GOD
syn
why have one religion when you can have two (or more!).
you'll need a pen, paper and some dice-
GOD is...
determine the name of your God by rolling 2 dice on each column-
God name begins...
2 G
3 D
4 ST
5 TOMB
6 SAT
7 DAD
8 CTH
9 ALC
10 DR
11 MONK
12 SPAT
God name ends...
2 OD
3 OG
4 OAT
5 AKER
6 AN
7 A
8 ULHU
9 OHOL
10 UGS
11 EY
12 ULA
my God is...
roll 3 dice to determine what your God is-
3 a grey haired old man
4 a gelatinous cube
5 a donkey headed stoat
6 a reptilian alien of the 5th dimension
7 living next door
8 a disembodied kidney
9 unknowable
10 my grandmother
11 a tentacled monstrosity
12 a kind of gas
13 a monkey headed midget
14 an inexplicable dampness
15 the baby from 'teletubbies'
16 some form of household appliance
17 a Goddess, actuallly...
18 all of the above
the commandments of the religion are...
roll three dice to determine what 'thou shalt not..'
3 do bad things
4 do good things
5 eat stew
6 breathe
7 suffer a monkey to live
8 suffer a mole
9 covet thy neighbours axe
10 drool
11 move from side to side
12 mount badgers
13 live in a box
14 wear moist clothing
15 drink brine
16 make any sense
17 sniff fur
18 do anything
act of worship...
roll one die to determine what the faithful must do each day for their God-
1 pray once per day while sitting on a small mammal
2 leave an offering in a public toilet
3 dance about while wearing an orange bra
4 mount badgers
5 chant the words 'yeknom ananab' for 9 hours
6 rub dust into the eyes of schoolchildren
..and the faithful receive...
roll two dice to see what followers get if they remain faithful-
2 enlightenment through liquids
3 relief from itching
4 the chance to see a small mammal being sacrificed
5 a gift token
6 protection from mould
7 the opportunity to poke sinners with a pointed stick
8 ultimate power; in your next reincarnation
9 all the cabbage you can eat
10 the ability to speak to herrings
11 access to narnia
12 nothing
kneel before the great God TOMBULHU!
-syn
Brandon J. Freels
whatever reason is just another way to hide your identity. People in this
culture hide who they are enough as it is. What good is another mask going
to do? Now, if your identity calls for a change in appearance, associations,
personal behavior, etc, that's different. You won't be hiding your identity
but rather following its natural course.
There is this weird kid who wears a cape, and often acts over dramatic in
public. I often wonder if that is "really" him or if he is just putting on a
show. There is a difference, and only the "actor" really knows which side
s/he is taking.
Aeon wrote:
> Do you not see any appeal whatsoever in taking on the guise of a certain
> type of person, or a certain type of believer, or possibly just playing
> a joke on someone for a few mins that you are something that you are
> not?
john adams wrote:
> Yes, of course, i like to play around with all sorts of ideas. But then
> i don't take them on as my own set of beliefs nor would i continue to do
> it for months on end. Doesn't that strike you as uninteresting?
Nikolaus Maack
> the SYN religion generator....
I don't know if anyone else is enjoying this stuff, but I find it highly
amusing. A friend of mine likes to "put on" beliefs and wear them for a
few months, just to see what they fit like. For six months he was a bible
pounding fundamentalist, until he got bored and left, much to the shock of
the people around him.
Recently, he tried to be a hard core atheist, and spent some time in IRC
channels, telling Christians how stupid they are. He said that was fun,
and allowed him to vent. Nothing like a little aggression to get the
blood flowing.
I forget what he is now. In between philosophy-suits, he's a
buddhist-christian-atheist-freudian-jungian something or other.
What is especially amusing is how this sort of picking and choosing and
randomness of belief makes people really nervous. Andrea seems to play
this game as well. What mask can I wear today? What will it feel like to
become this mask for a while?
All of it reeks of dada, which is the root of surrealism after all, and
therefore is beautiful. Or ugly. Or both.
> why have one religion when you can have two (or more!).
Exactly.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
diva...@my-deja.com
But I think this game is not respectful. Do I believe in God? What is
surrealism? Tell me about your father? So I can amuse the real surrealist?
People....do they think I don't understand? Or as someone told me...ngs are
not real....'.be whoever you choose.' I can't pretend. I am just me. I am not
stupid, just a bit shy. If I was in a hospital emergency room, and a loved
one in critical condition. I would be praying my ass off to God. And that is
the my truth. I say I am agnostic, but in a pinch fuck that. I want God.
brenda
In article <952040197.27890.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
"syn" <s...@nospamsyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> the SYN religion generator....
>
> why have one religion when you can have two (or more!).
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
john adams
>
> "syn" (s...@nospamsyn.demon.co.uk) writes:
> > the SYN religion generator....
>
> I don't know if anyone else is enjoying this stuff, but I find it highly
> amusing. A friend of mine likes to "put on" beliefs and wear them for a
> few months, just to see what they fit like. For six months he was a bible
> pounding fundamentalist, until he got bored and left, much to the shock of
> the people around him.
>
> Recently, he tried to be a hard core atheist, and spent some time in IRC
> channels, telling Christians how stupid they are. He said that was fun,
> and allowed him to vent. Nothing like a little aggression to get the
> blood flowing.
>
> I forget what he is now. In between philosophy-suits, he's a
> buddhist-christian-atheist-freudian-jungian something or other.
>
> What is especially amusing is how this sort of picking and choosing and
> randomness of belief makes people really nervous. Andrea seems to play
> this game as well. What mask can I wear today? What will it feel like to
> become this mask for a while?
>
> All of it reeks of dada, which is the root of surrealism after all, and
> therefore is beautiful. Or ugly. Or both.
It sounds more schizophrenic than anything:
"Tomorrow i think i'll be a rapist. The next 3 weeks a bat. Then i'll
resume being Willy Wonka again."
Nikolaus Maack
>If I was in a hospital emergency room, and a loved
> one in critical condition. I would be praying my ass off to God. And that is
> the my truth. I say I am agnostic, but in a pinch fuck that. I want God.
That old army saying comes to mind: there are no atheists in foxholes. If
we took Dale, Brandon, Barrett, et al, dropped 'em in a war zone, and
watched the bullets fly, what would happen?
(What would we WANT to happen? Ah, my bloodlust nowadays, I tells ya...)
((For all we know, these people may have already been in war zones, but I
doubt it.))
But believing in God doesn't mean we have to respect Him/Her/It. After
all, my friends can take a ribbing. if they couldn't, they wouldn't be my
friends. If God can't take a joke, fuck the deity. Fuck the deity's ass.
So Syn should continue making fun. God can take it. The deity won't
burst into tears and shower us with rain.
"Why is it raining?"
"You must have done something bad, to make God cry."
"Maybe it's not tears. Maybe it's pee. Maybe God was holding it, and
can't hold it anymore."
"Blasphemous child! How dare you say the Lord has bodily functions?"
"You started it."
Aeon
>therefore is beautiful. Or ugly. Or both.
or neither.
orlan
--
- What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
- remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
Aeon
>"Tomorrow i think i'll be a rapist. The next 3 weeks a bat. Then i'll
>resume being Willy Wonka again."
Do you not see any appeal whatsoever in taking on the guise of a certain
type of person, or a certain type of believer, or possibly just playing
a joke on someone for a few mins that you are something that you are
not?
orlan
john adams
>
> >It sounds more schizophrenic than anything:
> >"Tomorrow i think i'll be a rapist. The next 3 weeks a bat. Then i'll
> >resume being Willy Wonka again."
>
> Do you not see any appeal whatsoever in taking on the guise of a certain
> type of person, or a certain type of believer, or possibly just playing
> a joke on someone for a few mins that you are something that you are
> not?
>
> orlan
Yes, of course, i like to play around with all sorts of ideas. But then
i don't take them on as my own set of beliefs nor would i continue to do
it for months on end. Doesn't that strike you as uninteresting?
john
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38BF4D03...@aol.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
> > "syn" (s...@nospamsyn.demon.co.uk) writes:
> > > the SYN religion generator....
> >
> > I don't know if anyone else is enjoying this stuff, but I find it highly
> > amusing. A friend of mine likes to "put on" beliefs and wear them for a
> > few months, just to see what they fit like. For six months he was a
bible
> > pounding fundamentalist, until he got bored and left, much to the shock
of
> > the people around him.
> >
> > Recently, he tried to be a hard core atheist, and spent some time in IRC
> > channels, telling Christians how stupid they are. He said that was fun,
> > and allowed him to vent. Nothing like a little aggression to get the
> > blood flowing.
> >
> > I forget what he is now. In between philosophy-suits, he's a
> > buddhist-christian-atheist-freudian-jungian something or other.
> >
> > What is especially amusing is how this sort of picking and choosing and
> > randomness of belief makes people really nervous. Andrea seems to play
> > this game as well. What mask can I wear today? What will it feel like
to
> > become this mask for a while?
> >
> > therefore is beautiful. Or ugly. Or both.
>
> "Tomorrow i think i'll be a rapist. The next 3 weeks a bat. Then i'll
> resume being Willy Wonka again."
This is true, but as with all of Nik's "projects" I think the real
odiousness of it lies in (A) the forced and humorless feeling of the whole
enterprise and (B) once more (like his idiotic onion project) it is all
about shocking old people and kids merely for his wandering bemusement.
There is no "there" there, as Stein said: the Dadaists - for all their
anarchistic play at nonsense - grew out of a real disgust with the political
realities of their time, with a horrendous war and with incipient fascism
and lingering monarchism. Nik's projects are all about drawing attention to
his ability to shock, and what does he have to provide once it's over? His
little schoolboy giggle and some rather twat-headed art talk.
DMH
Dale Houstman
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8bs2m...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
> >It sounds more schizophrenic than anything:
> >"Tomorrow i think i'll be a rapist. The next 3 weeks a bat. Then i'll
> >resume being Willy Wonka again."
>
> type of person, or a certain type of believer, or possibly just playing
> a joke on someone for a few mins that you are something that you are
> not?
>
can't make it upstairs in time. The questions are: is this worth sharing,
and does it have anything to do with the subject (supposedly surrealism) at
hand?
Whether or not something is appealing isn't the question.
Also one has to realize here that the entire point of ALL of Nik's projects
is the glorification of himself as the teacher of the moment. In fact, these
projects don't really exist until he tells us about them, so we can fall all
over ourselves in admiration. Whatever charm they might have had as social
giggles is dissipated by the importance he expects them to generate.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> (A) the forced and humorless feeling of the whole
> enterprise
The Enterprise is a white, barren, horrible place. When the cameras
aren't on, the spines of the crew members untighten three notches. They
walk around, slumped, slacking, shallow. Feet shuffle and eyes on the
floor, they drag themselves from corridor to corridor. The holodeck is
empty, save for a grid of yellow lines.
When the cameras click on again, everything is shiny and new. People
smile and stride and salute. The Captain comes out of her/his quarters
and makes all kinds of pronouncements.
"Full throttle. Cut the main jib. Invert the dilithium crystals and cut
the power grid to one tenth. That should get rid of those crystilline
entities from another dimension, who are eating out warp core."
When it's all over, and the cameras switch off again, everyone is high,
buzzing for a few hours. Eventually, the effects of being on television
wear off, and they start moping again.
"Hate this fukkin' place, with its art deco bullshit," mutter the
enseigns, sipping sythahol and playing 4D chess.
> There is no "there" there, as Stein said
Never listen to talking beer mugs, especially when they speak gibberish,
like a certain literary lesbian beer mug I could mention.
"The cat cat cat walks walks walks walks walks under the cat walks under
the cat cat walks under the bridge cat walks bridge under the cat walks."
Thank you, Ms Stein. When your stutter clears up, please do submit to our
magazine again. Your sincerely, etcetera.
> Nik's projects are all about drawing attention to
> his ability to shock
You talk about me and talk about me and talk about me. It's love, admit
it. I set off your loins like a firecracker soaked in kerosene. The only
thing stopping you from rushing up to Ottawa to propose all sorts of
indecent acts is a lack of busfare. I will send you the money, Dale, if
you bring the condoms.
>His little schoolboy giggle and some rather twat-headed art talk.
"You know what I like best about Nik?" Dale asks his gaggle of extreme
homosexual friends. (In order to fit into society they put on the whole
lisping hair-dresser act. Tedious in a faggot, really. Be gay, but don't
be a gay stereotype, that's my motto. Anyhow...) "It's Nik's little
schoolboy giggle. When I tickle his chins -- he is obese -- he lets out
that sonorous clash of tee-hees and ho-hos. It's enough to make me hard,
thinking about it."
The boys laugh and point at Dale, and sing, "Somebody's in love!"
"Oh, pish-posh!" Dale says, blushing fifteen different shareds of crimson,
minimum.
moloch
because it brings something special to you, and doing something so that you can
run home and tell everyone about it. Does stuffing yourself in everyone's face
validate that you exist? I don't think so, but more than that, does this have
anything to do with surrealism? I was always of the opinion that surrealism
dealt with creation not exhibitionism.
m...
diva...@my-deja.com
laugh with long suppressed girlish glee.Hug him close to you, so soft and
cuddley.Most important you could finally get that stick out of his
pooter.Then maybe Dale could laugh and sometimes play. Nik, you are my
sunshine. brenda
In article <89odcj$dv6$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
Aeon
>i don't take them on as my own set of beliefs nor would i continue to do
>it for months on end. Doesn't that strike you as uninteresting?
>
>john
It doesn't make it wrong or stupid.
Aeon
>whatever reason is just another way to hide your identity. People in this
>culture hide who they are enough as it is. What good is another mask going
>to do? Now, if your identity calls for a change in appearance, associations,
>personal behavior, etc, that's different. You won't be hiding your identity
>but rather following its natural course.
Yet there is a line to be drawn between someone that feels they have to
be something they are not in order to be accepted by society, and someone
who chooses to be something they are not to experiment, do research, explore,
or satisfy curiosity.
>There is this weird kid who wears a cape, and often acts over dramatic in
>public. I often wonder if that is "really" him or if he is just putting on a
>show. There is a difference, and only the "actor" really knows which side
>s/he is taking.
Is not acting then just another aspect of who he really is?
Aeon
>can't make it upstairs in time. The questions are: is this worth sharing,
>and does it have anything to do with the subject (supposedly surrealism) at
>hand?
>
>Whether or not something is appealing isn't the question.
Surrealism would seem to be the exploration of merging the subconcious with
the concious (on a base level). If this is so, exploring different
components of personality, activities, and so on, can serve as a way of
exploring your sub concious and possibly bringing unknown realities to
the surface. Just as in dreams we often do things we thought we never
would in real life, we can explore strange things in life as well to the
same effect.
>Also one has to realize here that the entire point of ALL of Nik's projects
>is the glorification of himself as the teacher of the moment. In fact, these
>projects don't really exist until he tells us about them, so we can fall all
>over ourselves in admiration. Whatever charm they might have had as social
>giggles is dissipated by the importance he expects them to generate.
This has nothing to do with Nik. Nik mentioned something his friend does,
and someone replied how they felt it was schizo, inferring that it was dumb
maybe, or just ignorant.
I interjected with a thought about why I felt that we shouldn't be so quick
to judge the guy. So he wants to try on different beliefs for size... who
are we to say how stupid it is for him? Maybe he was really discovering
great things about himself.
Aeon
>because it brings something special to you, and doing something so that you can
>run home and tell everyone about it. Does stuffing yourself in everyone's face
>validate that you exist? I don't think so, but more than that, does this have
>anything to do with surrealism? I was always of the opinion that surrealism
>dealt with creation not exhibitionism.
>
>m...
So by trying on different belief systems for size, to see what they are like,
how they feel, regardless of how boring or unimportant it might be, this guy
is actually trying to stuff himself in someone's face and prove that he
exists?
Why limit surrealism to creation? In fact, I do not think surrealism is
limited to creation at all (though I've made the mistake of relating it
only to art a few times).
Aeon
>odiousness of it lies in (A) the forced and humorless feeling of the whole
>enterprise and (B) once more (like his idiotic onion project) it is all
>about shocking old people and kids merely for his wandering bemusement.
>There is no "there" there, as Stein said: the Dadaists - for all their
>anarchistic play at nonsense - grew out of a real disgust with the political
>realities of their time, with a horrendous war and with incipient fascism
>and lingering monarchism. Nik's projects are all about drawing attention to
>little schoolboy giggle and some rather twat-headed art talk.
>
You are easy to shock if you truly find anything Nik does here shocking, or
really feel his goal is to shock.
Simply because we have not had a world war during this generation does not
mean there isn't something worth fighting for or against.
And while I am directing a post at you Dale, I've wondered a few things:
What type of activities do you do within the realm of surrealism?
Do you produce any art, do you write poetry, do you explore surrealism in
any particular way?
Fascinan
>
>You are easy to shock if you truly find anything Nik does here shocking, or
>really feel his goal is to shock.
>
>Simply because we have not had a world war during this generation does not
>mean there isn't something worth fighting for or against.
>
>And while I am directing a post at you Dale, I've wondered a few things:
>
>What type of activities do you do within the realm of surrealism?
>
>Do you produce any art, do you write poetry, do you explore surrealism in
>any particular way?
>
>orlan
Barrett and Dale will point you to their work in the Minnesotia contingency
(via Barrett's web site), but oddly, they don't seem to relate much in a sense
of "action" or even manifestation-wise via this newsgroup. Dale has posted a
few poems, which are very refreshing to read, though they lack the pugnacious
jocularity of his invectives -- good or bad, depending whether or not you are
on the receiving end.
It would be very interesting to hear what they *do* when they meet. Oddly, I
have a feeling that they sit a local pub, imbibe a few lagers, and poke fun at
those who they assume are *trying* and failing to be surrealists (myself
included in this lot, no doubt). There is probably some smug chuckling, and
words like trouser otter, wanker, peon, fledgling, etc., are tossed about
haphazardly.
Nik, on the other hand, is more prolific with challenging the consensual at a
daily level, and then relaying his experiences -- what he thought, what
occured, etc. Dale sums up Nik's activity as sort of a Tom Green attack with a
licorice stick on hapless old women and children. I don't know what motivates
Nik, but he engages, he participates, most importantly, he plays. I fail to
see how anyone can liberate the imagination without play, without engaging the
mundane in creative ways.
I think it would be enjoyable to see more poetry, writings, "artifacts" -- such
a dry term--, etc.. from both Dale and Barrett, who obviously are intelligent,
knowing lads.
Fas
john adams
>
> >Yes, of course, i like to play around with all sorts of ideas. But then
> >i don't take them on as my own set of beliefs nor would i continue to do
> >it for months on end. Doesn't that strike you as uninteresting?
> >
> >john
>
> It doesn't make it wrong or stupid.
>
> orlan
>
I didn't say it was wrong. And I could have had a case to call it
stupid, but settled with uninteresting.
> --
>
> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>
> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
john
barrett john erickson
> >I'm tired of people lying about who they are. Putting on a
"guise" for
> >whatever reason is just another way to hide your identity.
People in this
> >culture hide who they are enough as it is. What good is another
mask going
> >to do? Now, if your identity calls for a change in appearance,
associations,
> >personal behavior, etc, that's different. You won't be hiding
your identity
> >but rather following its natural course.
>
Aeon:
> Yet there is a line to be drawn between someone that feels they
have to
> be something they are not in order to be accepted by society,
and someone
> who chooses to be something they are not to experiment, do
research, explore,
> or satisfy curiosity.
i don't see any reason to draw a line there. how can you "be
something" you "are not"?
> Is not acting then just another aspect of who he really is?
we're not talking about an act of imagination -- as an actor
engaged in the act of performance -- we're talking about someone
taking on "beliefs" and _living_ roles that they know or merely
claim are somehow distanced from who they "really" are.
they are creating a _reality_ in which they are nothing but
frauds.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Brandon J. Freels
> they are creating a _reality_ in which they are nothing but frauds.
My point, exactically.
Brandon J. Freels
> I don't know what motivates Nik, but he engages, he participates,
> most importantly, he plays.
And you've seen this? Nik has already proven to me, by lying about how he
uses the word "God", that he is an unhonest fellow. How can we take anything
that he has said in the past or that he will say in the future as being
truthful?
barrett john erickson
news:20000303185229...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> Barrett and Dale will point you to their work in the Minnesotia
contingency
> (via Barrett's web site), but oddly, they don't seem to relate
much in a sense
if you insist...
http://www.MagneticFields.org/dmh/Alice/index.html
http://www.magneticfields.org/blue
http://www.magneticfields.org/enACTion/winter99.html
[oh, i see i have a bit of updating to do.]
> of "action" or even manifestation-wise via this newsgroup. Dale
has posted a
> few poems, which are very refreshing to read, though they lack
the pugnacious
> jocularity of his invectives -- good or bad, depending whether
or not you are
> on the receiving end.
>
> It would be very interesting to hear what they *do* when they
meet. Oddly, I
> have a feeling that they sit a local pub, imbibe a few lagers,
and poke fun at
> those who they assume are *trying* and failing to be surrealists
(myself
> included in this lot, no doubt). There is probably some smug
chuckling, and
> words like trouser otter, wanker, peon, fledgling, etc., are
tossed about
> haphazardly.
yup, that's about it. have you been crouching behind the
cigarette machine?
we _are_ amazed that stuff actually seems to get done between the
meetings.
maybe at the next we'll discuss posting the "minutes" Dale
occasionally writes up for international distribution. a point
worth thinking about anyway.
> I think it would be enjoyable to see more poetry, writings,
"artifacts" -- such
> a dry term--,
deliberately so. the joy is in the exploration and discovery.
once that process is complete, such things have little value.
nice to look at once in a while, but not much more than that.
>etc.. from both Dale and Barrett, who obviously are intelligent,
> knowing lads.
i guess you wouldn't say that if you actually had been crouching
behind the cigarette machine.
john adams
>
>
> Nik, on the other hand, is more prolific with challenging the consensual at a
> daily level, and then relaying his experiences -- what he thought, what
> occured, etc. Dale sums up Nik's activity as sort of a Tom Green attack with a
> licorice stick on hapless old women and children. I don't know what motivates
> Nik, but he engages, he participates, most importantly, he plays. I fail to
> see how anyone can liberate the imagination without play, without engaging the
> mundane in creative ways.
>
> I think it would be enjoyable to see more poetry, writings, "artifacts" -- such
> a dry term--, etc.. from both Dale and Barrett, who obviously are intelligent,
> knowing lads.
>
> Fas
Well, this is an important thing to point out now that you mention it.
Surrealism is about embracing the marvelous while nik tends to embrace
the mundane. Yes, sometimes he does so playfully, sometimes mockingly,
he engages, he retreats, he distorts, and he molds his own reality to
fit what he feels like at the time. But does he ever really experience
from other's perspectives like he alludes to within that sloshy
framework? Yes he loves the attention, but generally it is about trying
to clear up the misrepresentations for other passersby it seems, not
him. Since this occurs daily, i try to ignore most of it.
john
diva...@my-deja.com
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Fas:
> > I don't know what motivates Nik, but he engages, he participates,
> > most importantly, he plays.
>
> uses the word "God", that he is an unhonest fellow. How can we take anything
> that he has said in the past or that he will say in the future as being
> truthful?
>
>
Brandon, Don't act so judgemental, you sound like a stuffy ole trouser
trout.Nik is probably one of the most honest people here. I know you are a
sweetie in your heart. Peek-a-boo, I like you,not a lie cause it's true.
brenda
diva...@my-deja.com
> > "Tomorrow i think i'll be a rapist. The next 3 weeks a bat. Then i'll
> > resume being Willy Wonka again."
>
> odiousness of it lies in (A) the forced and humorless feeling of the whole
> enterprise and (B) once more (like his idiotic onion project) it is all
> about shocking old people and kids merely for his wandering bemusement.
> There is no "there" there, as Stein said: the Dadaists - for all their
> anarchistic play at nonsense - grew out of a real disgust with the political
> realities of their time, with a horrendous war and with incipient fascism
> and lingering monarchism. Nik's projects are all about drawing attention to
> his ability to shock, and what does he have to provide once it's over? His
> little schoolboy giggle and some rather twat-headed art talk.
>
> DMH
>
'twat-headed art talk'
Is that like toys for twats?
Nikolaus Maack
> Surrealism is about embracing the marvelous while nik tends to embrace
> the mundane.
Foolish boy. The mundane is also marvellous. I cannot tell you what
marvels I have discovered, tracing the wrinkles of wisened old men onto a
sheet of paper. The faces of old men fill me with rapture. I'm not
exaggerating. This "mundane" face you dismiss possesses magic. A single,
solitary ant possesses magic, as any child who has melted a crayon with a
magnifying glass in order to kill the ant can tell you.
> But does he ever really experience
> from other's perspectives like he alludes to within that sloshy
> framework?
It may not seem immediately apparent to you, but I am desperately trying
to communicate -- with Barrett, Dale, and (God help me) Brandon. And even
you, on occasion. Unfortunately, my playful foolishness has been read as
a lack of serious interest, an attempt at garnering attention, and a sign
that I must be brain-damaged or something.
"Nik isn't a person; he's a troll!"
I'm complex, damn it. And so are you. So are all individuals. At least
grant me that much -- we are all complex, and have a whole bunch of
different purposes and plans and points of view. Do not reduce me to some
kind of cartoon character you can dismiss out of hand. Behind the most
trivial statement I make, no matter how joking, no matter how flighty, is
a serious purpose. What that purpose is is not always evident -- not even
to me -- but I quest as hard and fast for Truth as the rest of you.
I suppose it's slightly ridiculous for me to expect you to take my
clowning seriously. Oh well.
Brandon J. Freels
On the other hand, I would definitely agree with anyone who saw him as the
most pseudo-honest person at this newsgroup.
All of Nik's grabbing at Dale for the intimate details of Dale's
relationship with his father is also supportive of this claim. Nik didn't
really want to *know* about Dale's relationship with his father [as he
*honestly* claimed] but rather wanted to stir Dale up. In other words, he
lied.
Nik wears a mask a mile thick. I told him not long ago to take off the mask
and let the identity flow like a river. Perhaps the mask is too thick for
him to understand what *honesty* really is? The mask may be so thick that
nothing goes in, and nothing comes out.
At least that's my assessment.
I don't mind being called a trout. Richard Brautigan wrote a lot about
trout, and he's my favorite author. Perhaps one day while reading his books
I'll find that he wrote about me: a stuffy old trouser trout made out of
butterscotch candies.
Brenda wrote
Dale Houstman
> Is not acting then just another aspect of who he really is?
>
Yes. Masks (as the Greeks overtly knew) are our real faces. There is nothing
that can "arise" from a human that is not a part of that human. Of course,
that does not mean (since character and opinion and memory are malleable)
that we either have to approve of what arises or to assume that it is
intractable.
DMH
Dale Houstman
> >Surely - but I also see the appeal of peeing in the sink downstairs when
I
> >can't make it upstairs in time. The questions are: is this worth sharing,
> >and does it have anything to do with the subject (supposedly surrealism)
at
> >hand?
> >
> >Whether or not something is appealing isn't the question.
>
>
> Surrealism would seem to be the exploration of merging the subconcious
with
> the concious (on a base level). If this is so, exploring different
> components of personality, activities, and so on, can serve as a way of
> exploring your sub concious and possibly bringing unknown realities to
> the surface. Just as in dreams we often do things we thought we never
> would in real life, we can explore strange things in life as well to the
> same effect.
But - as in Greek theater - these masks are presumed to be truly cathartic,
to draw from the actor and audience pre-existing if underutilized
sensations; one can put on the wrong mask for the wrong reason at the wrong
theater. And - it seems to me - Nik never "succumbs" It is the dull steady
beat of the overly-conscious and predetermined that so denudes Nik's ideas
of interest. They represent a pre-determination of effect. "I want to shock
people" "I shocked people" would hardly be worth commenting upon except that
Nik can't appear to get beyond it. By itself it is neither here nor there:
in the 60s plenty of us got into the "grooving on the straights": causing
public scenes to elicit that angry awkwardness we came to love. However, as
an end-all and be-all it strikes me as unimaginative and - eventually (once
you have realized for the millionth time that ANYONE can be shocked) -
uninvolving. It's simply dull.
>
> This has nothing to do with Nik. Nik mentioned something his friend does,
> and someone replied how they felt it was schizo, inferring that it was
dumb
> maybe, or just ignorant.
> I interjected with a thought about why I felt that we shouldn't be so
quick
> to judge the guy. So he wants to try on different beliefs for size... who
> are we to say how stupid it is for him? Maybe he was really discovering
> great things about himself.
>
Again it is the dull willfulness of these acts (no matter how "odd" or
potentially shocking) that numbs me. They all reek of jaded desperation
dressed up as art.
DMH
Dale Houstman
> >This is true, but as with all of Nik's "projects" I think the real
> >odiousness of it lies in (A) the forced and humorless feeling of the
whole
> >enterprise and (B) once more (like his idiotic onion project) it is all
> >about shocking old people and kids merely for his wandering bemusement.
> >There is no "there" there, as Stein said: the Dadaists - for all their
> >anarchistic play at nonsense - grew out of a real disgust with the
political
> >realities of their time, with a horrendous war and with incipient fascism
> >and lingering monarchism. Nik's projects are all about drawing attention
to
> >his ability to shock, and what does he have to provide once it's over?
His
> >little schoolboy giggle and some rather twat-headed art talk.
> >
> >DMH
>
or
> really feel his goal is to shock.
A: I don't find Nik's projects shocking.
B: He himself has insisted that these projects are meant to shock.
C: Nik is either a liar or he means to shock.
>
>
> What type of activities do you do within the realm of surrealism?
>
> Do you produce any art, do you write poetry, do you explore surrealism in
> any particular way?
First, surrealism is not necessarily any of these activities, but (as I have
implied) a sort of awakening to human potential. That this process usually
includes art is true.
I draw, I write, I edit and create a surrealist magazine, and other
publications on appropriate subjects and challenges. Some of these can be
seen at the magneticfields site.
On a personal note: my main day to day expression of surrealism as a tool of
"shackle busting" is my use of humor as a way to jump the bounds of
propriety. Thus I can call my manager/boss/idiot "Boyface" or threaten to
sue him for First Admendment infringments when he bans (as he recently did)
my distribution of our magazine at work. A joke yes, but one which has a
content I wish to express. And so on...
DMH
Dale Houstman
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000303185229...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> Barrett and Dale will point you to their work in the Minnesotia
contingency
> (via Barrett's web site), but oddly, they don't seem to relate much in a
sense
posted a
> few poems, which are very refreshing to read, though they lack the
pugnacious
> jocularity of his invectives -- good or bad, depending whether or not you
are
> on the receiving end.
I can only assume you are either kidding or have lost the ability to read.
There are many types of engagement at the site. Several of those "posters"
have been handed out at different groups.
>
> It would be very interesting to hear what they *do* when they meet.
Oddly, I
> have a feeling that they sit a local pub, imbibe a few lagers, and poke
fun at
> those who they assume are *trying* and failing to be surrealists (myself
> included in this lot, no doubt). There is probably some smug chuckling,
and
> words like trouser otter, wanker, peon, fledgling, etc., are tossed about
> haphazardly.
There is some of this: it IS fun after all! But the truth is if we didn't do
this, if we sat soberly at a table in a conference hall, or around a small
rug in a dirty apartment and spoke only of "the surrealist struggle" you
would also find that lacking: Nik would attack it as humorless, and you
would chime in like a resonating sheet of tin. Honestly: the last time we
met I spent most of the time grilling Barrett on "enactive cognition"
since - frankly - I don't get it. From there we might discuss a recent
movie, or music. Often we discuss possible texts for the magazine, or talk
about its general direction (the latest fad is "brutalization"). Barrett -
who is more connected internationally than I - brings communications and
books he has been sent from several places in the world. If they are in
French I attempt to do my miserable translations. Lately I haven't been
drinking at all. When Tom is there (my old friend) the talk may range
further afield, and be punctuated by outrageous humor and/or angers against
a specific issue. Much of what Tom says might find its way into an article
or a poem. In the main we have an enjoyable time. Or is that a sin in your
little bible?
>
> I think it would be enjoyable to see more poetry, writings, "artifacts" --
such
> a dry term--, etc.. from both Dale and Barrett, who obviously are
intelligent,
> knowing lads.
>
How delightfully condescending!
I have posted poems here, although not to great effect I think. To be
honest, except for a few "inquiring minds" this group isn't worth that
effort. Nik's only response to all my poetry postings was to finally create
a very bad mimic of one line and critique that! This outrageous act was
totally ignored by his puppies and resonating tinsheets. This is the type of
activity that renders the forum a mere idle curiosity rather than a place to
actively engage on many levels.
DMH
Fascinan
>Honestly: the last time we
>met I spent most of the time grilling Barrett on "enactive cognition"
>since - frankly - I don't get it.
But surely you must! It is, after all, the pinnacle of scientific exploration.
But seriously, I don't know if *anyone* understands "enactive cognition."
When you grasp the concept please feel free to relay it.
>In the main we have an enjoyable time. Or is that a sin in your
>little bible?
Cute. All of a sudden I'm some sort of zealot because I have no surrealist
attraction towards wanting to disembowel a christian or buddhist.
>> a dry term--, etc.. from both Dale and Barrett, who obviously are
>intelligent,
>> knowing lads.
>>
> How delightfully condescending!
>
>
Wow! Pot ---> Kettle ---> Blackness -- an inky, raven pitch-black!
>Nik's only response to all my poetry postings was to finally create
>a very bad mimic of one line and critique that! This outrageous act was
>totally ignored by his puppies and resonating tinsheets.
I've never been referred to as a resonating tin sheet before -- cool!
>This is the type of
>activity that renders the forum a mere idle curiosity rather than a place to
>actively engage on many levels.
That's the most positive thing you've ever said about alt.surrealism. Moment
of emotional weakness?
Fas
Nikolaus Maack
> All of Nik's grabbing at Dale for the intimate details of Dale's
> relationship with his father is also supportive of this claim. Nik didn't
> really want to *know* about Dale's relationship with his father [as he
> *honestly* claimed] but rather wanted to stir Dale up. In other words, he
> lied.
That's inaccurate. I genuinely want(ed) to know the details of Dale's
relationship with his father, as well as other personal details from
anyone in this newsgroup. Part of an ongoing theory of mine is that
people don't want to talk about "private" stuff because it is "private" --
and that this has been programmed into us. There's no real reason to keep
so called "intimate details" locked up. People do, and have no
explanation for it.
When I asked Dale for information, I wanted to know the information.
That's why I asked, after all. I still want to know more. That this
"stirred Dale up" has more to do with Dale, than with me.
Interesting. I am forced to conclude that asking for personal details and
wanting to talk about them leads to paranoia in people. This is the only
conclusion I can reach, given the wide range of bizarre behavior that has
come about due to my questions, my prying.
That, or the way I just bluntly ask for personal revelations is considered
taboo, and that's what causes the paranoia. I probably should have been
more subtle. I don't *do* subtle very well, you may have noticed.
Hey, look -- once again I find myself in the dreary position of explaining
myself. And I'm probably explaining myself to someone who has me
killfiled. Boy, am I stupid.
diva...@my-deja.com
>
> > Is not acting then just another aspect of who he really is?
> >
> Yes. Masks (as the Greeks overtly knew) are our real faces. There is nothing
> that can "arise" from a human that is not a part of that human. Of course,
> that does not mean (since character and opinion and memory are malleable)
> that we either have to approve of what arises or to assume that it is
> intractable.
>
> DMH
>
I like your answer."that nothing can 'arise' from a human that is not a part
of that human'. brenda
Aeon
>>
>> orlan
>>
>
>I didn't say it was wrong. And I could have had a case to call it
>stupid, but settled with uninteresting.
Actually, in your post you called it schizoid type behavior which
I felt was a derogatory type of statement, and besides your later
comments of it being boring, I took to mind that you seemed to
be dismissing it as worse than just boring.
orlan
Aeon
>> they are creating a _reality_ in which they are nothing but frauds.
>
>My point, exactically.
And who exactly are these frauds? The kid in highschool that wears
a certain style of clothes just because everyone else does? The man
that goes to work day in and day out, just like everyone else in
his community, because he's been told his whole life that it is the
way in which one lives? The endless amount of boobs that sit in
front of the television soaking up the false statements and model
their lives after them in order to be "happy"?
There are many others as well, and if these are the frauds that
bother you, they bother the shit out of me too.
If we are still stuck on the topic of just the one man mentioned
that likes to try on belief systems, it doesn't bother me a bit.
All the power to him if he has found a way to explore himself.
Aeon
>to draw from the actor and audience pre-existing if underutilized
>sensations; one can put on the wrong mask for the wrong reason at the wrong
>theater. And - it seems to me - Nik never "succumbs" It is the dull steady
>beat of the overly-conscious and predetermined that so denudes Nik's ideas
>of interest. They represent a pre-determination of effect. "I want to shock
>people" "I shocked people" would hardly be worth commenting upon except that
>Nik can't appear to get beyond it. By itself it is neither here nor there:
>in the 60s plenty of us got into the "grooving on the straights": causing
>public scenes to elicit that angry awkwardness we came to love. However, as
>an end-all and be-all it strikes me as unimaginative and - eventually (once
>you have realized for the millionth time that ANYONE can be shocked) -
>uninvolving. It's simply dull.
Were we not talking (originally) about the guy who likes to try on different
belief systems?
If so, why on earth are you bringing up Nik again?
I'm not at all interested at this particular moment why you might find Nik's
particular practices dull.
What I was getting at is that doing strange things in your life, things
that someone else might view as schizoid, could be the "right" thing for
exploring your own imagination.... I believe I made the example of how
in dreams we often do things that we would never do in real life, and that
in real life, this same type of thing could be done in order to better explore
one's imagination and subconcious and bring it into reality.
So, with that said, I feel it best not to immediately judge others and say
"oh, what they are doing is dull, boring or stupid (maybe schizoid), so I
want to dismiss it as an exploration of a personal sort and therefore I do
not consider it to be surrealism in action".
> Again it is the dull willfulness of these acts (no matter how "odd" or
>potentially shocking) that numbs me. They all reek of jaded desperation
>dressed up as art.
It has nothing to do with art. I believe someone else already pointed this
out about surrealism.
So, if they are not declaring it to be art, what is it that bothers you so?
Does it matter that you find it dull? Does it matter that it numbs you?
No.
Is it surrealism?
Aeon
>he engages, he retreats, he distorts, and he molds his own reality to
>from other's perspectives like he alludes to within that sloshy
>to clear up the misrepresentations for other passersby it seems, not
>him. Since this occurs daily, i try to ignore most of it.
>
>john
Is it so important for all of us to sit around and point out what we
think about Nik?
Not really.
How about you john, what type of experiments and exploration do you do?
Aeon
>uses the word "God", that he is an unhonest fellow. How can we take anything
>that he has said in the past or that he will say in the future as being
>truthful?
What type of exploration and experimentation do you do?
How do you merge your subconcious and imagination with your reality?
Aeon
>and let the identity flow like a river. Perhaps the mask is too thick for
>him to understand what *honesty* really is? The mask may be so thick that
>nothing goes in, and nothing comes out.
So let's see beneath your mask for a bit.
Aeon
I'm more complex than you
I keep a warbleneebog in my shoe
Aeon
>honest, except for a few "inquiring minds" this group isn't worth that
>a very bad mimic of one line and critique that! This outrageous act was
>activity that renders the forum a mere idle curiosity rather than a place to
>actively engage on many levels.
>
So why don't you post some more poetry? Some more thoughts on what is
important about surrealism to you?
Your above paragraph seems to make me wonder why you are here at all. You
declare that sharing your poetry didn't seem worth the effort. You express
that the activity going on (apparently from Nik) renders the group a place
in which you cannot engage on many levels.
If this is true, why are you here at all?
Share with us. People like me could learn a bit.
john adams
>
> john adams (gala...@aol.com) writes:
> > Surrealism is about embracing the marvelous while nik tends to embrace
> > the mundane.
>
> marvels I have discovered, tracing the wrinkles of wisened old men onto a
> sheet of paper. The faces of old men fill me with rapture. I'm not
> exaggerating. This "mundane" face you dismiss possesses magic. A single,
> solitary ant possesses magic, as any child who has melted a crayon with a
> magnifying glass in order to kill the ant can tell you.
>
Yes the most simple and trivial things can be imagined to be or taken
into a different context to become marvelous: a black shoe sticking out
of a nest in a hole in my forehead, for instance. The universe IS a
marvelous place. Is everything marvelous and mundane at once? It's all a
matter of human subjectivity. What i refer to is the attitude of
embracing the marvelous, the new, the different, etc, not the everyday
life and then say, well yes this too is marvelous, and there you have
it. Which perspective is that? HOW is it marvelous? You seem to be of
the thinking any or every simple act or object is surrealist. If someone
went to Wal-Mart to buy a globe for instance, you might consider this to
be surrealism in the truest sense. Every act since birth for everyone
is, in fact, surrealist. Surrealism is Tai Chi, surrealism is my socks
coming unravelled and hanging over my ankles, surrealism is bert and
ernie arguing about football. It all becomes rather confused and sloppy
when you don't make the seperation between one thing and everything,
what is and what isn't.
john
Aeon
>implied) a sort of awakening to human potential. That this process usually
>includes art is true.
I realize that. It's just that most often, people who like to consider
themselves surrealists produce some sort of "art".
>I draw, I write, I edit and create a surrealist magazine, and other
>publications on appropriate subjects and challenges. Some of these can be
>seen at the magneticfields site.
What is the link to the main page of the magneticfields site?
Why not share some drawings or writings here with us?
I realize you've done this before, but I missed out.
>On a personal note: my main day to day expression of surrealism as a tool of
>"shackle busting" is my use of humor as a way to jump the bounds of
>propriety. Thus I can call my manager/boss/idiot "Boyface" or threaten to
>sue him for First Admendment infringments when he bans (as he recently did)
>my distribution of our magazine at work. A joke yes, but one which has a
>content I wish to express. And so on...
Does this help you bring your subconcious or imagination to reality?
Leo Sgouros
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:fb_v4.33336$yn3.2...@news1.teleport.com...
> Fas:
> > I don't know what motivates Nik, but he engages, he participates,
> > most importantly, he plays.
>
> uses the word "God", that he is an unhonest fellow. How can we take
anything
> that he has said in the past or that he will say in the future as being
> truthful?
>
>
>
IF surrealism is a search for truth, then its a search for a personal truth,
not a consensual truth.In this respect, how you *take* anything is rather
irrelevant.If he is finding his, you are probably aiding it, and I am sure
he will thank you.
HTH
john adams
>
> >Well, this is an important thing to point out now that you mention it.
> >he engages, he retreats, he distorts, and he molds his own reality to
> >fit what he feels like at the time. But does he ever really experience
> >from other's perspectives like he alludes to within that sloshy
> >framework? Yes he loves the attention, but generally it is about trying
> >to clear up the misrepresentations for other passersby it seems, not
> >him. Since this occurs daily, i try to ignore most of it.
> >
> >john
>
> Is it so important for all of us to sit around and point out what we
> think about Nik?
>
> Not really.
>
> How about you john, what type of experiments and exploration do you do?
>
> orlan
>
No, that is exactly why i said: " i try to ignore most of it". I would
prefer NOT discussing this. Nik is the one constantly trying to beam
himself and his ideas into this one-way limelight.
As for experiments and exploration - everything is a potential
candidate. I strive to learn, make sense of the world, like most, and
experiment in the areas of art, music, and poetry, etc. when im not busy
slaving away at work.
john
john adams
>
> >> It doesn't make it wrong or stupid.
> >>
> >> orlan
> >>
> >
> >I didn't say it was wrong. And I could have had a case to call it
> >stupid, but settled with uninteresting.
>
> Actually, in your post you called it schizoid type behavior which
> I felt was a derogatory type of statement, and besides your later
> comments of it being boring, I took to mind that you seemed to
> be dismissing it as worse than just boring.
>
> orlan
> --
I realized it could sound a bit derogatory, but that was not my
intention. The intention was to express the characteristic of
disintegration or personality.
john
john adams
>
> Aeon wrote:
> ?
> ? ?? It doesn't make it wrong or stupid.
> ? ??
> ? ?? orlan
> ? ??
> ? ?
> ? ?I didn't say it was wrong. And I could have had a case to call it
> ? ?stupid, but settled with uninteresting.
> ?
> ? Actually, in your post you called it schizoid type behavior which
> ? I felt was a derogatory type of statement, and besides your later
> ? comments of it being boring, I took to mind that you seemed to
> ? be dismissing it as worse than just boring.
> ?
> ? orlan
> ? --
>
> I realized it could sound a bit derogatory, but that was not my
> intention. The intention was to express the characteristic of
> disintegration oF personality.
>
> john
Brandon J. Freels
> So let's see beneath your mask for a bit.
What do you want to see? I don't believe I wear a mask at alt.surrealism,
but I'm almost positive I do around other people, like at work and around
family. But overall, I can be honest with my friends and wear no mask when I
see them. On occasion I'll find myself wearing a mask around a beautiful
girl. I can't figure that one out...
Overall, I think most people at alt.surrealism are being honest. Of course,
I've never felt any deception from Barrett, Dale, or Kristina, and I have
always felt that elag and Leo have stated things honestly as well, even
though Leo and I may disagree on some things.
Nik, on the other hand, is all about deceiving. Its incorporated into his
schemes. He wants to manipulate people with his art. Just ask him about one
of his "projects". And we must remember that Nik is the best tool of the
ultimate deceiver Andrea Chen.
Dale Houstman
> >First, surrealism is not necessarily any of these activities, but (as I
have
> >implied) a sort of awakening to human potential. That this process
usually
> >includes art is true.
>
> I realize that. It's just that most often, people who like to consider
> themselves surrealists produce some sort of "art".
Yes, because art is one of the "high" functions of the liberated
imagination. But surrealism is not a subset of art, art is a subset of
surrealism. The only personal analog I have for this is in the way I strove
to write poetry: it never seems to be about the poem itself, but about
attempting to escape the constantly reiterated social norms in order to
reach that clearing beyond each poem. As such the poem is the forensic
debris of the experiment. This differs greatly (in both approach and result)
from what I did before surrealism gave me the language to explore: I would
concentrate on the structure and vocabulary of the piece. Now there is no
doubt I still do this (Breton - for all his talk of automatism - was rather
famous for obsessive rewriting), but it always occur quite after the fact.
And the artistic impulse comes and goes, while surrealism is a constant
state.
Or something like that...
DMH
Dale Houstman
> > I have posted poems here, although not to great effect I think. To be
> >honest, except for a few "inquiring minds" this group isn't worth that
> >effort. Nik's only response to all my poetry postings was to finally
create
> >a very bad mimic of one line and critique that! This outrageous act was
> >totally ignored by his puppies and resonating tinsheets. This is the type
of
> >activity that renders the forum a mere idle curiosity rather than a place
to
> >actively engage on many levels.
> >
> >DMH
>
> So why don't you post some more poetry? Some more thoughts on what is
> important about surrealism to you?
Have...Will...
>
> Your above paragraph seems to make me wonder why you are here at all.
>You declare that sharing your poetry didn't seem worth the effort. You
>express that the activity going on (apparently from Nik) renders the group
a >place in which you cannot engage on many levels.
>
> If this is true, why are you here at all?\
You tell me... I sometimes wonder...
DMH
>
> Share with us. People like me could learn a bit.
>
Dale Houstman
Yes - but the discussion involved Nik's name before I arrived. Can we go
back and remove it?
>
> I'm not at all interested at this particular moment why you might find
Nik's
> particular practices dull.
Good - i've no problem with your disinterest. I'm disinterested in it...
> What I was getting at is that doing strange things in your life, things
> that someone else might view as schizoid, could be the "right" thing for
> exploring your own imagination....
Yes: but what if those "strange" things are not really strange, if they
are - in fact - well thought out desires to garner small pointless shocks
from strangers?
>I believe I made the example of how in dreams we often do things that we
>would never do in real life, and that in real life, this same type of
thing could be >done in order to better explore one's imagination and
subconcious and bring it >into reality.
Certainly, but - again - if the process involves doing something to merely
garner predictable (and expected) results, where's the dream-like quality?
>
> So, if they are not declaring it to be art, what is it that bothers you
so?
> Does it matter that you find it dull? Does it matter that it numbs you?
But they - the ones who we started this thread with - do declare it to be
art. And - really - in the context of such a small "community" as this,
yes - the
studied dullness of any activity - if it is touted endlessly as a sign of
the other's imagination - does bother me. It doesn't bother you? Good for
you...
> Is it surrealism?
No...
DMH
Dale Houstman
>
> >
> >Yes: but what if those "strange" things are not really strange, if they
> >are - in fact - well thought out desires to garner small pointless shocks
> >from strangers?
> And what if they aren't?
But what if they are?
>
> >Certainly, but - again - if the process involves doing something to
merely
> >garner predictable (and expected) results, where's the dream-like
quality?
>
> See... again you are attempting to bring this around to your thoughts on
> Nik.
You like to control conversations don't you? The fact is this conversation
began with a discussion about Nik; if some of the subsequent comments appear
to evolve from this base, it scarcely strikes me as bizarre.
>
> I do not see any attempt to shock someone here. In fact, it seems to
> be a rather personal sort of exploration.
Your opinion.
>
>
> Why does it bother you that someone else does something dull and calls it
> a sign of their imagination?
And why does it bother you that I am bothered if someone else does something
dull and calls it a sign of their imagination?
DMH
Dale Houstman
> >> So why don't you post some more poetry? Some more thoughts on what is
> >> important about surrealism to you?
> >
> >Have...Will...
>
>
>
> >> If this is true, why are you here at all?\
> >
> >You tell me... I sometimes wonder...
> >
> >DMH
>
> that.
>
Well, agreement DOES get stifling. I must say the level of debate here often
is profoundly limp. Your answer is as good as any...
DMH
cythera
>Why does it bother you that someone else does something dull
>and calls it a sign of their imagination?
You didn't ask me, but I for one feel bored if there is,
repetitively, no exciting sign or signal coming from an
individual's imagination.
I don't care whose imagination it is.
And I'm actually bothered when a bright -- or maybe brilliant
--- person wastes his or her potential.
Long story short: I'm writing to you from the base of Pike's
Peak. The mountain is more surrealist than Nik.
Nik is not a surrealist. He's about power, orlan and Fascinan.
I don't know either of you; maybe you weren't reading when
Andrea showed up last week, but look; Nik is Andrea's tool.
Surrealists aren't puppets.
barrett has put together a website. If you read in
magneticfields.org to begin, I you will find the Nik and Dale
drama less interesting. I mean, of course, if you are involved
in exploring your imagination....
E.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
kristina
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89qbnj$pir$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Fascinan to barrett:
>
> > > I think it would be enjoyable to see more poetry, writings,
> > "artifacts" -- such
> > > a dry term--,
> >
> > deliberately so. the joy is in the exploration and discovery.
> > once that process is complete, such things have little value.
> > nice to look at once in a while, but not much more than that.
>
> barrett, any one of these "artifacts" that you produce might have a
> vivid impact on someone's imagination. Isn't that the point of a
> Surrealist sharing her or his work?
I'm not going to speak for Barrett here, or anyone else... but seeing as
this is a public forum, I will address the issue in regards to how I see it.
Personally I don't give a toss whether someone is inspired or not with
anything I do. It is never at the forefront of my thoughts or creating
process, nor is it a consideration at the end (if there is one). I do what
I do, and do it as I do (regarding my approach to it all) with one thing in
mind, and being aware of one truth only: I NEED TO DO IT. That simple. IF
someone finds something in the work I do, fine... this can even be
enjoyable. HOWEVER, and I must stress this, the ideaof communication as
such is never a consideration with me.
ALSO, if there were more people out there that would utilise their
imaginations and totally embrace their uniqueness, communication may be more
interesting. For example, if I DID share something with someone like Nik for
example, he would no doubt be compelled to write an entire essay and anaysis
on it, or would hound me to death, write his banal little parody on my
sharing, etc... all the joy would quickly be diminshied. Therefore, it is
just as well, that when creating does occur it is not with the consideration
of sharing it. It's personal for me. I don't go about a ten step program
working it out from start to end, or utilising any particular tools. It
just takes place when the desire is there.
I don't understand why the issue of "product" regarding surrealism is such a
big thing in this newsgroup. I would have thought that by now, with
Barrett's posts, (and others) the point has been very simply and concisely
expressed in regards to what surrealism is and isn't. Granted, I accept
that new people come into the group, and don't need to be affronted with my
posts, but you have been here quite some time now, and still go on asking
mind numbing questions -- redundant and pointless.
Particularly coming from someone that has "apparently" been contributing
here for some time. What are you REALLY saying that is to be taken in any
vein as serious or intriguing?
Kristina.
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
>
> > -- 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
> >
> > ==============================================
kristina
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:89qbse$cdj$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> john adams (gala...@aol.com) writes:
> > Surrealism is about embracing the marvelous while nik tends to embrace
> > the mundane.
>
> marvels I have discovered, tracing the wrinkles of wisened old men onto a
> sheet of paper. The faces of old men fill me with rapture. I'm not
> exaggerating. This "mundane" face you dismiss possesses magic. A single,
> solitary ant possesses magic, as any child who has melted a crayon with a
> magnifying glass in order to kill the ant can tell you.
>
> > from other's perspectives like he alludes to within that sloshy
> > framework?
>
> to communicate -- with Barrett, Dale, and (God help me) Brandon. And even
> you, on occasion. Unfortunately, my playful foolishness has been read as
> a lack of serious interest, an attempt at garnering attention, and a sign
> that I must be brain-damaged or something.
Finally you've figured out your own shortcomings! Congratulations.
Kristina.
Aeon
>> themselves surrealists produce some sort of "art".
>
>Yes, because art is one of the "high" functions of the liberated
>imagination. But surrealism is not a subset of art, art is a subset of
>surrealism. The only personal analog I have for this is in the way I strove
>to write poetry: it never seems to be about the poem itself, but about
>attempting to escape the constantly reiterated social norms in order to
>reach that clearing beyond each poem. As such the poem is the forensic
>debris of the experiment. This differs greatly (in both approach and result)
>from what I did before surrealism gave me the language to explore: I would
>concentrate on the structure and vocabulary of the piece. Now there is no
>doubt I still do this (Breton - for all his talk of automatism - was rather
>famous for obsessive rewriting), but it always occur quite after the fact.
>And the artistic impulse comes and goes, while surrealism is a constant
>state.
>
>Or something like that...
>DMH
I realize surrealism is not a subset of art. I was trying to ask you two
very different questions... one in which I was trying to figure out how
you explore surrealism, and one in which I was wondering if you happened
to produce art.
I like the way you describe your poetry writing process. I like that
you concentrated on structure and of course, vocabulary. When I do write
poetry (not often), I find that I have a very sloppy style. I don't
attempt to have any structure, nor do I even look at that particular
aspect of it after it's finished.
Is surrealism a constant state? Is there anything in our lives that is
absolutely constant?
Aeon
>> What I was getting at is that doing strange things in your life, things
>> that someone else might view as schizoid, could be the "right" thing for
>> exploring your own imagination....
>
>are - in fact - well thought out desires to garner small pointless shocks
>from strangers?
And what if they aren't?
>Certainly, but - again - if the process involves doing something to merely
>garner predictable (and expected) results, where's the dream-like quality?
See... again you are attempting to bring this around to your thoughts on
Nik.
The person I was talking about chooses to try on different belief systems
and actually going so far as to believe in that particular belief for
up to a month or so at a time before shedding it and moving on.
I do not see any attempt to shock someone here. In fact, it seems to
be a rather personal sort of exploration.
>But they - the ones who we started this thread with - do declare it to be
>art. And - really - in the context of such a small "community" as this,
>yes - the
>studied dullness of any activity - if it is touted endlessly as a sign of
>the other's imagination - does bother me. It doesn't bother you? Good for
>you...
Why does it bother you that someone else does something dull and calls it
a sign of their imagination?
Is the imagination always excitement and ecstacy? Can the imagination
produce something dull? Is it a terrible thing to explore all parts of
the imagination as opposed to just the most fascinating ones?
And what is dull to one, isn't necessarily dull to another.
But, I do not believe Nik made the claim that this particular friend
calls this "change room" style of belief systems "art". I could be
remembering wrong.
Aeon
>prefer NOT discussing this. Nik is the one constantly trying to beam
>himself and his ideas into this one-way limelight.
>As for experiments and exploration - everything is a potential
>candidate. I strive to learn, make sense of the world, like most, and
>experiment in the areas of art, music, and poetry, etc. when im not busy
>slaving away at work.
>
>john
What kind of artwork do you do? Your music as well, I'd be interested in
hearing about it.
Do you post your poetry here ever? I'm afraid I might not have seen it
here, or maybe I've just missed it.
Aeon
>but I'm almost positive I do around other people, like at work and around
>family. But overall, I can be honest with my friends and wear no mask when I
>see them. On occasion I'll find myself wearing a mask around a beautiful
>girl. I can't figure that one out...
smile.... that last one makes the most sense of them all!
>Overall, I think most people at alt.surrealism are being honest. Of course,
>I've never felt any deception from Barrett, Dale, or Kristina, and I have
>always felt that elag and Leo have stated things honestly as well, even
>though Leo and I may disagree on some things.
Truly I don't find any deception at all.... and even if there was, I
couldn't care less.
>Nik, on the other hand, is all about deceiving. Its incorporated into his
>schemes. He wants to manipulate people with his art. Just ask him about one
>of his "projects". And we must remember that Nik is the best tool of the
>ultimate deceiver Andrea Chen.
This matters because?
Anyway, what do I want to see? I want to hear about your explorations with
surrealism. I want to hear how you discovered it, what you've learned about
it, what exactly do you like about it, and so on.
Aeon
>> important about surrealism to you?
>
>Have...Will...
good stuff.
>> If this is true, why are you here at all?\
>
>You tell me... I sometimes wonder...
>
>DMH
My theory is you enjoy a good debate, or maybe a shitty one at
that.
orlan
diva...@my-deja.com
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> I truly doubt that Nik is one of the most honest persons at this newsgroup.
> On the other hand, I would definitely agree with anyone who saw him as the
> most pseudo-honest person at this newsgroup.
>
> All of Nik's grabbing at Dale for the intimate details of Dale's
> relationship with his father is also supportive of this claim. Nik didn't
> really want to *know* about Dale's relationship with his father [as he
> *honestly* claimed] but rather wanted to stir Dale up. In other words, he
> lied.
>
> Nik wears a mask a mile thick. I told him not long ago to take off the mask
> and let the identity flow like a river. Perhaps the mask is too thick for
> him to understand what *honesty* really is? The mask may be so thick that
> nothing goes in, and nothing comes out.
>
>
> I don't mind being called a trout. Richard Brautigan wrote a lot about
> trout, and he's my favorite author. Perhaps one day while reading his books
> I'll find that he wrote about me: a stuffy old trouser trout made out of
> butterscotch candies.
>
>
>
>
> Brenda wrote
> > Brandon, Don't act so judgemental, you sound like a stuffy ole trouser
> > trout.Nik is probably one of the most honest people here. I know you are
> a
> > sweetie in your heart. Peek-a-boo, I like you,not a lie cause it's true.
>
>
Brandon, I love to suck on butterscotch candies, I suck them hard, sometimes
I nibble around the edges,sometimes I just hold them in my mouth enjoying the
anticipated burst of flavor. Peace my angelic one. brenda
Nikolaus Maack
> What i refer to is the attitude of
> embracing the marvelous, the new, the different, etc, not the everyday
> life and then say, well yes this too is marvelous, and there you have
> it. Which perspective is that? HOW is it marvelous?
I don't mean to sound like I'm mocking you, but do you genuinely believe
there is something "new" that needs your embracing? Could you list off
some of these things? The internet is perhaps one of the only examples of
something dramatically new that I can think of off the top of my head.
Other than that, everything seems to be pretty repetitive.
> You seem to be of
> the thinking any or every simple act or object is surrealist. If someone
> went to Wal-Mart to buy a globe for instance, you might consider this to
> be surrealism in the truest sense.
It can be. I don't know if I'm in any position to judge, unless it's me
going out and buying the globe. Today, I went grocery shopping with a
friend. I found a doll -- Caillou is his name, if that means anything to
you. The doll is a bald boy from some cartoon. I picked him up because
my instincts told me to, and carried him around, waiting to see what I
should do with him. Eventually I left him lying in a freezer atop of a
frozen turkey.
Surreal? Not surreal? According to some people in the newsgroup, what
determines if this is surreal is my motivation. If I did it spontaneously
-- I did -- because my subconscious (if you believe in such a thing) told
me to, then it's surreal. If I did it to show off, or to be cool, or
because I'm an artist, that's not surrealism.
All of that seems like a load of horseshit to me. How can someone TELL
what their real motivation is, for sure? I don't know why I do some of
the things I do. But I have learned that -- specifically thanks to this
newsgroup and the people in it -- if I feel like doing something
spontaneously, I now pause, ask myself if it will hurt someone or hurt me,
and if not, act on it. That's exploration.
I think it's important to ask if it will hurt anyone, because sometimes I
want to do something spontaneously, and it looks like a dangerous thing --
like pushing a little kid into a fountain, or stapling my own hand.
The other day, while preparing my young charge Arthur for school, I looked
in the refrigerator and saw a green pepper. I then looked at Arthur, with
his new buzzcut haircut. I felt a need to put the pepper on Arthur's
head. I stopped to consider if this was a dangerous thing to do -- it
wasn't -- and then I put the pepper on his head, told him to stay still,
and looked at him with a pepper on his head. Arthur put up with it. he
thought it was funny.
He looked interesting with a pepper on his head. The experience made me
happy. I felt like I learned something of value by behaving in a
spontaneous and "irrational" way. What I learned, I couldn't even tell
you. But now part of me wants to get Arthur to pose that way so I can do
a portrait of him.
Are these "mundane" behaviors? Are you in any position to judge if they
are? In the end, isn't up to the person who takes the action to determine
if this is "new" and "different" and "marvelous"?
Say there is an accountant and his life is hell. One day he wants to do
something new and different and marvelous. He goes to the local liquor
store and buys a bottle of blue liquor. Ordinary and mundane to you and
me. But say his father was an alcoholic, and this accountant has lived in
fear of booze all his life. Maybe, for him, this is the ultimately new
and marveloud and different act.
How can we judge him? And doesn't our judging him create an atmosphere --
like the one in this newsgroup -- where people don't feel comfortable
talking about their own explorations, for fear that they will be judged?
Shouldn't we encourage explorations, even ones that seem mundane to us? I
like the idea of a little competition -- this is what I did, what are you
going to do? -- but judging seems rather counterproductive.
Speaking of mundane explorations, remember my leaving onions in
phone booths game? Of course you do. For those who don't, let me briefly
summarize -- I thought it would be interesting to leave onions in phone
booths. People would see the onions, say, "What the fuck is an
onion doing in here?" and have a slightly odder day. Maybe they'd even
feel a sense of mystery.
People told me that this wasn't surrealism, that it was boring, that it
was idiotic, etc, etc.
A few weeks ago, a friend of mine was in downtown Ottawa, and he
came across an onion in a phone booth. Nik must have been here, my friend
thought. Only it wasn't me. Someone else in Ottawa has been
leaving onions in phone booths. This gave me a sense of mystery.
Today, while I was riding the bus, I spotted a potato, sitting on the back
"shelf", behind the very last seats on the bus. I looked at it and
thought, a potato! A stray vegetable! And I was reminded of my own silly
onion game, and I smiled, and felt a sense of mystery. Other people are
leaving produce in weird places.
See how it spreads? See how leaving "messages" makes messages come back
to you? There *is* something in this -- even if there aren't people
taking deliberate actions on the other end of these vegetables.
Remember that a number of surrealist games involve the mixing of two
mundane objects to create a third, strange, provoking object. An onion in
a phone booth -- mundane as a symbol in a story or a painting -- can be a
provoking object.
(I've changed my mind. A painting of an onion inside a phone booth might
be quite interesting.)
And please, don't tell me that surrealism isn't about provoking a
response. Some of it is. Dali (oh no, I'm mentioning Dali!) was prone to
this. Why do you think surrealists recognized the melting watches as an
important painting? Other surrealists provoked, when mixing their objects
together, when making poetry. Part of the goal was to provoke yourself
AND to provoke others.
Dada is the dad of surrealism. Acting spontaneous is supposed to liberate
your own imagination, but also encourage others to do the same. That's
what I think, anyhow.
I'm preaching. So be it.
By the way, the film "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lau" is a great surrealist
film. It stars Tony Randall. I saw it today on television. So I guess
TV isn't entirely bad.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
syn
----------
In article <89su2r$g8o$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
>Say there is an accountant and his life is hell. One day he wants to do
>something new and different and marvelous.
or, say there is a psychiatrist who decides that if a die displays a 'one',
he'll go and rape someone..
'The Dice Man', a book by Luke Rhinehart.
seems relevant to the current discussion.
-worth a read, i reckon.
syn
Aeon
>> >are - in fact - well thought out desires to garner small pointless shocks
>> >from strangers?
>
>> And what if they aren't?
>
heh.. what if they aren't?
>> See... again you are attempting to bring this around to your thoughts on
>> Nik.
>
>You like to control conversations don't you? The fact is this conversation
>began with a discussion about Nik; if some of the subsequent comments appear
>to evolve from this base, it scarcely strikes me as bizarre.
Actually, again I will point out, I jumped in at a point in the conversation
in which a man that tries out different belief systems was being discussed.
This is what I was discussing with someone when you jumped in with your
opinion... and that was good. But then all of the responses have now
magically turned to Nik.
I don't see Nik trying on different belief systems for size...
I suspect that the only reason you condemn the man trying on beliefs as dull
is simply for the fact that he happens to be someone that Nik knows.
>> I do not see any attempt to shock someone here. In fact, it seems to
>> be a rather personal sort of exploration.
>
>Your opinion.
Can you explain further? In what ways do you feel this man is attempting
to shock people?
>> Why does it bother you that someone else does something dull and calls it
>> a sign of their imagination?
>
>And why does it bother you that I am bothered if someone else does something
>dull and calls it a sign of their imagination?
>
>DMH
It bothers me because you seem to be saying that because it's dull to you,
it therefore couldn't possibly have anything to do with that person's
imagination, and therefore it also couldn't possibly have the smallest
thing to do with surrealism.
Of course, I can admit that it matters not that I am bothered, and in essence
it shouldn't matter that you are bothered either... but the above is truly
what I was intending to discuss with you, not Nik.
Aeon
>>and calls it a sign of their imagination?
>
>repetitively, no exciting sign or signal coming from an
>individual's imagination.
>I don't care whose imagination it is.
>And I'm actually bothered when a bright -- or maybe brilliant
>--- person wastes his or her potential.
>Long story short: I'm writing to you from the base of Pike's
>Peak. The mountain is more surrealist than Nik.
>Nik is not a surrealist. He's about power, orlan and Fascinan.
>I don't know either of you; maybe you weren't reading when
>Andrea showed up last week, but look; Nik is Andrea's tool.
>Surrealists aren't puppets.
>barrett has put together a website. If you read in
>magneticfields.org to begin, I you will find the Nik and Dale
>drama less interesting. I mean, of course, if you are involved
>in exploring your imagination....
>
>E.
I couldn't care less what you feel Nik is all about. I was
talking about the man that tries on different belief systems
for size (not Nik), and how some people found that to be dull
and implied that it therefore couldn't possibly have anything
to do with imagination.
I have read some of magneticfields.org but I do not find it
to be the end all be all of surrealism. It certainly is
interesting, and I like a lot of what I see there.
On top of it all, Nik and Dale have nothing to do with exploring
my own imagination. Most of the conversations between them
appear to have ended, but unfortunately, people have this
uncanny way of dragging Nik into every conversation possible.
Aeon
>> that.
>>
>is profoundly limp. Your answer is as good as any...
>
>DMH
Limp indeed... and it is as good as any...
so what is your answer? Why do you come here?
Personally I come here because I really enjoy reading some of the works that
people post here, I like to hear other people's thoughts and opinions, I
have to admit I'm a sucker for a heated conversation, and I'm learning
a bit about just what surrealism is today.
john adams
Well, all i have to say is you pretty much missed most of my point. To
respond to it would be repetitive and nothing new, so i will veer away
from doing so. And since everything is already conveived of and not new,
i will now go scrape my exposed brain against a brick wall for a little
idle pleasure.
john
john adams
>
> >No, that is exactly why i said: " i try to ignore most of it". I would
> >prefer NOT discussing this. Nik is the one constantly trying to beam
> >himself and his ideas into this one-way limelight.
> >As for experiments and exploration - everything is a potential
> >candidate. I strive to learn, make sense of the world, like most, and
> >experiment in the areas of art, music, and poetry, etc. when im not busy
> >slaving away at work.
> >
> >john
>
> What kind of artwork do you do? Your music as well, I'd be interested in
> hearing about it.
>
> Do you post your poetry here ever? I'm afraid I might not have seen it
> here, or maybe I've just missed it.
>
>
> --
>
> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>
> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
I write some and will post the occasional poem or rewrite.
The music's a little more difficult, especially for the file sizes even
in mp3 format. But, i do have a few things. I do some experimenting with
"electronic" sounds via computer and also some guitar. I'm working on
making everything more intuitive for myself in that realm.
john
Dale Houstman
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
> I suspect that the only reason you condemn the man trying on beliefs as
dull
> is simply for the fact that he happens to be someone that Nik knows.
I won't deny this... And I won't confess...
>
>
> Can you explain further? In what ways do you feel this man is attempting
> to shock people?
I'm disiniterested in my own explanation...
>
>
> It bothers me because you seem to be saying that because it's dull to you,
> it therefore couldn't possibly have anything to do with that person's
> imagination, and therefore it also couldn't possibly have the smallest
> thing to do with surrealism.
But why does my saying this bother you?
>
> Of course, I can admit that it matters not that I am bothered, and in
essence
> it shouldn't matter that you are bothered either... but the above is truly
> what I was intending to discuss with you, not Nik.
>
Okay...
When I speak of dullness, I am speaking of a perceived dislocation between
the person and his own imagination that reveals itself to me as dullness.
That's all. I will admit that the fact this story was presented by the
N-word sets up a prejudice in me that might cripple my ability to
distinguish between what is and what I think it is, if there is - for all
intents and porpoises - a difference to be crippled. But - one way or the
other - I have grown tired of this particular line of inquiry, which - for
whatever reason or lack of - appears to be mortally wounded.
Next question?
DMH
Dale Houstman
> >> My theory is you enjoy a good debate, or maybe a shitty one at
> >> that.
> >>
> >Well, agreement DOES get stifling. I must say the level of debate here
often
> >is profoundly limp. Your answer is as good as any...
> >
> >DMH
>
> Limp indeed... and it is as good as any...
>
> so what is your answer? Why do you come here?
>
> Personally I come here because I really enjoy reading some of the works
that
> people post here, I like to hear other people's thoughts and opinions, I
> have to admit I'm a sucker for a heated conversation, and I'm learning
> a bit about just what surrealism is today.
>
its title. I stayed because I found some few pearls amongst the sweat drops.
I stayed even longer because I met one of the participants and thus started
myself on a new and intriguing directrion. I now stay (or malinger)
precisely because there are people - like you perhaps? - who do want to
learn a bit about surrealism as it is today, and might otherwise be misled
and misinformed by the likes of the N-word and the non-sequitorians and
"mere artists" who attempt to appropriate the word and its associations,
which are of vital importance to me.(This by the way is WHY I am "bothered"
by the various types of spew: surrealism MEANS something to me, and I am
fool enough to think it means something in general. That this leads me off
on tangents that are less than pretty is obvious.) As for "heated
conversations" I don't mind: but I really DON'T like endless loops of
phrases spewed out by non-listeners. This is little different from pushing
atheism to an evangelist; I find that painful and self-defeating.
DMH
Aeon
>The music's a little more difficult, especially for the file sizes even
>in mp3 format. But, i do have a few things. I do some experimenting with
>"electronic" sounds via computer and also some guitar. I'm working on
>making everything more intuitive for myself in that realm.
>
>
>john
I really enjoy experimental noise. I can see why these things would
be hard to post. Do you have a website?
I find music to be an interesting way to explore imagination, emotion,
and so on. There is often music that will whisk my mind away to
other places, and so intensely that I will get lost in the music until
the "song" is over.
I've used music in the past to direct my artwork and poetry. Sound is
incredible stuff.
barrett john erickson
> >barrett john erickson wrote
> >> they are creating a _reality_ in which they are nothing but
frauds.
> >
> >My point, exactically.
>
> And who exactly are these frauds? The kid in highschool that
wears
> a certain style of clothes just because everyone else does? The
man
> that goes to work day in and day out, just like everyone else in
> his community, because he's been told his whole life that it is
the
> way in which one lives? The endless amount of boobs that sit in
> front of the television soaking up the false statements and
model
> their lives after them in order to be "happy"?
"fraud" implies _intent to deceive_ (whether "self" or "other").
my
comments were directed at those who would wear "beliefs" like
clothing.
since reality (and "self") emerges from our actions, those who act
according to "beliefs" they don't really "believe" are creating a
reality (and "self") that is deliberately false -- deceiving
others
while falsifying their own existence.
there are no lower in my estimation.
> There are many others as well, and if these are the frauds that
> bother you, they bother the shit out of me too.
i think of the examples you give as falling into a larger category
of "surrenders" to an existing context. i'm not sure there's
anyone who can avoid all such surrenders -- but they can be
strategic or lazy or embracing. those who embrace their surrender
are to be condemned at every opportunity.
Brandon J. Freels
> According to some people in the newsgroup, what determines if this is
surreal. If I did it to show off, or to be
seems like a load of
> horseshit to me. How can someone TELL what their real motivation is, for
sure?
Last night I post a description of a picture I drew while watching my
roommate's band play. I am positive that this picture was not done to "show
off" or to "be cool" but rather was done for my own creative impulse. It was
rather spontaneous. So you can see that I've already ruled out the
possibility that I was trying to "shock" someone. Its really not as hard as
you think. Your inability and refusal to understand this important part of
Surrealism, which you liken to horseshit, is exactly why we see you as a
shit-eater.
Tell me Nik, in your opinion what is the difference between Surrealism and
Dada? Please be as specific as possible.
Brandon J. Freels
> Actually, again I will point out, I jumped in at a point in the
conversation in which a man > that tries out different belief systems was
shock people?
I think we are beginning to discuss several different things here. I must
admit that I have several friends who went through periods of "trying out
different belief systems" when struggling with their "identity" and while I
see these people as running and hiding, I don't see them as attempting to
shock anyone. In fact, I think meddling with your masks, becoming a seeker,
is the only hope to one day prying them all off.
On the other hand, I feel that there are still those who hide under masks
which they believe are designed to shock people in their respective bubbles.
These people are also fearful of who they are, but they pretend that this
mask is "rebellious" in some fashion from their surrounding bubble, and that
to them is its justification. This idea only hides the true reason. We can
even see this coming from a non-"rebellious" conformist mask, where an
individual hides from reality simply by trying to "fit in" with their
respective bubble.
Brandon J. Freels
> Speaking of mundane explorations, remember my leaving onions in phone
booths
doing in
> here?" and have a slightly odder day. Maybe they'd even feel a sense of
mystery.
Again, its not about provoking others. Maybe you'd be more interest in Dada?
> A few weeks ago, a friend of mine was in downtown Ottawa, and he came
across an > onion in a phone booth. Nik must have been here, my friend
thought. Only it wasn't
> me. Someone else in Ottawa has been leaving onions in phone booths. This
gave
> me a sense of mystery.
No mystery. Mysteries are meant or attempted to be solved with "rational"
answers. For example, "my god hand-puppet must have put it there." Forget
that. Leave it alone. The finding of an onion in a phone booth when
prefigured by your "game theory", is the marvelous and does not need to be
justified. Does this make sense to you? For example, I read Freud's "The
Uncanny" which talked a deal about seizures. I got on the bus and the guy
sitting next to me had a seizure. The two events are unrelated, but only
seem related because one prefigured the other. This is an encounter with the
marvelous. It is this type of event that sends a chill and horror down
Frued's rational mind, while simultaniously making the Surrealist smile. It
is only seen as a mystery to be solved by those who have trouble accepting
the irrational.
> And please, don't tell me that surrealism isn't about provoking a
response. Some of > it is. Dali (oh no, I'm mentioning Dali!) was prone to
this. Why do you think surrealists > recognized the melting watches as an
important painting? Other surrealists
> provoked, when mixing their objects together, when making poetry. Part of
the goal
> was to provoke yourself AND to provoke others.
Again, Nik, why are Dali's "melting watches" important? Not because they
provoked anyone, but because they are taking two "rational" opposites
[solid/liquid] and combining them. This really has nothing to do with
"shocking" the view, but rather "shocking" the painter/creator. Can you
quote a Surrealist, even Dali in his early years, who states that his/her
main objective is to "shock" the viewer?
Parry
> If someone
> went to Wal-Mart to buy a globe for instance, you might consider this to
> be surrealism in the truest sense.
I bought my spouse a 3-dimensional puzzle of Rodin’s “The Kiss” at
Wal-Mart. The miniature was cut into cracker-thin slices which had to be
stacked around a pole. The finished sculpture looks like kitsch from a
few paces back, but close-up the segmentation is obvious and the thing
looks quite strange, and bends to the touch.
-- 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! =-----
kristina
> In article <fb_v4.33336$yn3.2...@news1.teleport.com>,> > Fas:
> > > I don't know what motivates Nik, but he engages, he participates,
> > > most importantly, he plays.
> >
> > And you've seen this? Nik has already proven to me, by lying about how
he
> > uses the word "God", that he is an unhonest fellow. How can we take
anything
> > that he has said in the past or that he will say in the future as being
> > truthful?
> >
> >
>
> Brandon, Don't act so judgemental, you sound like a stuffy ole trouser
> trout.Nik is probably one of the most honest people here. I know you are
a
> sweetie in your heart. Peek-a-boo, I like you,not a lie cause it's true.
So this is what a good Christian ass sounds like!
Why do you defend that which is clearly ridiculous -- supporting oppression
is unbecoming of you! get a grip, if you think Nik is honest, perhaps there
is nothing that can be done for you. His posts speak for themselves.
Kristina.
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38C1EE3C...@aol.com...
> Parry wrote:
> >
> > john adams wrote:
> > > If someone
> > > went to Wal-Mart to buy a globe for instance, you might consider this
to
> > > be surrealism in the truest sense.
> >
> > I bought my spouse a 3-dimensional puzzle of Rodin's "The Kiss" at
> > Wal-Mart. The miniature was cut into cracker-thin slices which had to be
> > stacked around a pole. The finished sculpture looks like kitsch from a
> > few paces back, but close-up the segmentation is obvious and the thing
> > looks quite strange, and bends to the touch.
> >
> > -- Parry
> >
>
> start shopping there for all of my surrealist household items!
>
I think Wal-Mart's most surreal act is the manner in which it guts local
economies, promotes its totally fascist notions of "we are family" while
paying the lowest wage possible, and uses the money it robs from the local
economies to support typical right-wing trash.
Other than that it seems more cubist in nature.
DMH
barrett john erickson
news:pgGw4.544$F7.1...@ptah.visi.com...
> I think Wal-Mart's most surreal act is the manner in which it
guts local
> economies, promotes its totally fascist notions of "we are
family" while
> paying the lowest wage possible, and uses the money it robs from
the local
> economies to support typical right-wing trash.
i think its their use of $5-7/hr employees rather than $100/hr
models in their print advertising.
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:TMGw4.557$F7.1...@ptah.visi.com...
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:pgGw4.544$F7.1...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> > I think Wal-Mart's most surreal act is the manner in which it
> guts local
> > economies, promotes its totally fascist notions of "we are
> family" while
> > paying the lowest wage possible, and uses the money it robs from
> the local
> > economies to support typical right-wing trash.
>
> i think its their use of $5-7/hr employees rather than $100/hr
> models in their print advertising.
>
>
this is the best of all possible worlds. "We Are Family" indeed... you
always hurt the one you love...
I had a similar reaction several years ago when that odious troll Dave who
owns Wendy's had a commercial in which he claimed his solution to the rising
cost of food and basics was to offer the customer a cheap heart attack on a
bun, all the while surrounded by his little sub-avergae wage slaves. I
wanted to pull his little weasel eyes out and play jacks with them.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
> since reality (and "self") emerges from our actions, those who act
> according to "beliefs" they don't really "believe" are creating a
> reality (and "self") that is deliberately false -- deceiving
> others
> while falsifying their own existence.
>
> there are no lower in my estimation.
>
>
I thought that experimentation was good.
You mean that everyone that tries to look through other eyes is
intentionally out to deceive you?
What does "falsifying their own existence" mean?
Aeon
and
>Again, Nik, why are Dali's "melting watches" important? Not because they
>provoked anyone, but because they are taking two "rational" opposites
>[solid/liquid] and combining them. This really has nothing to do with
>"shocking" the view, but rather "shocking" the painter/creator. Can you
>quote a Surrealist, even Dali in his early years, who states that his/her
>main objective is to "shock" the viewer?
I just wanted to see if you were interested in peeking at the
"Surrealism: shocking?" thread, where we could discuss the idea of
provoking or shocking on purpose as a part of surrealism.
diva...@my-deja.com
Nikolaus Maack
> I really enjoy experimental noise. I can see why these things would
> be hard to post. Do you have a website?
If someone would like to broadcast their weird sounds over the net, I
recommend checking out ( http://www.live365.com ) Live 365 not only
broadcasts approx 3,000 channels of music, it gives you the opportunity to
broadcast your own stuff.
A number of individual music makers play their stuff there. Most of the
freelancers I've seen do techno mixes and the like. Experimental noise
would definitely have a place there.
Nikolaus Maack
> Last night I post a description of a picture I drew while watching my
> roommate's band play. I am positive that this picture was not done to "show
> off" or to "be cool" but rather was done for my own creative impulse.
How can you be sure why you do anything, Brandon? What motivates you?
What *really* motivates you in your little gutty-wuts? How can you know,
absolutely, 100%, with certainty? You can't. We do not have access to
100% of our own minds. That's what surrealism is about, remember? We try
to find out what's IN there, what we can't see. Express the subconscious,
make it conscious.
If you tell me, "I know the reason I did this. I know, for sure, why,"
then I wonder if you understand the basic principles of surrealism and the
subconscious. How can you know? You can't.
> Tell me Nik, in your opinion what is the difference between Surrealism and
> Dada? Please be as specific as possible.
A dadist yells. A surrealist yells in their sleep.
Nikolaus Maack
> get a grip, if you think Nik is honest, perhaps there
> is nothing that can be done for you. His posts speak for themselves.
The dogs of Australia are howling in the outback,
their fur sleek and wet with blood and cunt froth.
Kristina lies back in her garden chair, a dry martini
in one of her slime-slicked paws, as spent as a
dollar bill the day after Christmas.
Fascinan
>The dogs of Australia are howling in the outback,
>their fur sleek and wet with blood and cunt froth.
>Kristina lies back in her garden chair, a dry martini
>in one of her slime-slicked paws, as spent as a dollar bill the day after
Christmas.
eh...Dingo Dominatrix?
john adams
>
> john adams wrote:
> > If someone
> > went to Wal-Mart to buy a globe for instance, you might consider this to
> > be surrealism in the truest sense.
>
> I bought my spouse a 3-dimensional puzzle of Rodin’s “The Kiss” at
> Wal-Mart. The miniature was cut into cracker-thin slices which had to be
> stacked around a pole. The finished sculpture looks like kitsch from a
> few paces back, but close-up the segmentation is obvious and the thing
> looks quite strange, and bends to the touch.
>
> -- Parry
>
Well i see wal mart IS capable of true surrealism. I just may decide to
start shopping there for all of my surrealist household items!
john
john adams
>
> I really enjoy experimental noise. I can see why these things would
> be hard to post. Do you have a website?
http://members.aol.com/galactor5
> I find music to be an interesting way to explore imagination, emotion,
> and so on. There is often music that will whisk my mind away to
> other places, and so intensely that I will get lost in the music until
> the "song" is over.
>
> I've used music in the past to direct my artwork and poetry. Sound is
> incredible stuff.
Are you going to be posting anything in the future?
> orlan
Like i said, there isn't much there in the way of music currently.
john
john adams
>
> "Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> > Last night I post a description of a picture I drew while watching my
> > roommate's band play. I am positive that this picture was not done to "show
> > off" or to "be cool" but rather was done for my own creative impulse.
>
> How can you be sure why you do anything, Brandon? What motivates you?
> What *really* motivates you in your little gutty-wuts? How can you know,
> absolutely, 100%, with certainty? You can't. We do not have access to
> 100% of our own minds. That's what surrealism is about, remember? We try
> to find out what's IN there, what we can't see. Express the subconscious,
> make it conscious.
>
> If you tell me, "I know the reason I did this. I know, for sure, why,"
> then I wonder if you understand the basic principles of surrealism and the
> subconscious.
This coming from one who does not.
> How can you know? You can't.
>
> > Tell me Nik, in your opinion what is the difference between Surrealism and
> > Dada? Please be as specific as possible.
>
> A dadist yells. A surrealist yells in their sleep.
>
> Nik
>
>
Contention exemplified.
john
mike...
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> I think we are beginning to discuss several different things here. I must
> admit that I have several friends who went through periods of "trying out
> different belief systems" when struggling with their "identity" and while I
> see these people as running and hiding, I don't see them as attempting to
> shock anyone. In fact, I think meddling with your masks, becoming a seeker,
> is the only hope to one day prying them all off.
>
> On the other hand, I feel that there are still those who hide under masks
> which they believe are designed to shock people in their respective bubbles.
> These people are also fearful of who they are, but they pretend that this
> mask is "rebellious" in some fashion from their surrounding bubble, and that
> to them is its justification. This idea only hides the true reason. We can
> even see this coming from a non-"rebellious" conformist mask, where an
> individual hides from reality simply by trying to "fit in" with their
> respective bubble.
[note: i missed a lot of this thread]
it's understandable, i think, that people change their mind/world view
(especially while they're growing up/"struggling with identity"), and so end up
"trying on" different belief systems.
the difference between these people, and this (hypothetical?) person that seems
to be the center of the discussion, is that i don't think these people
deliberately choose their "mask." for whatever reason, people hold certain
views, and so adopt some group identity-name. maybe they do it to further
develop their belief, strengthen their belief, express their belief by shouting,
"i'm an XXX" everywhere they go, give their belief a foundation...whatever.
this other person, according to aeon, "[tries] on different belief systems and
actually [goes] so far as to believe in that particular belief for up to a month
or so at a time before shedding it and moving on."
i personally don't see how this is possible. they just open a philosophy book,
point and choose, and then actually /convince/ themselves to believe it? how can
you force a belief on yourself? unless your mind is a completely blank slate.
you can pretend to believe in something (for what purpose?), but i don't think
we can really play a very active role in choosing our world view. the fact that
this person "sheds" their belief-of-the-month so nonchalantly is further proof
that they never really believed in it in the first place. if someone honestly
thinks they know the "truth," which is pretty much the point of a belief system,
i think it would be rather difficult to just toss it away and adopt something
totally new and different.
this flavor of the month experiment seems like it would actually be rather
dangerous. what if the person actually did start to believe in something, and
got stuck in it?
kind of off topic again....mike
Nikolaus Maack
> http://members.aol.com/galactor5
> Like i said, there isn't much there in the way of music currently.
Don't be so modest:
http://members.aol.com/galactor5/music.htm
I'm listening to it right now.
"In the remains of a jawbone" is so very quiet I can barely hear it.
Repetitive, hypnotic, and interesting. I like it. A slow, low, groove.
I wish it went on forever. I kind of get the feeling you do too, as you
play it. Guitar meditation.
"The latest edition to the guitar family..." link seems to be busted. It
tries to go to "members.aol.com/itsasong1.mp3". Using my super amazing
powers of deduction, I assume the correct link is:
http://members.aol.com/galactor5/itsasong1.mp3
And lo and behold, it works. You might wanna fix that, John.
"itsasong" is strangely humble. So is the "jawbone" piece. This second
track meanders for a bit and then -- suddenly -- stops. A bit of a shock.
I almost get the impression you're playing in the room next to where your
girlfriend is sleeping, and you don't want to wake her up. Mellow is
good -- I like mellow -- but I get a weird "overly modest" vibe from this
music.
Not to bust your chops, but maybe something a little more daring would be
nice?
Ah, but I say this without having listened to track3.
Track 3 is busted in exactly the same way track 2 is. A quick fix, and I
get to hear a brief sample of some slide guitar playing. Oh well.
More?
john adams
Yeah, thats all exactly right. The tracks are old and no means a
representation of much.
Actually though, the jawbone track was something i just made up the
other day. I played it through one time, began recording, resolved to
preoccupy myself consciously as little as possible while doing so, and
improvised some from the first time i played it. So i liked it from the
standpoint that it was very spontaneous and raw, anyway. Everytime i
pick up the guitar a new song (or several) comes, and then just as
quickly vanishes. I do plan on uploading more, after i move the site and
redecorate.
john
john