've read plenty on the
topic of enlightenment, thanks. But I am curious -- how would YOU define
enlightenment, if not this way? Is it something you hope to acheive?
There is another connection between surrealism and buddhism I forgot to
mention -- the koan. I'd had this thought before, but forgot it. I was
reminded of it this morning when I read a passage in Robert A. Johnson's
book "Inner Work".
Johnson was discussing the idea of dream interpretation, and how one
aspect of using dreams is to ritualize dream. Take a dream you've had,
and then act on it in real life, do something to make it more than just a
thing inside your head.
Johnson describes one patient he had who was reluctant to take this step.
The man was a highly intellectual, theoretical, analytical sort of person,
and the very notion of getting caught in physical matter seemed to repel
him. When Johnson asked, "What sort of waking-world action have you taken
to make your dream real?" the man grew angry and demanded to know just
what sort of action he could perform.
Johnson blurted out, without thinking, "You could go and look at the bark
of ten trees in honor of the dream."
Both Johnson and the man were startled by these words. But the man
actually did it -- he went out and looked at the bark of ten trees, and
was in awe of what he found.
He said (according to Johnson) "Robert! You don't know how interesting the
bark on trees is! Some of it is brown; some is gray; some is smooth; some
have great wrinkles in it." (And he babbled on delightedly about bark for
a bit longer.)
The man was in genuine awe over this simple act of oogling tree bark.
Johnson marvelled over this experience, thinking that perhaps he had
inadvertantly created a zen koan: "What is the bark on ten trees?"
He goes on to say:
"Koans are cryptic statements or vignettes that Zen roshis (masters)
traditionally give to monks, ordering them to find the "answer" to the
koan. But the koan is so constructed that no answer can be found within
ordinary ego-logic. The monks must push themselves out of traditional
categories and over the brink into irrational, intuitive wisdom. One
famous example of a koan is this: Show me the sound of one hand clapping."
To emphasize: "IRRATIONAL, INTUITIVE WISDOM."
As I said in a previous post, the idea of the satori, the notion of the
irrational being rational in a pleasant artistic surprise, seems like a
major component of surrealism. Both discovering these moments for oneself
and attempting to create them for others -- that, to me, is a vital part
of surrealism. It also demonstrates how (in my mind anway) there are
overlaps between surrealism, buddhism, and taoism.
> I think you're wrong. Dali purposefully refused many, many parts of
> surrealism; to continue to believe that he was surrealist is ludicrous.
He WAS a surrealist. Of that there is no question. The only reason we
say he lapsed out of surrealism and Breton didn't is because good old
Andre spent most of his days violently asserting that surrealism belonged
to him and only him. He ran the surrealism cult like a boot camp, and
anyone who displeased him was out on his ass. Who, after all, is the ONLY
consistent member of surrealism, from the day it was founded, to the day
Breton died? Andre Breton.
I don't think that means that Surrealism belongs to Andrew Breton. Nor
does psychoanalysis belong to Freud, or relativity to Einstein, or the
toilet to John Crapper.
Brandon Freels
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:980ic4$6kt$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Dale Houstman
> How can someone write so much and say so little?
It's his "talent." As such it is a rare thing, though not rare enough in
this case.
dmh
Morpheal
> A simple way to explain might be to say, before I met buddhism,
The only real Buddhist was Buddha, a prince of the realm and given the task of preventing political upheaval during a time of widespread scarcity. Buddha never
lost sight of his princely purposes as to convincing the people he had to govern
by example and preach to, to settle for less.
It is a perennial theme, and Buddhism is no exception.
Religions are all only the handmaidens of politics.
Communism to is a religion. So forget that one also.
M.
Alejandro Fernandez
> The only real Buddhist was Buddha, a prince of the realm and given the task of preventing political upheaval during a time of widespread scarcity. Buddha never
> lost sight of his princely purposes as to convincing the people he had to govern
> by example and preach to, to settle for less.
>
> It is a perennial theme, and Buddhism is no exception.
>
> Religions are all only the handmaidens of politics.
>
> Communism to is a religion. So forget that one also.
>
> M.
Best would be the other way around: politics a handmaiden of deep
beliefs. But believe in deep things, and you'll be able to change all
the little things, the disposable, interchangeable parts of the big
machine, that you thought you couldn't affect before.
The Lemming
Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3aa22a4f$0$389$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
> > More likely that we agree because we understand the same definitions of
> > surrealism....If I was avoiding conflict, why would I be disagreeing
with
> > you over this?
>
> I wasn't under any impression that we agrred on every topic especially as
we
> have only spoken on one topic that I know of: surrealism as it concerns
> buddhism. I am sure we have the potential to disagree. And - in fact - I
> think what we were doing was disagreeing cautiously, since the thread was
> generated - on all sides - by a a perceived conflict between surrealism
and
> buddhism, which was somewhat ameliorated by (in essence) the notion that
one
> can hold to buddhism and surrealism in a "separate but equal" manner,
> without expecting that they intermarry and become domestic partners. I
won't
> (and I didn't) say that this totally satisifies any questions I might have
> (now or in the future when further conflicts may arise), but it strikes me
> as both intriguing and reasonably put.
> >
> dmh
>
>
Thanks. If you do have any further questions, then I'll be happy to try and
explain my position. Having another buddhist on here from a different
tradition will help too, since I'm pretty certain that we'll disagree about
certain parts of the dharma, which will make my points plain, I hope.
The Lemming
> "The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> > When just about everyone connected to surrealism, and Breton writes it
very
> > clearly in the manifestoes, that the political and pa are main parts of
> > surrealism, why do you insist that they're somehow optional?
>
> I think there is historical evidence that both these things -- politics
> and psychic automatism -- have been little more than distractions, whether
> they were there from the beginning or not.
Then why would Breton's definition of surrealism specifially say it's based
on PA if it was little more than a distraction?
> As for psychic automatism, I've quoted Dali quite a bit lately on this
> topic -- he saw this approach as undisciplined laziness. I tend to agree
> with him on this.
>
...in which case you disagree with the surrealists.
> > In your mind maybe, but in th eminds of the surrealists, it was not
> > optional. Surrealism was based upon it. Have you ever read the Manifesto
of
> > Surrealism? I will quote from Breton's definition of surrealism:
> >
> > "SURREALISM, n. Psychic automatism in its pure state..."
>
> What does this prove? Andre Breton felt that psychic automatism was a
> major part of surrealism. Dali, later on, dismissed it. Is Andre Breton
> surrealism? Is Salvadore Dali surrealism? Which one is right? Or is
> surrealism bigger than both these men combined?
>
Breton certainly has a much more valid claim to surrealism than Dali. The
surrealist manifestoes were adhered to by the surrealists, a lot of them
were co-signitaries to the aims of surrealism as written by Breton; Dali
wandered off on his own tangent from the surrealists. Which of the two does
that suggest had a better view of what surrealism is?
>
> You seem to be having the same reaction to my wanting to remove "pure
> psychic automatism" from surrealism. My god, it's heresy! Is it?
>
I want to remove the bread from a sandwich. The resulting cheese and
tomatoes on a plate is a sandwich, according to you.
> Ideas exist to be tinkered with. Just because they are old or because
> they were established by venerable and dead white European men doesn't
> mean we cease to tinker. In fact, we probably SHOULD tinker all the more,
> given that so many will simply respect the ideas because they are old,
> established, and have become a part of a "tradition".
>
And if you tinker too much, it becomes something else.
> [Enlightenment can be seen as a uniting of conscious and unconscious, of
> personal unity.]
> > I think its a huge leap...I'd advise you to go to your nearest buddhist
> > sangha and chat with them about the nature of enlightenment. Go and pick
up
> > a book on buddhism and have a read.
>
> Which particular flavour of buddhism would you have me turn to?
Go and pick a random selection and see what they offer.
Not all
> enlightenments are created equal, after all. I've read plenty on the
> topic of enlightenment, thanks. But I am curious -- how would YOU define
> enlightenment, if not this way? Is it something you hope to acheive?
>
of course it's something I'd like to achieve; whether its something I *will*
achieve is another matter. Since I have not yet achieved enlightenment, I
cannot define it any more than you can define the planetary atmosphere of
the fourth planet circling Alpha Centauri with any sense of understanding.
> There is another connection between surrealism and buddhism I forgot to
> mention -- the koan. I'd had this thought before, but forgot it. I was
> reminded of it this morning when I read a passage in Robert A. Johnson's
> book "Inner Work".
>
> "Koans are cryptic statements or vignettes that Zen roshis (masters)
> traditionally give to monks, ordering them to find the "answer" to the
> koan. But the koan is so constructed that no answer can be found within
> ordinary ego-logic. The monks must push themselves out of traditional
> categories and over the brink into irrational, intuitive wisdom. One
> famous example of a koan is this: Show me the sound of one hand clapping."
>
You've ovbiously never seen the episode of the Simpsons copncerning one hand
clapping. ;-)
Zen is only one of the traditions of buddhism; it isn't even one of the main
ones. Koans vary considerably, and not all conform to the pattern you
suggest.
> > I think you're wrong. Dali purposefully refused many, many parts of
> > surrealism; to continue to believe that he was surrealist is ludicrous.
>
> He WAS a surrealist. Of that there is no question.
Since so many people do not accept that he was a surrealist in his later
years, how can you say that there is no question? If some of us question it,
then surely there *is* a question over it.
The only reason we
> say he lapsed out of surrealism and Breton didn't is because good old
> Andre spent most of his days violently asserting that surrealism belonged
> to him and only him.
The *only* reason? Have you ignored the posts concerning this, or just not
understood them?
Nikolaus Maack
> Then why would Breton's definition of surrealism specifially say it's based
> on PA if it was little more than a distraction?
Why would Freud suggest that the Oedipal complex is about wanting to fuck
your mother, when it might be more about being in competition with your
father in an entirely unsexual way? Why would Einstein mock quantum
physics by saying "God does not play dice with the universe" when it turns
out that God does constantly shoot crap, and might even be a gambling
addict?
Is it possible that Andre Breton was wrong? That Freud was wrong? That
Einstein was wrong? Good Lord, say it ain't so! (He can't. He's
shooting crap right now. Call back later.)
You seem to be missing a major point here -- just because Andre Breton
says it is so, don't make it so.
>> As for psychic automatism, I've quoted Dali quite a bit lately on this
>> topic -- he saw this approach as undisciplined laziness. I tend to agree
>> with him on this.
>
> ...in which case you disagree with the surrealists.
Some of them, yes. I think it's important to disagree with other people.
If I look around and find myself entirely in agreement with the people
surrounding me, I know that something is terribly wrong.
> Breton certainly has a much more valid claim to surrealism than Dali.
No one has a claim to surrealism. It is a thing unto itself. It doesn't
belong to Dali and it doesn't belong to Breton. One cannot hold a
philosophy or a religion or a belief in one's hand.
> The
> surrealist manifestoes were adhered to by the surrealists, a lot of them
> were co-signitaries to the aims of surrealism as written by Breton; Dali
> wandered off on his own tangent from the surrealists. Which of the two does
> that suggest had a better view of what surrealism is?
Andre Breton chased off EVERY person who signed the manifestos. They all,
one by one, left the movement or were purged from it by Andre, until the
only person left in the movement, who had been there from the beginning,
was Breton -- plus a sea of new faces.
Does this mean Breton is the only real surrealist? Because he kicked
everyone off the snowbank and declared himself king of the castle?
> I want to remove the bread from a sandwich. The resulting cheese and
> tomatoes on a plate is a sandwich, according to you.
Ever heard of an open-faced sandwich? We can toss away at least one piece
of bread and it still gets called a sandwich.
> And if you tinker too much, it becomes something else.
Does this really matter? Are you the same person you were when you were
in a crib? Should we mourn the loss of that baby you once were?
> of course it's something I'd like to achieve; whether its something I *will*
> achieve is another matter. Since I have not yet achieved enlightenment, I
> cannot define it any more than you can define the planetary atmosphere of
> the fourth planet circling Alpha Centauri with any sense of understanding.
You say you're unable to tell me what "enlightenment" is. And yet you
seem quite willing to say my definition of "enlightenment" -- a personal
unity, where unconscious and conscious become one -- is wrong. Can you
explain this?
> You've ovbiously never seen the episode of the Simpsons copncerning one hand
> clapping. ;-)
Yes, I have. *makes a one-hand clap at the monitor*
> Zen is only one of the traditions of buddhism; it isn't even one of the main
> ones. Koans vary considerably, and not all conform to the pattern you
> suggest.
Does that mean you don't see a connection between surrealism and koans?
Between satori and surrealism? You've been very quiet on these points.
>> He WAS a surrealist. Of that there is no question.
>
> Since so many people do not accept that he was a surrealist in his later
> years, how can you say that there is no question? If some of us question it,
> then surely there *is* a question over it.
My point was that Dali was a surrealist. He was in the group. He was of
that group. Sure, question his later years, if you'd like. Question all
his years. Question everything. I think that's important. But it's my
belief that he was a surrealist from the start and stayed one until he
finally died a doddering old man.
[The only reason we say Dali left surrealism is because Andre spent all
his days declaring that surrealism belonged to none other than Andre Breton]
> The *only* reason? Have you ignored the posts concerning this, or just not
> understood them?
Right. There are other reasons. Dali embraced religion and became a
self-promoting nut. But why do we say that that isn't a natural evolution
of surrealism? Because Andre Breton said so. Andre insisted that where
Dali went -- that wasn't surrealism. Was Andre entirely objective in
making this statement, or was he a power mad, jealous, tyrant, pissed off
at the success of one of his former underlings?
(See how the Oedipal complex can exist between people who set themselves
up as authority figures and the "children" who worship them? Freud called
Jung his princely successor. Imagine Freud's surprise at Jung's
"betrayal". Imagine Andre's shock at Dali's "betrayal". But all good
sons must eventually "betray" their fathers -- they have to, in order to
be their own individual person. You, Nick, will eventually have to betray
the Buddha in order to gain enlightenment. Do you agree?)
Dali himself said that the natural evolution of his personality and his
art took him outside of surrealism. He went on to something bigger. (So
maybe he wasn't a surrealist in his later years?)
On the other hand, maybe that is the natural evolution of all good
surrealists. They are a surrealist until eventually they grow beyond
"isms" into something else. After all, the majority of surrealists DID
eventually leave the movement (or were kicked out by Andre).
Must we honor tradition and history? One of the ironies of life is that
one must betray tradition and history if one is to honor it. After all,
to honor something, one must CHOOSE it. If we have no choice -- if we
must honor it, without choice -- then we cannot honor it at all.
I'm feeling all Zen this morning. My apologies.
The Lemming
> "The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> > Then why would Breton's definition of surrealism specifially say it's
based
> > on PA if it was little more than a distraction?
>
> Why would Freud suggest that the Oedipal complex is about wanting to fuck
> your mother, when it might be more about being in competition with your
> father in an entirely unsexual way? Why would Einstein mock quantum
> physics by saying "God does not play dice with the universe" when it turns
> out that God does constantly shoot crap, and might even be a gambling
> addict?
>
> Is it possible that Andre Breton was wrong? That Freud was wrong? That
> Einstein was wrong? Good Lord, say it ain't so! (He can't. He's
> shooting crap right now. Call back later.)
>
> You seem to be missing a major point here -- just because Andre Breton
> says it is so, don't make it so.
>
But because Dali says it is so, it is?
> > ...in which case you disagree with the surrealists.
>
> Some of them, yes.
You don't think that surrealists may know slightly more about surrealism
than you then?
> > The
> > surrealist manifestoes were adhered to by the surrealists, a lot of them
> > were co-signitaries to the aims of surrealism as written by Breton; Dali
> > wandered off on his own tangent from the surrealists. Which of the two
does
> > that suggest had a better view of what surrealism is?
>
> > I want to remove the bread from a sandwich. The resulting cheese and
> > tomatoes on a plate is a sandwich, according to you.
>
> Ever heard of an open-faced sandwich? We can toss away at least one piece
> of bread and it still gets called a sandwich.
I specifically stated the bread, meaning both slices. The remains of the
sandwich is the filling. PA is an integral part of surrealism, and without
it we don't have a sandwich, open or otherwise.
>
> > And if you tinker too much, it becomes something else.
>
> Does this really matter? Are you the same person you were when you were
> in a crib? Should we mourn the loss of that baby you once were?
>
That depends. If the subject at hand is babies (shudder), then by discussing
me now, you're talking about something completely different. If the subject
at hand is surrealism, and what you're talking about is something that has
changed from surrealism, then again you're talking about something
different.
> > of course it's something I'd like to achieve; whether its something I
*will*
> > achieve is another matter. Since I have not yet achieved enlightenment,
I
> > cannot define it any more than you can define the planetary atmosphere
of
> > the fourth planet circling Alpha Centauri with any sense of
understanding.
>
> You say you're unable to tell me what "enlightenment" is. And yet you
> seem quite willing to say my definition of "enlightenment" -- a personal
> unity, where unconscious and conscious become one -- is wrong. Can you
> explain this?
>
Unless you're claiming to be enlightened, then what I wrote is correct. I
don't believe that you*are* enlightened, and thus I don't put much faith in
any definition of enlightenment. I could be wrong, but something tells me
I'm not.
> > You've ovbiously never seen the episode of the Simpsons copncerning one
hand
> > clapping. ;-)
>
> Yes, I have. *makes a one-hand clap at the monitor*
>
:-)
> > Zen is only one of the traditions of buddhism; it isn't even one of the
main
> > ones. Koans vary considerably, and not all conform to the pattern you
> > suggest.
>
> Does that mean you don't see a connection between surrealism and koans?
a very slight connection; one could say there is a connection between
surrealism and sanskrit because they both start with the same letter.
> Between satori and surrealism? You've been very quiet on these points.
>
Because I don't think there's much to your theory. I'd advise you look at my
previous posts concerning surrealism and buddhism where I have discussed the
very slim connections between the two. I may have been quiet in my last few
posts since I presumed that I'd explained what I believe was the
relationship between the two. Everyone else seems to have accepted it to
some degree, so rather than repeat the same thing over and over, I assumed
that most people had read and understood. Those who wanted more
clarification asked more, I answered more; as Dale says, if there are any
furtehr questions he has, he'll ask them, and we may not agree. Since no-one
else asked for any further information on my theory, I didn't post anything
more.
>
> > The *only* reason? Have you ignored the posts concerning this, or just
not
> > understood them?
>
> Right. There are other reasons. Dali embraced religion and became a
> self-promoting nut. But why do we say that that isn't a natural evolution
> of surrealism? Because Andre Breton said so.
Not because Dali turned away from surrealism as was defined in the
manifestoes, in articles, in exhibitions?
Andre insisted that where
> Dali went -- that wasn't surrealism. Was Andre entirely objective in
> making this statement, or was he a power mad, jealous, tyrant, pissed off
> at the success of one of his former underlings?
. You, Nick, will eventually have to betray
> the Buddha in order to gain enlightenment. Do you agree?)
>
Technically, no, since I may never reach that stage. :-P
> Dali himself said that the natural evolution of his personality and his
> art took him outside of surrealism. He went on to something bigger. (So
> maybe he wasn't a surrealist in his later years?)
>
> On the other hand, maybe that is the natural evolution of all good
> surrealists.
If "all good surrealists" is a set of just one member, Dali, then possibly.
The chances are lower than my giving birth to a 50' marmoset called Clyde
though.
Brandon Freels
> Some of them, yes. I think it's important to disagree with other people.
> If I look around and find myself entirely in agreement with the people
> surrounding me, I know that something is terribly wrong.
I think this is the central flaw in Nik's personality and the source of his
repetitive idiocy. Instead of actually saying what he believes (i.e. being
honest) he represses his own acceptable and interesting "ideas" and replaces
them with "ideas" that counter those of the newsgroup. Nik's own lack of
belief in these replacement "ideas" is the basic reason why they lack any
kind of staying power, and can be classified as regurgitated high school
mysticism.
At this point I'm tempted to ask: Does Canada have such low standards for
Psychology majors? I'm also curious about Nik's gpa upon graduation.
john adams
Brandon Freels wrote in message ...
>Nikolaus Maack wrote
>> Some of them, yes. I think it's important to disagree with other people.
>> If I look around and find myself entirely in agreement with the people
>> surrounding me, I know that something is terribly wrong.
>
>I think this is the central flaw in Nik's personality and the source of his
>repetitive idiocy. Instead of actually saying what he believes (i.e. being
>honest) he represses his own acceptable and interesting "ideas" and replaces
>them with "ideas" that counter those of the newsgroup.
It's pretty agreeable to say the contrarian stance is but one of the more
petty-simplistic ones.
Going beyond such things though, a certain innate stubborness perhaps, a few other minor
details
pushed under the rug, and deep down I picture him off-computer without the silly boxing
gloves on
a fairly decent human, atleast 33% of the time (assmuing a regular 8hr. sleep cycle). In
fact, is it too
far a stretch to imagine the possibility of a friendly Minnesota get together sometime
soon, one
wonders (being so close in proximity)? If he behaved well enough, the chance at a few
collaborations
would seem reasonable. Perhaps take in a twins game after or beforehand. I think it would
be fun and
surreal. How's about it?
john
Nikolaus Maack
>> You seem to be missing a major point here -- just because Andre Breton
>> says it is so, don't make it so.
>
> But because Dali says it is so, it is?
Not at all! Dali is just as likely to be full of shit.
>> > ...in which case you disagree with the surrealists.
>>
>> Some of them, yes.
>
> You don't think that surrealists may know slightly more about surrealism
> than you then?
Not really. For one thing, I myself am a surrealist. For another, I know
better than to trust the opinions of morons. I won't name any names, but
there are a few morons in alt.surrealism. Be careful. They bite.
Fortunately, they have no teeth, so all they do is leave wet spots on your
corduroys. Still, it's somewhat unpleasant and sticky.
> I specifically stated the bread, meaning both slices. The remains of the
> sandwich is the filling. PA is an integral part of surrealism, and without
> it we don't have a sandwich, open or otherwise.
Opinions are like assholes -- everybody's got one. Sandwiches are like
opinions -- they're nothing without mustard.
> Unless you're claiming to be enlightened, then what I wrote is correct. I
> don't believe that you*are* enlightened, and thus I don't put much faith in
> any definition of enlightenment. I could be wrong, but something tells me
> I'm not.
I hate using logic -- it makes me feel dirty -- but let me take another
swing at this.
You don't know what "A" is.
Nik claims to what "A" is.
You claim that what Nik says is not "A".
Given that you don't know "A", how can you be a position to determine the
accuracy of other people's opinions on "A"?
In other words, colourblind people should not be put in charge of
decorating for St. Patrick's day.
[there is some slim connection between satori, koans, and surrealism.]
Well, hooray for that much.
> If "all good surrealists" is a set of just one member, Dali, then possibly.
> The chances are lower than my giving birth to a 50' marmoset called Clyde
> though.
You skimmed over the fact that ALL the original surrealists (except Andre
Breton) either left the group, or were kicked out of it by Andre. This is
an important historical fact, in my opinion, which tends to get glossed
over rather frequently. It's important because it establishes a number of
things:
1) Andre Breton was an arrogant asshole. (Because I am concerned that
you think me biased towards Dali, let me say that I am almost 100% certain
that Dali was an arrogant asshole too.)
2) Something was inherently wrong with surrealism -- given that no one
could stick around except Andre Breton.
3) I postulate that what was wrong with surrealism was a sort of snobbery
that ate itself. You had to be UP on the latest surrealist trends or risk
being kicked out on your ear. This week communism is in. Last week
communism was out. You better know which dogma to bark, otherwise you're
headed for the pound.
4) I would like to further suggest that nothing much has changed. Even
today we can see the same rabid desire to carefully define who is or isn't
a surrealist. Daily purges. "You! You demonstrate an excessive zeal
when it comes to personal hygiene! You're out of the group!"
5) All of this is remarkably childish, is it not? "You can't be in my
club because you like Timmy, and he's religious, so fuck you!" "Oh yeah,
well, I didn't want to be in your stupid club anyway! Me and Timmy, we'll
start our own club and call it futurism!"
All of this is to say, my interest in surrealism is -- like my interest in
all things -- bemused. I enjoy some of the ideas. Other ideas I consider
shit, and ignore. What astounds me is that some seem to think that you
just cannot behave this way.
"If you are a surrealist, you believe EVERYTHING about surrealism!"
Utterly ridiculous. This implies a shutting off of the reasoning
faculties in order to better fit into the club. Which, in a creepy way,
sounds like what you're trying to sell me, Nick.