Art, the Subconscious and Politics
dale houstman
<fluffy...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:87vsef$bh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The Revolution is not coming. Political imperialism, the thing that
> has spurred most of the revolutions of the the past three centuries, is
> all but gone, replaced with cultural and economic imperialism or home-
> based tyranny. The new revolutions will not be spectacular.
>
> Probably, but this depends. Only a week or so before the stock market
> crash of 29, newspapers were speaking of a permanent prosperity. Truth
> is these twists cannot be predicted. If there is another huge
> international depression, a new deck will have been dealt, for good and
> bad and indifferent.
>
> I don't disagree with you. But the stock market crash did not
> precipitate any violent revolutions or governmental overthrows.
Well, as I said, this was the beginning of the worldwide depression, which
(in Germany) led to the Wiemar Republic and... well we know THAT story!
Truth is almost all revolutions are precipitated by economic disasters,
either widespread or localized. Oppression or deflation or inflation. That
these economic inequalities are often couched in social criticism or class
warfare, doesn't remove them from the material. Most revolutions explode
because someone ain't getting what they want.
> may have HELPED in a way to create the conditions for a fascist takeover
> in German and Italy, but it was only one element, and those were not
> revolutions.
We could argue the definition of "revolution" here: the Russian Revolution -
though not entirely caused by economic processes (who's talking purism of
intent and motivation in terms of mutli-facted historical movements?) surely
has that in the mix. But all I was saying - by using a financial example in
this case - was that even the supposed "science" of economics cannot predict
what is going to happen next week, much less a year or more down the track.
I don't - solely on that basis - rule out revolution as a possibilty. The
unpredictability of such complex systems is perhaps their saving grace, for
that represents hope.
> Nor were there revolutions to get rid of them. The Left
> has been sitting around for the bulk of this century talking about and
> waiting for the next big glorious revolution. It ain't gonna happen.
The Left has a lot to answer for. But - if you assume that some form of
revolution isn't ever gonna happen - why should the Left have gotten up off
their haunches to begin with? Don't get me wrong: I don't expect this to
occur either. But I have learned that very surprising events suddenly
coalesce out of seemingly unrelated and passive elements. If the occurences
at Seattle (which caught many people by surprise) can and do come to pass, I
see no reason to suppose even larger events of a similar type cannot occur.
Large enough and it's - at the very least - a revolt.
>
> I don't know what a TRUE self might be unless you are referring to a
> process.
>
> I think of the true self as being one's personality, hopes , desires,
> etc., unmitigated by social, political and economic expectations. Who
> are we when we're not playing roles?
Good question: I am not sure "we" are anyone when we're not playing roles.
It is perhaps the nature of these roles I find argument with. Identities
don't really exist as isolated events or "things" but as a complex interplay
of defensive postures, learned responses, "rewarded tics" etc.
> . . .the more estranged from yourself, your god, your hopes and
> desires, etc.
>
> what's this "god" schtick?
>
>But if I were to say that I was a theist of some kind, would I be expelled
as a surrealist? (Even worse than not doing my homework??)
This is a possibility I think (although I would tend to think of it as a
"self exile"), and MUCH worse than not doing your homework!
DMH
fluffy...@prodigy.net
has spurred most of the revolutions of the the past three centuries, is
all but gone, replaced with cultural and economic imperialism or home-
based tyranny. The new revolutions will not be spectacular.
Probably, but this depends. Only a week or so before the stock market
crash of 29, newspapers were speaking of a permanent prosperity. Truth
is these twists cannot be predicted. If there is another huge
international depression, a new deck will have been dealt, for good and
bad and indifferent.
I don't disagree with you. But the stock market crash did not
precipitate any violent revolutions or governmental overthrows. It
may have HELPED in a way to create the conditions for a fascist takeover
in German and Italy, but it was only one element, and those were not
revolutions. Nor were there revolutions to get rid of them. The Left
has been sitting around for the bulk of this century talking about and
waiting for the next big glorious revolution. It ain't gonna happen.
We should work to make our lives a waking dream state, and thus to be
close to our creativity and close to our TRUE selves.
I don't know what a TRUE self might be unless you are referring to a
process.
I think of the true self as being one's personality, hopes , desires,
etc., unmitigated by social, political and economic expectations. Who
are we when we're not playing roles?
Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe: One of the
characters says "I'll my life I've wanted to be someone. Now I realize
I should have been more specific."
. . .the more estranged from yourself, your god, your hopes and
desires, etc.
what's this "god" schtick?
I'm not a member of the Religious Right or anything. But I do believe
in spirituality, and I do believe that's another area where we have
been cut off from ourselves. Not in that crappy new agey kind of
enlightenment-of-the-month kind of spirituality. But a general
connection with whatever exists that is "more than us", that creates
ecstasy within us, etc. Beyond that, I am not sure I want to go into
my personal beliefs. But if I were to say that I was a theist of some
kind, would I be expelled as a surrealist? (Even worse than not doing
my homework??)
Thanks for an intelligent reply that actually addresses my original
post. I was starting to lose heart.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
fluffy...@prodigy.net
revolution isn't ever gonna happen - why should the Left have gotten up
off their haunches to begin with? Don't get me wrong: I don't expect
this to occur either. But I have learned that very surprising events
suddenly coalesce out of seemingly unrelated and passive elements. If
the occurences at Seattle (which caught many people by surprise) can
and do come to pass, I see no reason to suppose even larger events of a
similar type cannot occur. Large enough and it's - at the very least -
a revolt.
I'm not saying that it's all hopeless, so why try. But I think we're
wasting our time hanging around waiting for the second "American
Revolution" (freedom: the Sequel). As I see it, the new "revolution"
is not going to be as big and romantic as what attracts people to
radical politics. It's the daily hard work. My experience is that
it's at the level of the mundane--fighting the ongoing battles. Big
demonstrations are fun, but they're the PR of the revolt and in this
country at least, rarely represent the revolt itself or the heart of it.
They're street theatre, as Abbie Hoffman used to describe it.
Recruitment perhaps. But the people drawn to the demonstrations are
not always the ones willing to slog the time doing the boring day to day
stuff that goes into it. I am not totally in favor of a personal is
political stance, but there's an element of that to it. (Not in the
apologetics way that Yoko Ono justified selling Revolution to Nike by
saying that the fitness craze was a "personal revolution"! That is
what perverts the personal/political link!!!)
But if I were to say that I was a theist of some kind, would I be
expelled as a surrealist? (Even worse than not doing my homework??)
>
This is a possibility I think (although I would tend to think of it as a
"self exile"), and MUCH worse than not doing your homework!
don't know what to say about that. I just believe in a spiritual
realm. I don't think that's out of line with surrealism--definitely
in light of the seances, for example. In order to contact the dead,
you HAVE to believe in something that lives on after the body.
>
> DMH
Andrea Chen
> Well, as I said, this was the beginning of the worldwide depression, which
> (in Germany) led to the Wiemar Republic and... well we know THAT story!
It's clear that you don't. The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919, not
1929.
barrett john erickson
news:87vsef$bh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> We should work to make our lives a waking dream state, and thus
to be
> close to our creativity and close to our TRUE selves.
>
>> I don't know what a TRUE self might be unless you are referring
to a
>> process.
>
> I think of the true self as being one's personality, hopes ,
desires,
> etc., unmitigated by social, political and economic
expectations. Who
> are we when we're not playing roles?
i think it would be interesting to investigate this in the context
of the implications of "spirituality".
> . . .the more estranged from yourself, your god, your hopes and
> desires, etc.
>
>> what's this "god" schtick?
>
> I'm not a member of the Religious Right or anything. But I do
believe
> in spirituality, and I do believe that's another area where we
have
> been cut off from ourselves. Not in that crappy new agey kind
of
> enlightenment-of-the-month kind of spirituality. But a general
> connection with whatever exists that is "more than us", that
creates
> ecstasy within us, etc. Beyond that, I am not sure I want to go
into
> my personal beliefs. But if I were to say that I was a theist
of some
> kind, would I be expelled as a surrealist? (Even worse than not
doing
> my homework??)
>
the problem with "spirituality" is revealed by your answer. you
feel the need of further explanation to avoid being confused with
"that crappy new agey kind of enlightenment-of-the-month kind of
spirituality". but while i may not know what you specifically
mean by the term, the truth you acknowledge is that "spirituality"
is a _very_ sloppy concept and includes a vast range of attitudes
and activity which can quite accurately be called anti-surrealist.
as such i think any sympathetic use in surrealist dialog is
regressive and demands to be challenged as a needless
mystification of human processes.
theism, however, has a more specific meaning that implies a
_surrender_ of the imagination to _belief_ in a concept or force
of higher "authority" or "authenticity" (i.e., that our lives are
shaped by something other than our creative living -- something
'more than us'). this cannot be construed as anything but an
enemy of the surrealist project.
now, there have been those here who have argued that they create
and modify and destroy such deity at will, and that their "belief"
is in some kind of neutered puppet they claim to master and
doesn't, therefore, constitute such a surrender. and there have
been others who have argued that their "deity" is something so
nebulous that it takes no clear shape and demands no belief.
but in either case, such people are guilty of mystifications just
as reprehensible. because the effect of all such concepts is to
alienate our lives from the marvelous, rendering it distant and
unexplorable -- the result of processes beyond our capabilities or
influence.
but the surrealist project seeks to _enhance_reality_ by
integrating the imagination (a spontaneous sense of poetic
dimensions, the marvelous, intuitive desire, etc.) into our _daily
living_ -- into our immediate experience. it is diametrically
opposed to all that would alienate us from that most direct and
total experience, or distance us from the responsibility to
_perpetually_create_that_experience_.
significantly, the most recent cognitive studies and the resulting
models indicate that the "self" -- indeed, all of what we call
"reality" -- is a construction formed from rationalizations of
spontaneous behavior (i.e., spontaneous acts of environmental
investigation and the pursuit of intuitive desire).
in light of this, the surrealist project amounts to an exploratory
and experimental project of authentic living in the reality that
we have interactively discovered/created and is, therefore, very
much in line with the converging vectors of modern science, while
"spiritual" or "theistic" concepts remain isolated in their
fundamental insistence on some level of sacrifice that confines
the benefits of exploration, investigation and discovery in the
chains of belief.
[this is not to say that social processes are not "more than us"
(in that they are processes a level of complexity higher than the
individual human), but they remain fundamentally _human_ in scope.
it is also not to say that there isn't an action threshold, beyond
which we cannot "comprehend", at the very basic levels of
cognition. but these require no leap of faith to explore.]
-- barrett
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
barrett john erickson wrote
barrett john erickson
news:20000211205637...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> >theism, however, has a more specific meaning that implies a
> >_surrender_ of the imagination to _belief_ in a concept or
force
> >of higher "authority" or "authenticity" (i.e., that our lives
are
> >shaped by something other than our creative living -- something
> >'more than us').
> >this cannot be construed as anything but an enemy of the
surrealist project
>
> i disagree -- could be reading your post a little askew to your
intentions
> though. the religious experience, being totally subjective,
requires a very
> healthy imagination. the *problem* as i see it, is closing the
mind to any/all
> other possibilities once something is rooted in the
imagination -- absolutism
> as danger. and i suppose, for many believers, there can be no
middle ground
> concerning something so absolute as a supreme being. however, to
be "captured"
> by a subjective experience that is so powerful that it becomes
temporary truth
> is not necessarily an enemy of the surrealist project. Max
Ernst was captured
> by extreme details on the surface of objects, and birds. for a
time, he became
> a part of his imagination: a birdman. for a time, this
fascination dominated
> max's work. isn't this surrender to his own imagination similar
a "religious"
> surrender to supernal, inexplicable forces?
the surrender inherent in theism is the surrender of a dynamically
inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints of
an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
this is the surrender of the imagination to an ideological
conclusion or (more likely) a conditioned response. an
imagination engaged in an auto-asphyxic ritual is not compatible
with "surrealism".
> i guess what i'm struggling to say is: how does one delineate
acts of
> imagination that are possibly detrimental to the surrealist
project? perhaps
> it *is* critical for the imagination to remain as open as
possible, perceiving
> and conceptualizing paradigms as significant to a specific
context. barrett,
> you can probably articulate this much better.
certainly the liberated imagination cannot be detrimental to the
surrealist project. the project exists -- i would argue from a
modern rethinking of its history that it has always existed -- to
give the imagination its rightful place as our most complex and
evolved sense in exploring/creating our reality.
but theism is an imagination's suicide -- the act of someone who
has come to, or more likely accepted, a conclusion about how
things are and how they got that way (to be contrasted with
someone who is continually exploring and experimenting with a
reality that is ever fresh).
> i just think think is too easy of a claim to say theism (all
religion) is a
> black and white road that leads 180 degrees away from surrealism
street. i'm
> sure there are orthodox priests who have amazing imaginations,
who are artists,
> who question and re-interpet their own beliefs, and who even
defy the rigidity
> of their own faith in favor of dynamic integrations.
i'm sure there are too, but it isn't enough to be imaginative to
be a considered a surrealist by surrealists. "surrealism" has a
current context that has been 80 years in the forming.
surrealist investigations and theoretical explorations have
already shown many paths to be dead ends and many others have been
revealed as deceptively dangerous "wrong ways" relative to the
project and the continued development of that project.
"surrealism" demands the continuous rebellion against all received
ideas and external controls -- even those that emerge from within.
conversely, all religions, pseudo-, quasi-, or even fake religions
encourage some degree of surrender to received ideas or external
controls, if only to perpetuate the charade.
> a preist can still be blown away by seeing Andromeda with the
naked eye, even
> if he/she does rationalize this marvel as glory to god; the
interpretation does
> not diminish the sense of wonder brought on by the spectacle.
but in the end the priest is still someone who sublimates
intuitive desires (totally or in part) to an internalized external
authority ("god" "church" "celibacy" "morality" etc.).
it may not be inconceivable that he might still be a personal
friend of some surrealist, maybe even an ally of "surrealism"
under most circumstances, but there are some perspectives that are
inherently incompatible with acceptance as a surrealist by
surrealists.
fluffy...@prodigy.net
> the problem with "spirituality" is revealed by your answer. you
> feel the need of further explanation to avoid being confused with
> "that crappy new agey kind of enlightenment-of-the-month kind of
> spirituality". but while i may not know what you specifically
> mean by the term, the truth you acknowledge is that "spirituality"
> is a _very_ sloppy concept and includes a vast range of attitudes
> and activity which can quite accurately be called anti-surrealist.
>
> as such i think any sympathetic use in surrealist dialog is
> regressive and demands to be challenged as a needless
> mystification of human processes.
Well, the point of my original manifesto on the website is not
necessarily to be Surrealist per se. I made mention of "your god",
with a lower case g, simply to stand in for the spiritual realm.
theism, however, has a more specific meaning that implies a
_surrender_ of the imagination to _belief_ in a concept or force
> of higher "authority" or "authenticity" (i.e., that our lives are
> shaped by something other than our creative living -- something
> 'more than us'). this cannot be construed as anything but an
> enemy of the surrealist project.
I don't think it necessarily has to imply surrender. That may be the
result of how it is approached. There is more to this world than what
we see and are aware of. The subconscious, but also forces in
general. Synchronicities, collective consciousness and unconscious,
etc. You can call them by whatever you name you want to.
Again, I don't really intent to get into any kind of theological
discussion on this site. It's a very complex issue for me. But I
certainly don't see atheism as an absolute prerequisite for
surrealism. Nor do I necessarily believe that surrealism inherently
has a spiritual side to it. I believe this rests with the individual.
We explore our creativity--wherever we believe it to come from. I am
not, sitting in the corner shouting Thank You Jesus every time I write
a poem. But there are explorations of ALL kinds that I think are worth
having. I think that to declare someone's spiritual leanings as the
enemy of surrealism point blank can be limiting.
> now, there have been those here who have argued that they create
> and modify and destroy such deity at will, and that their "belief"
> is in some kind of neutered puppet they claim to master and
> doesn't, therefore, constitute such a surrender. and there have
> been others who have argued that their "deity" is something so
> nebulous that it takes no clear shape and demands no belief.
I believe that in some ways, notions of God are constructs. We each
develop our own spirituality along the lines of what we are looking
for. Some people obviously need to feel guilty, or to have the threat
of punishment hanging over their heads, and so create or are drawn to
those kinds of systems. Some people need a 12-step "higher power" to
run their lives for them. I am not professing any kind of absolute
statement about any kind of god. I have my own feelings about the
subject, and I know that they are extremely subjecting. I also know
that I have had ecstatic experiences, some very recently, and that
causes me to believe that there is something in this universe larger
than any one of us. Call it whatever you want--I have no desire to
impose my own thoughts about it onto anyone else.
>
> but in either case, such people are guilty of mystifications just
> as reprehensible. because the effect of all such concepts is to
> alienate our lives from the marvelous, rendering it distant and
> unexplorable -- the result of processes beyond our capabilities or
> influence.
I don't see that it HAS to alienate us from the marvelous. I don't
think that is a necessary conclusion or next step.
>
but the surrealist project seeks to _enhance_reality_ by
integrating the imagination (a spontaneous sense of poetic
dimensions, the marvelous, intuitive desire, etc.) into our _daily
living_ -- into our immediate experience. it is diametrically
opposed to all that would alienate us from that most direct and
total experience, or distance us from the responsibility to
_perpetually_create_that_experience_.
Again, I don't think that what you are saying necessarily contradicts
where I am coming from. The "spiritual realm" does not distance us
from the responsibility to create experience or to engage the world or
to enhance reality.
significantly, the most recent cognitive studies and the resulting
models indicate that the "self" -- indeed, all of what we call
"reality" -- is a construction formed from rationalizations of
spontaneous behavior (i.e., spontaneous acts of environmental
investigation and the pursuit of intuitive desire).
in light of this, the surrealist project amounts to an exploratory
and experimental project of authentic living in the reality that
we have interactively discovered/created and is, therefore, very
much in line with the converging vectors of modern science, while
"spiritual" or "theistic" concepts remain isolated in their
fundamental insistence on some level of sacrifice that confines
the benefits of exploration, investigation and discovery in the
chains of belief.
I don't necessarily agree with you. Again, this may frequently be the
result, but I don't think it has to be the case. I certainly view my
life as an attempt at authentic living. Maybe the difference in what
we're talking about is your use of the word concepts. Perhaps you are
viewing all of this from an institutional stand point. I have told
people that my "religion" is that I am looking for a plausible heresy--
something that makes sense to me. But we all have an ethos, for
example, of how we walk through the world, that is informed by
something. Mine is definitely not formed by chains of belief, but by
examining what different people believe and thinking about what is
"authentic" in it, what germ of truth might have once resided there.
Would you feel better if I called myself a "mystic" than a "theist"?
It's all just terminology and construct. You say tomato . . .
I was just chatting with a friend of mine who is Jewish, and she said
the thing she likes about Judaism is that you can question anything,
even the existence of god. That is, at the very least, her impression
of it. I don't see that you have to be shackled by it--people CHOOSE
to be shackled by religion, or god, the way they choose to be shackled
in their jobs, in their marriages, etc.
Actually, I like that example, let's go with it. Many marriages are
based on domination and conforming to your partner's wishes or notions
of who you should be. Would you categorically declare marriage to be
the enemy of surrealism? Because many of us find corporations to be
dead ends creatively, would you declare all WORK at all to be the enemy
of surrealism? Or is it not the "institution" and the way it is
carried out that keeps us from exploring our authentic, creative selves?
Fascinan
>theism, however, has a more specific meaning that implies a
>_surrender_ of the imagination to _belief_ in a concept or force
>of higher "authority" or "authenticity" (i.e., that our lives are
>shaped by something other than our creative living -- something
>'more than us').
>this cannot be construed as anything but an enemy of the surrealist project
i disagree -- could be reading your post a little askew to your intentions
though. the religious experience, being totally subjective, requires a very
healthy imagination. the *problem* as i see it, is closing the mind to any/all
other possibilities once something is rooted in the imagination -- absolutism
as danger. and i suppose, for many believers, there can be no middle ground
concerning something so absolute as a supreme being. however, to be "captured"
by a subjective experience that is so powerful that it becomes temporary truth
is not necessarily an enemy of the surrealist project. Max Ernst was captured
by extreme details on the surface of objects, and birds. for a time, he became
a part of his imagination: a birdman. for a time, this fascination dominated
max's work. isn't this surrender to his own imagination similar a "religious"
surrender to supernal, inexplicable forces?
i guess what i'm struggling to say is: how does one delineate acts of
imagination that are possibly detrimental to the surrealist project? perhaps
it *is* critical for the imagination to remain as open as possible, perceiving
and conceptualizing paradigms as significant to a specific context. barrett,
you can probably articulate this much better.
i just think think is too easy of a claim to say theism (all religion) is a
black and white road that leads 180 degrees away from surrealism street. i'm
sure there are orthodox priests who have amazing imaginations, who are artists,
who question and re-interpet their own beliefs, and who even defy the rigidity
of their own faith in favor of dynamic integrations.
a preist can still be blown away by seeing Andromeda with the naked eye, even
if he/she does rationalize this marvel as glory to god; the interpretation does
not diminish the sense of wonder brought on by the spectacle.
Fas (okay, I tried to be serious there -- it was hard)
fluffy...@prodigy.net
an anti-orthodoxy. That was one thing that eventually drove me out of
leftist politics--you can never be PURE enough or good enough.
Whatever you are doing, there is always an element that you are
lacking.
I think that anything that is a part of you, so long as it doesn't
inhibit your creative exploration and does not inhibit the creativity
and the self of others, is valid, and that you can still harbor it and
call yourself a surrealist. Notice, that I emphasize both--the self
and other. So that you cannot, for example, be a surrealist member of
the KKK. You could not be a surrealist Pope, because that does require
you to shackle others to your words, your "rules", etc. But certainly,
I do not want one entire area of my life that I find interesting cut
off from me so that I can fit into being considered a "good" surrealist.
fluffy...@prodigy.net
in the near future to pay homage to your effort at seriousness. I was
wondering if anyone on this forum was going to come to my defense.
In article <20000211205637...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
fasc...@aol.com (Fascinan) wrote:
> barrett:
>
> >theism, however, has a more specific meaning that implies a
> >_surrender_ of the imagination to _belief_ in a concept or force
> >of higher "authority" or "authenticity" (i.e., that our lives are
> >shaped by something other than our creative living -- something
> >'more than us').
> >this cannot be construed as anything but an enemy of the surrealist
fluffy...@prodigy.net
inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints of
an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
Again--I disagree. Anything that humans can think of can be rethought
and looked at in a new way--the more sources you draw upon, the more
you take a concept--any concept--and make it your own, and from there
you can continue to explore AND reject any element or aspect of it.
> but theism is an imagination's suicide -- the act of someone who
> has come to, or more likely accepted, a conclusion about how
> things are and how they got that way (to be contrasted with
> someone who is continually exploring and experimenting with a
> reality that is ever fresh).
>
> "surrealism" demands the continuous rebellion against all received
> ideas and external controls -- even those that emerge from within.
> conversely, all religions, pseudo-, quasi-, or even fake religions
> encourage some degree of surrender to received ideas or external
> controls, if only to perpetuate the charade.
>
>
>
> Again, you are talking about orthodoxies, about establishments and
codes of belief. This is why I did NOT describe myself as a catholic,
a jew, a buddhist, etc., but as a theist. Merely, someone who believes
in something outside of myself. And again, I see it as one more realm
of my life and my ideas for exploration.
Fascinan
>the surrender inherent in theism is the surrender of a dynamically
>inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints of
>an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
under this argument, is it fair to say that atheism is equally at odds with the
surrealist project as theism is? atheism is also an accepted conclusion, a
limiting conclusion to possibilities beyond current explanations. by your
arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist *should* lean towards
agnosticism?
Fas
Nikolaus Maack
> but theism is an imagination's suicide -- the act of someone who
> has come to, or more likely accepted, a conclusion about how
> things are and how they got that way (to be contrasted with
> someone who is continually exploring and experimenting with a
> reality that is ever fresh).
Why do I get the feeling you are, once again, reviewing a movie you
haven't seen?
Theism is imagination's suicide? Finding God means a cease to exploration
and experimentation? Brother, when's the last time you looked at
religion? I'm not just talking starched collar Christians sprawled in
their pews on any given Sunday. Take a look at the pagans, brother. Have
a gander at some Wiccans some time. Open your eyes, on occasion. Live a
little outside your circle of protection chalked on your intellectual
floor.
> "surrealism" demands the continuous rebellion against all received
> ideas and external controls -- even those that emerge from within.
Practice what you preach, brother Barrett. Rebel against your own ideas.
Turn the other cheek, and see who's standing behind you. God is your
imaginary friend, and he's buying the first round of beer.
Nik
--
UPDATED! Feb 2nd, 2000 -- go look!
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
elag
>
> barrett:
>
> >the surrender inherent in theism is the surrender of a dynamically
> >inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints of
> >an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
>
> surrealist project as theism is? atheism is also an accepted conclusion, a
> limiting conclusion to possibilities beyond current explanations. by your
> arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist *should* lean towards
> agnosticism?
That is my position.
Leo Sgouros
"elag" <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:38A4E4D3...@concentric.net...
> Fascinan wrote:
> >
> > barrett:
> >
> > >the surrender inherent in theism is the surrender of a dynamically
> > >inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints of
> > >an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
> >
with the
> > surrealist project as theism is? atheism is also an accepted
conclusion, a
> > limiting conclusion to possibilities beyond current explanations. by
your
> > arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist *should* lean
towards
> > agnosticism?
>
>
> That is my position.
me too
<g>
john adams
> > has come to, or more likely accepted, a conclusion about how
> > things are and how they got that way (to be contrasted with
> > someone who is continually exploring and experimenting with a
> > reality that is ever fresh).
>
> haven't seen?
>
Because you're lost with your head in the sand. POP up, look around now
and again. Reality is standing right in front of you with a wet towel.
john
barrett john erickson
spiritual
[adj] 1) of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit or incorporeal
being. 2) of or pertaining to the spirit or soul as distinguished
from the physical nature. 3) characterized by or suggesting
predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined. 4) of
or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious
nature. 5) of or pertaining to sacred things; pertaining to or
belonging to the church; ecclesiastical; religious; devotional;
sacred. 6) of or relating to the conscious thoughts and emotions.
[n] 7) a spiritual or religious song: Negro spirituals. 8)
affairs of the church. 9) a spiritual thing or matter.
spiritualism
[n] 1) the belief or doctrine that the spirits of the dead,
surviving after the mortal life, can and do communicate with the
living, esp. through a person (a medium) particularly susceptible
to their influence. 2) the practices or the phenomena associated
with this belief. 3) the belief that all reality is spiritual.
4) [metaphysical] idealism. 5) spiritual quality or tendency. 6)
insistence on the spiritual side of things as in philosophy or
religion.
theism
[n] 1) the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the
universe. 2) belief in the existence of a God or gods (opposed to
atheism).
God
[n] 1) the one Supreme Being. 2) the Supreme Being considered
with reference to a particular attribute: as in the God of
justice. 3) [lower case] a deity, esp. a male deity, presiding
over some portion of worldly affairs. 4) [cap or lc] a supreme
being according to some particular conception: as in the god of
pantheism. 5) [lc] an image of a deity; an idol. 6) [lc] any
deified person or object.
deity
[n] 1) a god or goddess. 2) divine in character or nature. 3)
the estate or rank of a god. 4) the character or nature of the
Supreme Being. 5) the Deity, God.
belief
[n] 1) that which is believed; an accepted opinion. 2) conviction
of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds
insufficient to afford positive knowledge. 3) confidence; faith;
trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4) a religious tenet or
tenets: the christian belief.
mysticism
[n] 1) the beliefs, ideas, or mode of thought of mystics. 2) the
doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to
transcend ordinary understanding, of a direct, intimate union of
the soul with the Divinity through contemplation and love. 3)
obscure thought or speculation.
some were subjected to surrealist investigation (in less
"scientifically enlightened" times) and found to be dead ends.
but tell me how the use of any of these terms in any of their
possible definitions can be defended in the context of
"surrealism" _as it exists today_.
[there are more accurate, illuminating and energizing ways to
discuss thoughts and emotions than "spiritual" #6. "spiritualism"
#4 refers to "idealism" as a philosophical concept that
essentially denies a common physical reality. all the remaining
definitions hinge on the acceptance of some external ideology or
authority.]
there is no _need_ to use terms so corrupted by religious
connotation in a surrealist context, and i can see no
justification for using them with other definitions unless the
intent is to obfuscate.
<fluffy...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:882j01$ahq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> the problem with "spirituality" is revealed by your answer.
>> you feel the need of further explanation to avoid being
confused
>> with "that crappy new agey kind of enlightenment-of-the-month
kind
>> of spirituality". but while i may not know what you
specifically
>> mean by the term, the truth you acknowledge is that
>> "spirituality" is a _very_ sloppy concept and includes a vast
range of
>> attitudes and activity which can quite accurately be called
>> anti-surrealist.
>>
>> as such i think any sympathetic use in surrealist dialog is
>> regressive and demands to be challenged as a needless
>> mystification of human processes.
>
> Well, the point of my original manifesto on the website is not
> necessarily to be Surrealist per se. I made mention of "your
> god", with a lower case g, simply to stand in for the spiritual
realm.
they are interchangeably offensive concepts due to their
unavoidable connotations.
> theism, however, has a more specific meaning that implies a
> _surrender_ of the imagination to _belief_ in a concept or
> force of higher "authority" or "authenticity" (i.e., that our
lives
> are
>> shaped by something other than our creative living --
>> something
>> 'more than us'). this cannot be construed as anything but an
>> enemy of the surrealist project.
>
> I don't think it necessarily has to imply surrender. That may
in light of the above definitions, i fail to see how it could be
interpreted otherwise.
>
> be the result of how it is approached. There is more to this
world
> than what we see and are aware of. The subconscious, but also
forces in
> general. Synchronicities, collective consciousness and
> unconscious, etc. You can call them by whatever you name you
want to.
how i may or may not refer to such things is not the issue.
if, as your statement indicates, what you are talking about can be
described without taking on the burden of religious terminology --
described with _more accuracy_, in ways grounded in our direct
experience and open to investigation, ways that imply the marvels
of reality yet to be explored without reducing them to mystical
banalities -- why don't you?
>
> Again, I don't really intent to get into any kind of theological
> discussion on this site. It's a very complex issue for me. But
yet your terminology reduces that complexity to something vague
and impenetrable rather than exploring it.
> I certainly don't see atheism as an absolute prerequisite for
> surrealism. Nor do I necessarily believe that surrealism
> inherently has a spiritual side to it. I believe this rests
with the
> individual. We explore our creativity--wherever we believe it to
come from.
we explore reality. the imagination is one sense with which we
conduct that exploration. it evolved as all the other senses have
evolved, emerging from the increasing complexity of cognitive
processes.
i find this far more marvelous and challenging than any vague
notion of "spirituality".
> I am not, sitting in the corner shouting Thank You Jesus every
time I
> write a poem. But there are explorations of ALL kinds that I
think
> are worth having. I think that to declare someone's spiritual
leanings as
> the enemy of surrealism point blank can be limiting.
to say that my demand that the imagination be free from the
darkness of such dead-end alleys is in anyway "limiting" is just
double-talk.
>
>> now, there have been those here who have argued that they
>> create and modify and destroy such deity at will, and that
their
>> "belief" is in some kind of neutered puppet they claim to
master and
>> doesn't, therefore, constitute such a surrender. and there
>> have been others who have argued that their "deity" is
something so
>> nebulous that it takes no clear shape and demands no belief.
>
> I believe that in some ways, notions of God are constructs. We
are you implying that "notions of God" are in some ways _not_
constructs?
> each develop our own spirituality along the lines of what we are
> looking for. Some people obviously need to feel guilty, or to
have the
> threat of punishment hanging over their heads, and so create or
are
> drawn to those kinds of systems. Some people need a 12-step
"higher
> power" to run their lives for them. I am not professing any
kind of
> absolute statement about any kind of god. I have my own
feelings about
> the subject, and I know that they are extremely subjecting. I
also
> know that I have had ecstatic experiences, some very recently,
and
> that causes me to believe that there is something in this
universe
> larger than any one of us. Call it whatever you want--I have no
desire
> to impose my own thoughts about it onto anyone else.
>
i too have no desire to impose my thoughts on anyone, but
mystifications that incriminate "surrealism" in the rounding of
reality's brilliant corners should not be ignored.
but all of this dodges the challenge. you've been defending your
use of terms that i find inherently counter-surrealist for the
reasons i've been elaborating.
if the phenomena, reactions, etc. you refer to can be talked about
in different terms, why do you insist on carrying them around in a
leaky bucket of sludge?
>
>> but in either case, such people are guilty of mystifications
>> just as reprehensible. because the effect of all such concepts
is
>> to alienate our lives from the marvelous, rendering it distant
>> and unexplorable -- the result of processes beyond our
>> capabilities or influence.
>
> I don't see that it HAS to alienate us from the marvelous. I
> don't think that is a necessary conclusion or next step.
it's not a "conclusion" or a "next step", it's inherent in a
perspective that permits the use of the terms.
but you're the one defending them. offer a counter example.
>>
>> but the surrealist project seeks to _enhance_reality_ by
>> integrating the imagination (a spontaneous sense of poetic
>> dimensions, the marvelous, intuitive desire, etc.) into our
>> _daily living_ -- into our immediate experience. it is
diametrically
>> opposed to all that would alienate us from that most direct
and
>> total experience, or distance us from the responsibility to
>> _perpetually_create_that_experience_.
>
>
> Again, I don't think that what you are saying necessarily
> contradicts where I am coming from. The "spiritual realm" does
not distance
> us from the responsibility to create experience or to engage the
> world or to enhance reality.
i don't know if what i'm saying contests your actual position or
not. but i find the language you are using to state that position
produces dense fog rather than clarity.
>
>
>> significantly, the most recent cognitive studies and the
>> resulting models indicate that the "self" -- indeed, all of
what we call
>> "reality" -- is a construction formed from rationalizations of
>> spontaneous behavior (i.e., spontaneous acts of environmental
>> investigation and the pursuit of intuitive desire).
>
>
>> in light of this, the surrealist project amounts to an
>> exploratory and experimental project of authentic living in the
reality
>> that we have interactively discovered/created and is,
therefore,
>> very much in line with the converging vectors of modern
science,
>> while "spiritual" or "theistic" concepts remain isolated in
their
>> fundamental insistence on some level of sacrifice that confines
>> the benefits of exploration, investigation and discovery in
the
>> chains of belief.
>
> I don't necessarily agree with you. Again, this may frequently
> be the result, but I don't think it has to be the case. I
certainly
again, you're the one defending them. offer a counter example.
> view my life as an attempt at authentic living. Maybe the
difference in
> what we're talking about is your use of the word concepts.
Perhaps
> you are viewing all of this from an institutional stand point.
I have
> told people that my "religion" is that I am looking for a
plausible
> heresy--something that makes sense to me. But we all have an
ethos, for
> example, of how we walk through the world, that is informed by
> something. Mine is definitely not formed by chains of belief,
> but by examining what different people believe and thinking
about what
> is "authentic" in it, what germ of truth might have once resided
> there.
my approach is basically phenomenological. i began with the most
basic cognitive act and investigate from there, challenging any
and every assumption i discover and allowing no sanctuary for
"belief" of any kind.
there can be no authenticity in "belief". "belief" is petrified
hypothesis -- an stone dead assumption that further investigation
is unwarranted.
>
> Would you feel better if I called myself a "mystic" than a
> "theist"? It's all just terminology and construct. You say
tomato . . .
it is mysticism that is the enemy. "spiritualism" and "theism"
are mystical interpretations of real experience.
mystical interpretations abort investigation by assuming (however
tentatively or even insincerely) a falsified result.
whether or not you eat it, even if you believe it inedible, the
tomato is still a fruit.
>
> I was just chatting with a friend of mine who is Jewish, and she
> said the thing she likes about Judaism is that you can question
> anything, even the existence of god. That is, at the very
least, her
> impression of it. I don't see that you have to be shackled by
it--people
> CHOOSE to be shackled by religion, or god, the way they choose
to be
> shackled in their jobs, in their marriages, etc.
this is just an example of the kind of sloppy thinking that's
popularized post-modernism and new-age mystics.
i'm bored by religion and ethnicity, so i know little about
judaism, but on a more philosophical level, if one rejects the
fundamental elements that give coherence to any group or concept,
one cannot "in good faith" (in the Sartrean sense) claim to be
part of that group, or in agreement with the concept.
in the case of "surrealism" the fundamental element is a
process -- the pursuit of daily living based in a common (shared)
reality enhanced by the integration of the fully liberated
imagination in pursuit of spontaneously intuitive desire.
my argument, and the basis of my challenge, is that "mysticism"
and its more specific manifestations "spiritualism" and "theism"
are detrimental to that process.
as my comments indicate, and as the history of "surrealism"
clearly demonstrates, you have an enormous (i would say
insurmountable) burden if you wish to gain general acceptance for
terms like "spirituality" and "theism" among today's surrealists.
>
> Actually, I like that example, let's go with it. Many marriages
> are based on domination and conforming to your partner's wishes
or
> notions of who you should be. Would you categorically declare
marriage
> to be the enemy of surrealism? Because many of us find
corporations
> to be dead ends creatively, would you declare all WORK at all to
be
> the enemy of surrealism? Or is it not the "institution" and the
way it is
> carried out that keeps us from exploring our authentic, creative
> selves?
these are topics worthy of investigation, but they are secondary
issues -- less fundamental that the one we are discussing now.
as they exist, the alienating aspects of work and marriage are to
a great degree the result of the pervasive mystifications and
falsifications of desire our the stability of our culture
requires.
barrett john erickson
news:882jjq$auc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I am also fearful about the notion of an orthodoxy here--even if
it's
> an anti-orthodoxy. That was one thing that eventually drove me
out of
> leftist politics--you can never be PURE enough or good enough.
> Whatever you are doing, there is always an element that you are
> lacking.
there is no "orthodoxy" of "surrealism". it is a process with an
identifiable pattern of inquiry (on display here). a significant
aspect of that pattern is to reject all received notions and allow
nothing to solidify into anything resembling a religion.
> I think that anything that is a part of you, so long as it
doesn't
> inhibit your creative exploration and does not inhibit the
creativity
> and the self of others, is valid, and that you can still harbor
it and
> call yourself a surrealist.
that is plainly not the case. you must agree that all people are
not surrealists. so you must agree that there is some common
element(s) that distinguishes those who are from those who are
not.
surrealists are a group that can be positively identified, not by
what they don't do or what they don't believe, but by their
processes of exploration and experiment, and what they consider
the focus of those processes.
what we are discussing is one historical threshold of one of those
distinguishing elements.
> Notice, that I emphasize both--the self
> and other. So that you cannot, for example, be a surrealist
member of
> the KKK. You could not be a surrealist Pope, because that does
require
> you to shackle others to your words, your "rules", etc. But
certainly,
> I do not want one entire area of my life that I find interesting
cut
> off from me so that I can fit into being considered a "good"
surrealist.
i have no intention of trying to cut anything away from your life.
i'm arguing that mysticism of all kinds runs counter to the
direction of "surrealism" today.
barrett john erickson
> barrett:
>
> >the surrender inherent in theism is the surrender of a
dynamically
> >inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints
of
> >an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
>
at odds with the
> surrealist project as theism is? atheism is also an accepted
conclusion, a
> limiting conclusion to possibilities beyond current
explanations. by your
atheism as a pseudo religion, sure.
but atheism as the rejection of all gods is not necessarily an
"accepted conclusion." it is just as likely, perhaps more so, to
be an act of rebellion against indoctrination.
> arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist *should*
lean towards
> agnosticism?
no. only that a surrealist flatly rejects "theism". and if we do
this, isn't it inevitable that we reject any thought processes
that insist on the _possibility_ of some "supreme being"?
barrett john erickson
news:882pnt$eqo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> the surrender inherent in theism is the surrender of a
dynamically
>> inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints
of
>> an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
>
rethought
> and looked at in a new way--the more sources you draw upon, the
more
> you take a concept--any concept--and make it your own, and from
there
> you can continue to explore AND reject any element or aspect of
it.
religion, spirituality, theism etc. are not "sources" they are
escapes. they allow investigations to end before they reach the
level of challenging our most basic assumptions about the process
of living. they are safety valves that release building energy
before it reaches critical levels dangerous to the established
order.
>
> > but theism is an imagination's suicide -- the act of someone
who
> > has come to, or more likely accepted, a conclusion about how
> > things are and how they got that way (to be contrasted with
> > someone who is continually exploring and experimenting with a
> > reality that is ever fresh).
>
> >
> > "surrealism" demands the continuous rebellion against all
received
> > ideas and external controls -- even those that emerge from
within.
> > conversely, all religions, pseudo-, quasi-, or even fake
religions
> > encourage some degree of surrender to received ideas or
external
> > controls, if only to perpetuate the charade.
> >
> >
> >
> Again, you are talking about orthodoxies, about establishments
and
> codes of belief. This is why I did NOT describe myself as a
catholic,
> a jew, a buddhist, etc., but as a theist. Merely, someone who
believes
> in something outside of myself. And again, I see it as one more
realm
> of my life and my ideas for exploration.
"surrealism" is a complex process with an observable "direction"
that emerges from the aggregate activity of surrealists in their
current and historical context.
there is no orthodoxy, establishment, or codes of belief hiding in
what i've said, only the observation of where your comments bring
you into conflict with that "direction".
fluffy...@prodigy.net
there is no "orthodoxy" of "surrealism". it is a process with an
identifiable pattern of inquiry (on display here). a significant
aspect of that pattern is to reject all received notions and allow
nothing to solidify into anything resembling a religion.
I have no problem with the inquiry on display here. And I do not
adhere to a "religion". I don't necessarily think that all inquiry is
automatically a rejection, and I don't believe that you reject ALL
received notions. Do you really contradict EVERYTHING you read or
everything that is sent to you? If so, then it would be completely
impossible to create a collaboratively written document or statement.
Unless of course you were working with a bunch of automatons who all
thought exactly the same and had inquired into and rejected exactly the
same things. Even at that point you would have to reject one another,
because you would obviously solidified into a dogma.
>
> > I think that anything that is a part of you, so long as it
> doesn't
> > inhibit your creative exploration and does not inhibit the
> creativity
> > and the self of others, is valid, and that you can still harbor
> it and
> > call yourself a surrealist.
>
> that is plainly not the case. you must agree that all people are
> not surrealists. so you must agree that there is some common
> element(s) that distinguishes those who are from those who are
> not.
But that doesn't mean that there is a "litmus" test and that you should
be able to be "disqualified" as a surrealist because someone else finds
something unacceptable about you. I have noticed in your posts,
Barrett, that you are more willing to say what is NOT surrealist than
what is. It makes me think of discussions of a sort of psueod-anarchic
totalitarianism, where there is nothing explicity said about what is
"legal" or "illegal", and therefore you can be busted for just about
anything on the whim of the authorities. I am not accusing you of
being a dictator, mind you. But I also have problems with only being
AGAINST things and not ever stating what you are FOR, what it is that
draws you toward surrealism.
>
> surrealists are a group that can be positively identified, not by
> what they don't do or what they don't believe, but by their
> processes of exploration and experiment, and what they consider
> the focus of those processes.
>
> what we are discussing is one historical threshold of one of those
> distinguishing elements.
>
> > Notice, that I emphasize both--the self
> > and other. So that you cannot, for example, be a surrealist
> member of
> > the KKK. You could not be a surrealist Pope, because that does
> require
> > you to shackle others to your words, your "rules", etc. But
> certainly,
> > I do not want one entire area of my life that I find interesting
> cut
> > off from me so that I can fit into being considered a "good"
> surrealist.
>
> i have no intention of trying to cut anything away from your life.
>
> i'm arguing that mysticism of all kinds runs counter to the
> direction of "surrealism" today.
>
>
I am arguing that it undoubtedly does in many of its practices, but
that it does not necessarily have to. Poetry can be said to have good
and bad conductors, as DWI quotes. I think that can be said in this
case as well. I can be a surrealist, and question things, and take in
whatever information comes my way, and process it and produce work that
comes from my unconscious. We ALL view things from some kind of a
prism, a world view. None of us is a purely blank slate. Do you
equally embrace the ideas of republicanism along with those of the
people who were protesting at the WTO? I have no desire to make you
into a "mystic". I desire only to participate fully in this adventure
which I have been drawn to.
-- barrett
>
> 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
>
> ==============================================
>
>
Leo Sgouros
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:alhp4.3237$8p3.4...@ptah.visi.com...
> "Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000211233030...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> > barrett:
> >
> > >the surrender inherent in theism is the surrender of a
> dynamically
> > >inquisitive human cognitive process to the enclosed restraints
> of
> > >an idea already had -- and usually one that someone else had.
> >
> > under this argument, is it fair to say that atheism is equally
> at odds with the
> > surrealist project as theism is? atheism is also an accepted
> conclusion, a
> > limiting conclusion to possibilities beyond current
> explanations. by your
>
> atheism as a pseudo religion, sure.
>
> but atheism as the rejection of all gods is not necessarily an
> "accepted conclusion." it is just as likely, perhaps more so, to
> be an act of rebellion against indoctrination.
>
>
> > arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist *should*
> lean towards
> > agnosticism?
>
> no. only that a surrealist flatly rejects "theism". and if we do
> this, isn't it inevitable that we reject any thought processes
> that insist on the _possibility_ of some "supreme being"?
>
>
No but this doesnt necessarily say that we cant allow the possibility "out
there".
Just that we dont need a concsious insistence-I find using atheism is just
the other side of the coin.You are talking about thought processes..as long
as we dont specifically recognize that it *may* be one of possibly millions
of potentials in relation to some thought process or avenue of exploration,
while still allowing those potentials to exist(outside of actually ever
drawing on this "faith")I would think it is acceptable.
As stated before(somewhere)a meta existence.
barrett john erickson
news:wnjp4.1455$74.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist
*should*
> > > lean towards agnosticism?
> >
> > no. only that a surrealist flatly rejects "theism". and if
we do
> > this, isn't it inevitable that we reject any thought processes
> > that insist on the _possibility_ of some "supreme being"?
> >
> >
>
> No but this doesnt necessarily say that we cant allow the
possibility "out
> there".
> Just that we dont need a concsious insistence-I find using
atheism is just
> the other side of the coin.You are talking about thought
processes..as long
> as we dont specifically recognize that it *may* be one of
possibly millions
> of potentials in relation to some thought process or avenue of
exploration,
> while still allowing those potentials to exist(outside of
actually ever
> drawing on this "faith")I would think it is acceptable.
> As stated before(somewhere)a meta existence.
i don't know what you mean by "out there". if you're talking
about dialog outside of a surrealist context then certainly my
views don't apply.
i can do nothing, and have no desire to do anything, that might
limit the range of _potential_ human behavior or thought.
but once we have freely rejected theist "explanations" --
recognized them as faulty on their most basic point of making the
comforting but totally unwarranted assumption that there is some
puppet master with a grand plan, or some latent meaning to our
lives than we are (or could be) aware of, that is, meaning that
can be found outside of our own actions -- then one has taken a
stance in opposition to the very thought processes which struggle
to establish such a possibility.
this isn't about some kind of "objective truth", it's about how we
choose to live our lives. it's about having decided to maintain a
stance of permanent rebellion against any hierarchy of POWER
(regardless of how benevolent, unobtrusive or ineffectual), and
against any received notion (whether that be received from a
mega-multi-national corporation, a book, or a "supreme being").
Dale Houstman
<fluffy...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:884ll9$lm2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> But that doesn't mean that there is a "litmus" test and that you should
> be able to be "disqualified" as a surrealist because someone else finds
> something unacceptable about you.
You misunderstand: this is not a matter of anyone "rejecting" you, but of
your displaying and supporting stances that are not applicable to the
matters at hand. It is no different than your applying to join a bowling
league while insisting the rules may include throwing the ball at the
nearest child's head for points. Now there is no doubt that you may go on
thinking this, and even wearing a nice bowling shirt, but you will not be
joining the bowling league any time soon, and not because "some one finds
something unacceptable about you" (although that may be true also) but
simply because you show an inability (either unconscious or willed) to
appreciate the full range of "bowlingness" and those "limitations" that - in
actuality - constitute the activity itself. The word "surrealist" (for good
or bad) defines a certain set of postures in relation to reality, and
constitute not a doctrine, but a type of "natural law" vis a vis the use of
the senses (including the imagination), the oppressions of power, the world
of desires, etc.
Now I am quite aware that certain religions imagine that they are positioned
on the side of desire, although both the source and the object of that
desire are usually external and numinous. But - as a offsping of Romanticism
touched even deeper by the advance of the sciences - surrealism exists to
"steal" the sources of creativity and history and delight from the gods, and
give them to man: the new Prometheus, etc. It is man reaffirmiing man's
position vis a vis man's desires. Religiosity - no matter how benign - is
anathema to these considerations, and - in fact - is a return to the
supernatural, and "out of man's hands." Disguising this retroversion in
cloudy semi-nuances does nothing to reform its grotesqueness.
>I have noticed in your posts, Barrett, that you are more willing to say
what is >NOT surrealist than what is.
I find this to be a misreading. Barrett provides and discusses definitions
of surrealism's nature and intent all the time.
> It makes me think of discussions of a sort of psueod-anarchic
> totalitarianism, where there is nothing explicity said about what is
> "legal" or "illegal", and therefore you can be busted for just about
> anything on the whim of the authorities. I am not accusing you of
> being a dictator, mind you.
That is sweet of you. I am sure Barrett appreciates your restraint on this
point. As soon as he is through having the peons flayed I am sure he will
tell you this himself.
>But I also have problems with only being AGAINST things and not ever
>stating what you are FOR, what it is that draws you toward surrealism.
Another misreading: I assume this is occurring because you are - quite
nautrally perhaps - focused on Barrett's attentions to the non-position
theism and spirituality hold for ALL surrealists by definition, and this had
taken on great importance for you at this time. But simply because we may be
"against" theism, doesn't mean we are "against" everything: but it IS the
subject under discussion.
> I am arguing that it undoubtedly does in many of its practices, but
> that it does not necessarily have to. Poetry can be said to have good
> and bad conductors, as DWI quotes. I think that can be said in this
> case as well. I can be a surrealist, and question things, and take in
> whatever information comes my way, and process it and produce work that
> comes from my unconscious. We ALL view things from some kind of a
> prism, a world view. None of us is a purely blank slate. Do you
> equally embrace the ideas of republicanism along with those of the
> people who were protesting at the WTO? I have no desire to make you
> into a "mystic". I desire only to participate fully in this adventure
> which I have been drawn to.
Yes- but you cannot fully engage with surrealism as a mystic. Mysticism -
although useful as another surrealist parlor game - is a system of
supposedly obscured "truths" being dug out by spiritual instrumentations. It
implies a hierarchy of ritualistc uncoverings behind which "reality" hides
in some tedious yard game. Surrealism - although obviously enigmatic in its
imagery - is really more about an involvement with the quite human-sized and
ordinary, not about "the Other" whatever that squishy term might mean to
those who feel most in need of invisible companionship, rules of conduct,
vague and dim-watted ecstasies that lead from shiny nothing to profound
zero.
DMH
Fascinan
>But - as a offsping of Romanticism
>touched even deeper by the advance of the sciences - surrealism exists to
>"steal" the sources of creativity and history and delight from the gods, and
>give them to man: the new Prometheus, etc.
> It is man reaffirmiing man's
>position vis a vis man's desires. Religiosity - no matter how benign - is
>anathema to these considerations, and - in fact - is a return to the
>supernatural, and "out of man's hands."
historically, the age of "enlightenment" and the scientific revolution brought
with it a secularization that spawned a man vs nature ideology. with
secularization came the drive of man to vivisect, explore, and conquer the
world viewed as a *resource*. the dismissal of "god" and empowerment of man
created the dualistic stance, the schism between man and nature -- an ideology
which has irreversibly affected the Earth as a collective -- and a lack of
reverence for all things related. today, scientists are able to probe deep
into space (into time) and are beginning to formulate working theories about
universe dynamics. there is an innate creative dynamic to the interplay of
matter and energy, a process which dwarfs mankind's emergence, reducing our
creative outburst to a mere flicker in timeless storm of lightening. an awe, a
reverence for the eternal matrix (no matter how it is labeled) is the central
part of makind's imagination. for man to abnegate the dynamic, creative,
processes of the universe which bore him is to cut his own umbilical cord of
understanding before he has exited the womb of self-reflection.
>I am sure Barrett appreciates your restraint on this
>point. As soon as he is through having the peons flayed I am sure he will
>tell you this himself.
read: *condescension* ... but that's nothing new.
>Surrealism - although obviously enigmatic in its
>imagery - is really more about an involvement with the quite human-sized and
>ordinary
ordinary? Let's look at webster:
sur*re*al*ism (noun)
[French surrealisme, from sur- + realisme realism]
First appeared 1925
: the principles, ideals, or practice of producing fantastic or incongruous
imagery or effects in art, literature, film, or theater by means of unnatural
juxtapositions and combinations.
and I thought that the liberation of the imagination would result in so much
more than the human-sized and ordinary.
Fas
scot...@earthlink.net
<bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>
>but atheism as the rejection of all gods is not necessarily an
>"accepted conclusion." it is just as likely, perhaps more so, to
>be an act of rebellion against indoctrination.
So it boils down to a variation of satan's choice: Serve in heaven or
rule in hell.
OK, Satan made the correct moral choice.
But why should I feel the need to rebel against someone else's
"ghosts" that are outside of my experience and that exercise no power
over me?
Why should I twist logic and affirm a negative? Why should I take
that leap of faith?
It seems to me a waste of energy.
>> arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist *should*
>lean towards
>> agnosticism?
>
>no. only that a surrealist flatly rejects "theism". and if we do
>this, isn't it inevitable that we reject any thought processes
>that insist on the _possibility_ of some "supreme being"?
>
>
I don't see agnosticism as you see it. I see it as simply a refusal to
twist logic.
Leo Sgouros
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:pQkp4.3267$8p3.4...@ptah.visi.com...
> "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wnjp4.1455$74.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > > > arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist
> *should*
> > > > lean towards agnosticism?
> > >
> > > no. only that a surrealist flatly rejects "theism". and if
> we do
> > > this, isn't it inevitable that we reject any thought processes
> > > that insist on the _possibility_ of some "supreme being"?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No but this doesnt necessarily say that we cant allow the
> possibility "out
> > there".
> > Just that we dont need a concsious insistence-I find using
> atheism is just
> > the other side of the coin.You are talking about thought
> processes..as long
> > as we dont specifically recognize that it *may* be one of
> possibly millions
> > of potentials in relation to some thought process or avenue of
> exploration,
> > while still allowing those potentials to exist(outside of
> actually ever
> > drawing on this "faith")I would think it is acceptable.
> > As stated before(somewhere)a meta existence.
>
>
> i don't know what you mean by "out there". if you're talking
> about dialog outside of a surrealist context then certainly my
> views don't apply.
>
I think you are being static and a little inflexible.Sometimes in this group
the ideas and the ideals get spun into such a high pedigree(perigree) that a
relation to the earth seems to be non-existent.Let me give you this
example.Say you are instructing a group of individuals about exploring art
through painting and helping them create art that could be labeled
surrealist or at least approached as surrealist.
At what point in the instruction do you mention the rejection of theism, and
why, and if they never heard of god what will this do to natural human
inquisitiveness?
> i can do nothing, and have no desire to do anything, that might
> limit the range of _potential_ human behavior or thought.
>
I would emphasize _range_.
> but once we have freely rejected theist "explanations" --
> recognized them as faulty on their most basic point of making the
> comforting but totally unwarranted assumption that there is some
> puppet master with a grand plan, or some latent meaning to our
> lives than we are (or could be) aware of, that is, meaning that
> can be found outside of our own actions -- then one has taken a
> stance in opposition to the very thought processes which struggle
> to establish such a possibility.
>
You are trading one box for another.You are saying that nothing outside this
box exists, and the sooner you realize it the better off you will be as an
artist.I consider the artist that doesnt allow the process, negative or
positive, square box or octagonal universe, to exist in artistic application
yet hasnt set up "negative feedback" to be freer all-around.Rejection of all
theism rapidly *does* become a theism in itsown.On these very boards I have
had so many discussions and never mention what my faith may be, yet I find
atheists, time and time again, injecting the concept of human folly driven
by some belief in a god or God or Erath spirit into many discussions.Not
that we should ignore history, but using a theistic measurement device is in
itself borrowing from similar thought patterns of the dark ages.Where the
discussion of theism is understoodto be a freely accepted concept, outside
school and laws and the guarantee of such, and outside of any criticism
where "this must be rejected because"(itself being a comparison to the past
which we are to free ourselves from) you will find less of an opportunity
for people to attempt some sort of belief system imprinting.
> this isn't about some kind of "objective truth", it's about how we
> choose to live our lives. it's about having decided to maintain a
> stance of permanent rebellion against any hierarchy of POWER
> (regardless of how benevolent, unobtrusive or ineffectual), and
> against any received notion (whether that be received from a
> mega-multi-national corporation, a book, or a "supreme being").
>
Yes.Reject the concept of the need to rebel against what obviously, to
you,doesnot exist.It is not surrealist that recognizes others
existence/reality anyway, is it?At least not in your individual creative
"method".
Dale Houstman
>Let me give you this example.Say you are instructing a group of individuals
>about exploring art through painting and helping them create art that could
be >labeled surrealist or at least approached as surrealist. At what point
in the >instruction do you mention the rejection of theism, and why, and if
they never >heard of god what will this do to natural human
> inquisitiveness?
First any instructor who would purport to "teach how to paint surrealist
paintings" as though surrealism were a set of easily grasped techniques is
too pathetic a figure to place at the center of any example worth examining.
Second, you imply that even the philosophical basis of surrealism is somehow
a technique that aids composition. Bizarre...
Artists "allow" that there are limitations all the time; limitations of
material, limitarions of their own physicality, etc. That they may - or may
not - try to come up against these parameters is entirely a different thing
from the rather sentimental notion of an artist as one who "doesn't give a
fig" about anything. Artists are rather active purveyors of past examples.
And- really - again, you would reduce surrealism to a system of art, which
it clearly is not. The art manifestations of surrealism are one more
instrumentation of the philosophies of surrealism.
And - since surrealism almost always employs some group dynamic - there
would be no question of "theism" being something one must "teach against"
anymore than a physics group might feel at some point the strange need to
instruct members on the idea that neutrons aren't otters.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:hswp4.75$K01....@ptah.visi.com...> news:62vp4.1052$xy.2...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >Let me give you this example.Say you are instructing a group of
individuals
> >about exploring art through painting and helping them create art that
could
> be >labeled surrealist or at least approached as surrealist. At what point
> in the >instruction do you mention the rejection of theism, and why, and
if
> they never >heard of god what will this do to natural human
> > inquisitiveness?
>
> paintings" as though surrealism were a set of easily grasped techniques is
> too pathetic a figure to place at the center of any example worth
examining.
> Second, you imply that even the philosophical basis of surrealism is
somehow
> a technique that aids composition. Bizarre...
>
I would expect to be able to visualize an example, even if it is the
equivalent of a Maxfield Spinor in EM space <g>
You know that *I* know that surrealism isnt easy grafted onto daily life,
but in an attempt to clarify where theology and art may mix in surrealism I
am taking certain liberties.
> Artists "allow" that there are limitations all the time; limitations of
> material, limitarions of their own physicality, etc. That they may - or
may
> not - try to come up against these parameters is entirely a different
thing
> from the rather sentimental notion of an artist as one who "doesn't give a
> fig" about anything. Artists are rather active purveyors of past examples.
>
Great, granted, and are we retraining artists to think "out of the box" by
pointing out said box?This would be valuable, IF that is the motive.
> And- really - again, you would reduce surrealism to a system of art, which
> it clearly is not. The art manifestations of surrealism are one more
> instrumentation of the philosophies of surrealism.
>
Dale, the "surrealist experiment" that I have carried out on the net, where
I stated plainly from the get-go what I would attempt to accomplish, is
evidence that this is not the case.This reduction is the same as reducing
theism to a discussion of what or what is not an artistic impulse.Or
reducing art to a mere reflection of some sort of vague "god within us"
argument.
> And - since surrealism almost always employs some group dynamic - there
> would be no question of "theism" being something one must "teach against"
> anymore than a physics group might feel at some point the strange need to
> instruct members on the idea that neutrons aren't otters.
>
> DMH
>
>
Heh, the physicists are just now coming to grips with their delusions about
EM space.I can only hope it is something like Kentucky Fried Chicken
commercials "and I helped"1!!!
oel
Nikolaus Maack
>You are trading one box for another.You are saying that nothing outside
>this box exists, and the sooner you realize it the better off you will be
>as an artist.
The man who does not eat, but is constantly thinking and fantasizing about
food, is still a glutton. The atheist, who does not worship God, but is
still thinking and fantasizing about God, is still a theist.
An old story I have told here before:
Two monks are walking side by side, on a pilgrimage. They come to a
flooded area. A woman is standing by the stream, obviously wanting to get
across, but cannot. The older monk picks the woman up, and carries her
across the stream, putting her down gently.
The younger monk is shocked by this, but manages to hide his feelings.
Monks are forbidden to have contact with a woman in any way, and here was
his elder, touching a woman. The two men travel for many miles, but the
younger monk can't stop pondering this event. Finally, he can't take it
any more, and he says to the older monk:
"Brother, we monks are forbidden to have contact with women, yet you
picked that woman up and carried her across the stream. How do you
explain such a transgression?"
The older monk says, "I picked the woman up, carried her across the
stream, then put her down. You've been carrying the woman in your
thoughts for several miles now. When are you going to put her down?
Which one of us has transgressed?"
An atheist that preaches his un-belief is an angry theist who has yet to
put down the idea of God.
scot...@earthlink.net
<lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>surrealism isnt easy grafted onto daily life
I think what might be called surrealist experimentation is the most
natural and basic behavior of a human being.
It is the stuff that is grafted on afterwards that is not easy to get
rid of.
barrett john erickson
news:y0emOBhFQ8PoUa...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:11:49 -0600, "barrett john erickson"
> <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> [...]
> But why should I feel the need to rebel against someone else's
> "ghosts" that are outside of my experience and that exercise no
power
> over me?
>
> Why should I twist logic and affirm a negative? Why should I
take
> that leap of faith?
>
> It seems to me a waste of energy.
>
> >> arguments, would it be safe to assume that a surrealist
*should*
> >lean towards
> >> agnosticism?
> >
> >no. only that a surrealist flatly rejects "theism". and if we
do
> >this, isn't it inevitable that we reject any thought processes
> >that insist on the _possibility_ of some "supreme being"?
> >
> >
>
> I don't see agnosticism as you see it. I see it as simply a
refusal to
> twist logic.
>
actually, i hadn't thought about it from that angle before either.
i can't remember ever encountering an agnostic who insisted on the
possibility of a theist explanation. usually, as you say, they
just reject existing explanations as invalid. and i have no
problem with that.
but since reading varela, my epistemological foundations have
shifted considerably. so i rethought this matter and, as i said
in a follow-up, once i've rejected the possibility that there
could be _any_ latent meaning to our lives that can be found
outside of our immediate experience -- then [i have to take] a
stance in opposition to the very thought processes which struggle
to establish such a possibility.
my conclusion that i must not only reject theism, but also
agnosticism (when it is argued from the perspective that a theist
explanation may be possible), is the logical extension of my
recent cognitive and epistemological investigations.
Fascinan
>agnosticism (when it is argued from the perspective that a theist
>explanation may be possible), is the logical extension of my
>recent cognitive and epistemological investigations.
>
>
>-- barrett
Yes, but how do you feel?
jsday
><bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>>> agnosticism?
>>
>>no. only that a surrealist flatly rejects "theism". and if we do
>>this, isn't it inevitable that we reject any thought processes
>>that insist on the _possibility_ of some "supreme being"?
>
>I don't see agnosticism as you see it. I see it as simply a refusal to
>twist logic.
There's a big difference between weak agnosticism (I don't know God)
and strong agnosticism (nobody can know God).
_
Dale Houstman
This separation between cognition and feeling is irrelevant. Emotions inform
the functions of our thoughts, and thoughts color our feelings. This is a
sentimental question akin to the "idea" (really a defensive posture) that
one's knowledge and analysis of any situation or object - for instance a
movie - somehow obscures the pleasure to be derived. Nothing could be
farther from the truth: consideration and contemplation upon any event will
enhance not only your feelings but - and this is particularly crucial to
the forum ideal - your ability to communicate those feelings. I do not at
all see how a statement such as "I feel good about such and such" defines
anything, and certainly is not delineating of even an emotional nature.
Feelings cannot be expressed except through cognition. Unless you are
suggesting we somehow explode into mania and bypass the keyboard and our
language all together?
DMH
Dale Houstman
"jsday" <js...@dragon.achilles.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8adqbt...@dragon.achilles.net...
either personally or universally unknowable. But most of the agnostics I
have met actually state something more along the line of "I don't know if
there is a God or not." From there you can derive "God is unknowable" or "I
may yet come to know God." Some agnostics - frankly - are mere hedge bettors
("There may or may not be a God, but why take a chance?") who can seem to be
theists but are in fact gamblers on the afterlife. For the most part I find
agnosticism a legitimate enough approach to life: Thomas Huxley (the
inventor of the term) felt it was the best stance for a scientist, defining
it as a sort of suspension between known and yet to be known which kept the
mind fluid and open to potential. The scientific method itself is a brand of
agnosticism in this regard.
For myself - since some are always looking for "personal experience" to
validate any discussion - I basically had a non-religious "epiphany" when I
was 13 which, to my mind, revealed to me the "texture" of Godless unverse.
The fact that I felt quite comfortable with this supposed "absence" rather
"disenchanted" me of any theist notions. They became superfluous and
atavistic, or a sort of cognitive appendix that shriveled before my eyes.
God seemed to be an "overwritten" idea, whose erasure only improved the
script. That others have had epiphanies of quite an opposite nature is
obvious.
But if I were a theist surrealism would not be home to me, since - as an
outgrowth of Romanticism (which attempted to steal creative power from God
and return it to man) and science - it must reject theism.
But "God" is an imaginative concept of (obviously) rude power, and a form of
poetry, but I prefer my poetics more human-sized, which (as shown by
Rimbaud) is quite large enough to contain all the beauty and enigma and
marvel one could want.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
apparently missing the irony -- furthering my belief that he must be
autistic. It's so sad it's funny. Among his words was included the
following sentence:
> Feelings cannot be expressed except through cognition.
And you call yourself a poet? No wonder your words are always as dead and
intricate as a dessicated car battery. They should take away your poetic
license. If, upon having the official document torn from your ribcage,
you fail to shed a tear, the document will never be returned to you.
I have yet to see you express any emotion except a cold, brutal arrogance.
You are a mafioso enforcer dressed up like a surrealist. You would make a
good cannibal. I only hope they never seat me next to you on an airplane
going over the alps.
Nikolaus Maack
> For myself - since some are always looking for "personal experience" to
> validate any discussion - I basically had a non-religious "epiphany" when I
> was 13 which, to my mind, revealed to me the "texture" of Godless unverse.
Did you get along well with your father? I'm curious because I think
there's a lot of truth to the statement that, in men, the concept of "God"
is mostly shaped by an idealized version of our fathers. I think this is
especially true in children. You say you've been an atheist since the
tender age of thirteen, which is why the question struck me. Did you get
along well with your father, back then? Do you get along with him now?
Dale Houstman
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> > For myself - since some are always looking for "personal experience" to
> > validate any discussion - I basically had a non-religious "epiphany"
when I
> > was 13 which, to my mind, revealed to me the "texture" of Godless
unverse.
>
> Did you get along well with your father? I'm curious because I think
> there's a lot of truth to the statement that, in men, the concept of "God"
> is mostly shaped by an idealized version of our fathers. I think this is
> especially true in children. You say you've been an atheist since the
> tender age of thirteen, which is why the question struck me. Did you get
> along well with your father, back then? Do you get along with him now?
>
Nik of all trades...
DMH
fluffy...@prodigy.net
for a scientist, defining it as a sort of suspension between known and
yet to be known which kept the mind fluid and open to potential. The
scientific method itself is a brand of agnosticism in this regard.
I assume that you know that the word gnosis has to do with "knowing".
I am interested that you keep bringing up science in this discussion.
I suppose surrealism's link to the unconscious/subconscious brings up
for me notions of intuition. Now, I do not reject science. (For
example, I do not reject science in favor of creationism . . . )
But there is also danger of "rationalism" at the expense of what we
know to be true. You can rationalize that the death penalty is just
punishment, and the only argument against that is the inherent dignity
of the human being and against the taking of a life.
Frankly, I have no desire to "convert" anyone. If you are an atheist
or an agnostic, I have no problem with it. I can certainly see where
someone would be. As far as science goes--I don't think you can use it
to prove or disprove anything here. There is always a point where
science hits a wall, where chaos creeps in. Science has attempted to
claim that point. For example, if you want a book on "synchronicity",
you find it in the physics section. How coincidence can be codified
into "science" is beyond me. There is currently and will probably
always be something unexplainable. The big bang may explain the
creation of the universe, but what led to the big bang? Science says
that things at rest tend to stay at rest. What kicked everything off?
Ok, you solve that, you still get back to questions of origin. Even if
you believe in a god, you get back to unanswerable questions of
origin. Everything starts somewhere. And since we don't know what
that start is, everybody is going to be wrong about it. That includes
me. So, it seems to me any approach you take to that unanswerable
question is as good as anyone else's. I simply believe that everything
in the universe is there to be examined--and yes, questioned--and is
there for creative inquiry.
The bottom line is that I feel that there is something larger than me.
I feel that there is something that I have been able to "commune"
with. That is the root of my own personal theology. Communion. Joy.
A "cosmic buddy" if you will. Is there a god that drives the hand of
everything in the world? Obviously not. I certainly hope not! It is
impossible to look at human history and believe that a benevolent god
has been controlling everything. But who among us has not experienced
the long shot in our favor, and breathed a sigh of relief, or
gratitude? I survived two car accidents--one in which the other driver
came into my lane on a two-lane highway at 65 mph and came close enough
to knock the rear view mirror off my door. Yet except for getting hit
in the head by the mirror, I was not hurt at all. Nor were the three
cars ahead of and behind me. Was that "the hand of god?" I can't say--
i certainly can't say it was without sounding silly or superstitious.
But I am very grateful and I frequently have flashbacks of what might
have been had everything been off by just a milisecond.
For myself - since some are always looking for "personal experience" to
validate any discussion - I basically had a non-religious "epiphany"
when I was 13 which, to my mind, revealed to me the "texture" of
Godless unverse. The fact that I felt quite comfortable with this
supposed "absence" rather "disenchanted" me of any theist notions. They
became superfluous and atavistic, or a sort of cognitive appendix that
shriveled before my eyes. God seemed to be an "overwritten" idea,
whose erasure only improved the script. That others have had epiphanies
of quite an opposite nature is obvious.
Great. I find that interesting.
But if I were a theist surrealism would not be home to me, since - as an
outgrowth of Romanticism (which attempted to steal creative power from
God and return it to man) and science - it must reject theism.
>
Again, you are basing this on a notion of religion. Stealing creative
power from God and returning it to man. Everything that exists is here
for us to use. Nothing is stolen because it all belongs to all of us.
You are talking about god in the context of a 19th century literary
movement. Certain, despite the fact that you think theism (and I even
hate that term because it is still an ISM, which implies a rigid set of
beliefs) is a superstition, and therefore incapable of being
reinterpreted in terms of the past 100 years. Everything I am is the
result of everything around me--science, technology, art, philosophy.
My art is just as influenced by existentialism and certainly by
absurdism as by any notions of deities. I have borrowed from paganism,
hinduism (which has many fine tenets about the nature of life and
experience), as well as the symbols that exist when you are immersed in
a Judeo-Christian culture. Frankly, I do reject most of what the
culture teaches about religion. But I have still been able to retain a
small shred of something that makes sense to me based on all of this
outside stimulus and information as well as on my own internal
experience.
> But "God" is an imaginative concept of (obviously) rude power, and a
form of poetry, but I prefer my poetics more human-sized, which (as
shown by Rimbaud) is quite large enough to contain all the beauty and
enigma and marvel one could want.
I love Rimbaud. You're right--God is an imaginative concept. And I
will not argue with you or deny your right to human-sized poetics.
>
>
One final thought:
I have reasons for my beliefs. I do not have beliefs that supply me
with reasons.
fluffy>
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
>
> there is no "orthodoxy" of "surrealism". it is a process with an
> identifiable pattern of inquiry (on display here). a significant
> aspect of that pattern is to reject all received notions and allow
> nothing to solidify into anything resembling a religion.
>
>
> i'm arguing that mysticism of all kinds runs counter to the
> direction of "surrealism" today.
>
> Then you contradict yourself, because you are arguing for an
orthodoxy. If everyone has to believe in a certain thing or behave a
certain in order to participate, then you have de facto set up an
orthodoxy.
I guess this discussion doesn't always feel like a pattern of inquiry.
It feels like an attempt on everyone's part to convince everyone else
of their point of view. And if I disagree with you, then clearly, I am
not a surrealist. There's no middle ground, from what I'm hearing.
How can you deny that that's an orthodoxy?
And what do you make of this quote that is at the bottom of all your
emails--that there's no contradiction between life and death, between
the real and the imagined? I don't feel it to be at odds with my
personal philosophy. I wonder how it fits in with what you have been
arguing on this thread????
> ==============================================
>
> "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
>
> ==============================================
>
>
fluffy...@prodigy.net
reasons for rejecting what I call mysticism or theism are focused on
elements that have nothing to do with my personal approach--thus, my
"beliefs" are being analyzed based on your own presuppositions. I
posted another message today in which I emphasized "communion" (not in
the Catholic sense, I assure you). this is the whole approach I take.
It has little dogma and is based purely on my own belief and
experiences that there is a force or energy outside of myself in which
I can sometimes share. I have chosen to give it a personalistic face
because that works for me, but I do not necessarily believe that it has
to be the case. Nothing that you have said over the past 40 posts has
led me to believe that there is anything in me or in my approach that
is necessarily contrary to surrealism. You also keep comparing
surrealism to things that have quite set rules or paraments--such as
bowling or science. I fail to see where anyone is going to creatively
discover anything about themselves through bowling, so the comparison
is really not valid at all. Science provides a somewhat better
comparison, but again, Einstein is an excellent example of a scientist
who also operated out of a theistic background/framework.
Again, I have no desire -- NONE, NIL, NADA--to convince you. But I
think that you need to give me the chance to bear out my own words.
Otherwise, I can only think that you are closing off the experiment in
the same ways that you have just railed against this past weekend.
In article <A2mp4.3273$8p3.4...@ptah.visi.com>,
> desire are usually external and numinous. But - as a offsping of
Romanticism
> touched even deeper by the advance of the sciences - surrealism
exists to
> "steal" the sources of creativity and history and delight from the
gods, and
> give them to man: the new Prometheus, etc. It is man reaffirmiing
man's
> position vis a vis man's desires. Religiosity - no matter how benign
- is
> anathema to these considerations, and - in fact - is a return to the
> supernatural, and "out of man's hands." Disguising this retroversion
in
> cloudy semi-nuances does nothing to reform its grotesqueness.
>
> >I have noticed in your posts, Barrett, that you are more willing to
say
> what is >NOT surrealist than what is.
>
> I find this to be a misreading. Barrett provides and discusses
definitions
> of surrealism's nature and intent all the time.
>
> > It makes me think of discussions of a sort of psueod-anarchic
> > totalitarianism, where there is nothing explicity said about what is
> > "legal" or "illegal", and therefore you can be busted for just about
> > anything on the whim of the authorities. I am not accusing you of
> > being a dictator, mind you.
>
> That is sweet of you. I am sure Barrett appreciates your restraint on
this
> point. As soon as he is through having the peons flayed I am sure he
will
> tell you this himself.
>
> in some tedious yard game. Surrealism - although obviously enigmatic
in its
> imagery - is really more about an involvement with the quite human-
sized and
> ordinary, not about "the Other" whatever that squishy term might mean
to
> those who feel most in need of invisible companionship, rules of
conduct,
> vague and dim-watted ecstasies that lead from shiny nothing to
profound
> zero.
>
> DMH
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
>Did you get along with your father?
"Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> Bad writer. Bad thinker. Bad artist. Bad psychologist.
> Nik of all trades...
Wow, you really are a surrealist. Look at that open mind! And you
certainly are willing to talk about "personal experiences". Dale, your
accidental comedy is priceless. Keep it up.
barrett john erickson
more than collect posts i planned to answer. today i find Dale
has done a fine job of answering most of the points so i'll just
add a few comments (and try to stay more current today):
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:A2mp4.3273$8p3.4...@ptah.visi.com...
> [...]
> <fluffy...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:884ll9$lm2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > [...]
> >I have noticed in your posts, Barrett, that you are more
willing to say
> >what is NOT surrealist than what is.
>
> I find this to be a misreading. Barrett provides and discusses
definitions
> of surrealism's nature and intent all the time.
>[...]
> >But I also have problems with only being AGAINST things and not
ever
> >stating what you are FOR, what it is that draws you toward
surrealism.
>
> Another misreading: I assume this is occurring because you are -
quite
> nautrally perhaps - focused on Barrett's attentions to the
non-position
> theism and spirituality hold for ALL surrealists by definition,
and this had
> taken on great importance for you at this time. But simply
because we may be
> "against" theism, doesn't mean we are "against" everything: but
it IS the
> subject under discussion.
"surrealism" is a process that can only accurately be described as
the aggregate activity of all surrealists (within both historical
and current contexts) in furtherance of the surrealist project.
that project is a very complex dynamically defined _process_, that
can be described only by finding the "attractor" at it's center.
that attractor is: an continuous effort to enhance reality
through the liberation and full integration of the imagination
into everyday living.
this doesn't define "surrealism", or surrealists, it simply
identifies (through observation) what is at the core of surrealist
activity.
in most of these sorts of discussions, my intent is to counter
misinterpretations of "surrealism". almost all such
misinterpretations are the result of simplifications that reduce
the complexity of surrealist activity. to say that such
simplifications are NOT "surrealism" is both an effort to
highlight the complexity of what it is, and a statement that its
complexity cannot be adequately defined in such static language.
human-sized and
> ordinary, not about "the Other" whatever that squishy term might
mean to
> those who feel most in need of invisible companionship, rules of
conduct,
> vague and dim-watted ecstasies that lead from shiny nothing to
profound
> zero.
and that is the key to most misunderstandings about "surrealism".
at the core of the surrealist project is an inquiry into the
reality of everyday living _as experienced_, the quest to enhance
that experience by reintegrating the liberated imagination, _and_
the general consensus among surrealists that our experience _is_
reality and there is _no reality that is beyond our experience_
(in the sense of something that cannot be experienced).
mysticism (whether religious or pagan or new-age or any other
form) fosters the vague notion (a notion that by definition must
be accepted on faith) that there _is_ "something more" than what
we experience, or something hidden from our experience, that
conceals a key to deeper meaning and understanding.
[then there are the mysticisms of the post-modern perversion --
such as the "everything is equally true" variety -- which deny our
experience any reality at all.]
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota:
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
> Did you get along well with your father? I'm curious because I think
> there's a lot of truth to the statement that, in men, the concept of "God"
> is mostly shaped by an idealized version of our fathers. I think this is
> especially true in children. You say you've been an atheist since the
> tender age of thirteen, which is why the question struck me. Did you get
> along well with your father, back then? Do you get along with him now?
Many an atheist has said this before, by the way. It's a popular theory.
After all, why is God portrayed in our culture as a wise old man with a
long flowing white beard? The idea that God is a wise old ancestor of
ours -- either father or grandfather -- is fairly common. When we are
children, our parents seem like Gods. They have that sort of power over
us.
In the taoist religion (as opposed to the taoist philosohpy) the gods ARE
the ancestors who have passed on. These special, respected ghosts are
said to take care of the weather, luck, and all other seemingly random
things. Great care is taken not to anger them. However, the gods can be
replaced, should they fail to keep up their end of the bargain.
In my own play with religion, I've noticed that my vision of Odin is quite
similar to my vision of my own grandfather. Gramps was a bit of an absent
minded professor, and near the end had a tendency to babble -- to the
point where we would all hide upstairs, not making a sound, if he came
barging into our home. No one wanted to get cornered and have to listen
to one of his stories.
Once, while drunk, he tried to explain to me the difference between
science and science fiction. His main statement was, "Science and science
fiction are not the same," repeated over and over again. Other than that,
he didn't say much.
At the same time, he was quite an intelligent man. He was a botanist at
Carleton university, and once worked for the Experimental Farm, both of
which are here in Ottawa. I applied to go to Carleton for my psychology
degree because my grandfather had worked there.
When I think of Odin, I think of wisdom passed on in a way that cannot be
spoken of. A non-intellectual passing of knowledge. The sort of wisdom
you can get by looking someone in the eyes, and sensing what it is they
feel. Genetic wisdom, telepathic wisdom, the knowledge you get by sitting
quietly in a room with your ancestors.
My father would make a lousy God. Yesterday at dinner, in front of my
girlfriend and the rest of the family, dad loudly and angrilly tried to
explain why it is that Jews are smarter than everyone else, and how they
rule the world. He says on a regular basis that if I were Jewish, I would
have connections, and would succeed as an artist / writer / whatever.
When dad goes off on one of these rants, it makes my entire family rather
angry and creeped out.
"I am not racist!" my dad bellows. "How am I racist? I say Jews are
smarter than everyone! How is that racist?"
"Should I announce to everyone that I'm pregnant?" Michelle (my
girlfriend) whispered to me. "Would that put an end to this
conversation?"
It didn't.
Fascinan
>Feelings cannot be expressed except through cognition.
and through yours i can detect nothing but a hint of hardihood, and embittered
bloating. that you would choose to launch into an emotion vs cognition
soliloquy, reacting to the lithe injection, "how do you feel?", is a bit
strange, yet risible (though that was most certainly not your intent).
i fail to see just exactly what you *are* advocating on your unrelenting quest
of pointing out irrelevancies, other than a rather insensitive, alienating
attitude.
should a surrealist be an android, crunching data and eschewing emotion?
Dale Houstman
> dmh:
>
> >Feelings cannot be expressed except through cognition.
>
> and through yours i can detect nothing but a hint of hardihood, and
embittered
> bloating.
Your mind is so fat (I notice that its arthritic state it has fallen to sad
repetition of the word "bitter" in relation to any mention of me: a
linguistic prop no doubt for that empty skull you once stored your thoughts
in)
>that you would choose to launch into an emotion vs cognition
> soliloquy, reacting to the lithe injection, "how do you feel?", is a bit
> strange, yet risible (though that was most certainly not your intent).
Ah your thesarus lies near... Why are you attempting to dictate when and how
I respond to your posts? I don't carp at you for your usual posting of
irrelevant and self-indulgent nonsense that you undoubtedly consider "art."
> i fail to see just exactly what you *are* advocating on your unrelenting
quest
> of pointing out irrelevancies, other than a rather insensitive, alienating
> attitude.
Then you - as I suspected - can't read. All those posts - quite unlike most
of yours except when you've got your soft dander up - contain actual phrases
that convey actual thoughts. Whether or not you agree with that "content,"
to say you can't "see" what I am advocating makes you out to be the foolish
little word-squirt that I always "felt" you were.
> should a surrealist be an android, crunching data and eschewing emotion?
This would also be irrelevant, except that here you reveal something: you
admonish me for responding to your little "feeling" comment (as though it
were "just" a pleasantry) but here you provide us with another example of
the misunderstanding I was explicating: that there is a separation between
analysis and emotion. What a donkey!
Anyway, Unfastened, you repeatedly accuse of of being "bitter": look it up,
bitterness is an emotion. Or are you really only accusing us of not sharing
your basic emotion: casual disregard disguised as uselessness?
And now I have expressed sarcasm and derision: look those up too. They too
are emotions.
Had enough, my little gibbon?
DMH
Fascinan
>Your mind is so fat (I notice that its arthritic state it has fallen to sad
>repetition of the word "bitter" in relation to any mention of me: a
>linguistic prop no doubt for that empty skull you once stored your thoughts
>in)
I use the word bitter because it suits you well. You are bitter aren't you
Dale? I'm bitter. From now on I'll use afflictive or unpalatable whenever I
make mention of you.
> I don't carp at you for your usual posting of
>irrelevant and self-indulgent nonsense that you undoubtedly consider "art."
I use the word "bitter" too much, and your word of the month is "irrelevant".
Cheery.
What I write I would most likely nomenclate: an alt.surrealism post. That's
about it. Most assuredly, it's "irrelevant" to your bone dry, schoolmasterish,
and spiritless version of surrealism. But, you can't stop me from posting my
self-indulgent drivel. What are you going to do about it? (heh, ya stuffy
sap).
>Then you - as I suspected - can't read. All those posts - quite unlike most
>of yours except when you've got your soft dander up - contain actual phrases
>that convey actual thoughts.
C'mon Dale, extend past your text book extrapolations, into the brave, new
world of the imagination where everything does not have to make scholaric
sense. Perhaps you've been afflicted with paralysis by analysis one too many
times.
>Whether or not you agree with that "content,"
>to say you can't "see" what I am advocating makes you out to be the foolish
>little word-squirt that I always "felt" you were.
Bravissimo! The surrealist android doth show emotion! Or, was it just a
glitch in your programming?
>but here you provide us with another example of
>the misunderstanding I was explicating: that there is a separation between
>analysis and emotion. What a donkey!
bray.... bray .....bray
>Anyway, Unfastened, you repeatedly accuse of of being "bitter": look it up,
>bitterness is an emotion. Or are you really only accusing us of not sharing
>your basic emotion: casual disregard disguised as uselessness?
Congratulations! The DMH entity feels! A pity that your default emotion is
bitterness. Hey! I never diguise my casual disregard.
>And now I have expressed sarcasm and derision: look those up too. They too
>are emotions.
>
Your pithy pilgarlic (look it up if you don't know it, love child of the Grinch
and Breton) is hardly emotive, dripping diabolically from your blackened tongue
like Chinese water tortue.
>Had enough, my little gibbon?
I rather enjoy your impish purgations -- it's probably good for your high blood
pressure too.
Fas
Nikolaus Maack
> Your mind is so fat (I notice that its arthritic state it has fallen to sad
> repetition of the word "bitter" in relation to any mention of me: a
> linguistic prop no doubt for that empty skull you once stored your thoughts
> in)
None of this brings us any closer to answering the question at hand -- did
you get along well with your father, as a child? Do you get along with
your father now? Do you see any potential link between your feelings for
your father and your feelings towards God? Do you think that your nasty,
bitter, defensive behavior in this newsgroup -- possibly in the world --
is an attempt to vent the painful feelings you feel towards your father?
Dale Houstman
<fluffy...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:889gda$sdl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Thomas Huxley (the inventor of the term) felt it was the best stance
> for a scientist, defining it as a sort of suspension between known and
> yet to be known which kept the mind fluid and open to potential. The
> scientific method itself is a brand of agnosticism in this regard.
>
>
> I assume that you know that the word gnosis has to do with "knowing".
You assume correctly, although I don't see why you would assume differently.
> I am interested that you keep bringing up science in this discussion.
Why?
> I suppose surrealism's link to the unconscious/subconscious brings up
> for me notions of intuition. Now, I do not reject science. (For
> example, I do not reject science in favor of creationism . . . )
>
> But there is also danger of "rationalism" at the expense of what we
> know to be true.
I never brought up this limited notion of "rationalism" but the special use
of the word found in "rationalization" isn't really at issue here.
>You can rationalize that the death penalty is just punishment, and the only
>argument against that is the inherent dignity of the human being and
against the >taking of a life.
This sentence appears to be full of holes I could drive a yellow submarine
through.
> Frankly, I have no desire to "convert" anyone. If you are an atheist
> or an agnostic, I have no problem with it. I can certainly see where
> someone would be. As far as science goes--I don't think you can use it
> to prove or disprove anything here.
Maybe - maybe not, but let's say I think I have as much - and probably
more - of a chance of "proving" something by science than you have of
proving anything through pleas to the Worm Goddess, or some sloppy notion of
"ubersoul."
>There is always a point where science hits a wall, where chaos creeps in.
Science - unlike religion - admits that its grasp of any phenomenon is
somewhat tentative and subject to revision due to better math, better
instrumentation or -frankly - better imagination.
>There is currently and will probably always be something unexplainable.
The >big bang may explain the creation of the universe, but what led to the
big >bang?
True, but if there is an unknown, then why attempt to fill it with spirit,
unless you simply don't want to admit you can't stand the vacuum? for
instance science really can only guess at the real nature and processes of
gravity, but it doesn't attempt to fill that blank with - say - anchor
gnomes.
>Science says that things at rest tend to stay at rest. What kicked
everything >off? Ok, you solve that, you still get back to questions of
origin.
Yes, and the origins may never be discovered. So? I still will not look to
the spiritual to fill that void. I will assume we have reached - in this
regard - the limits of even enchanced senses and speculation. The absence of
a solution does not imply deity.
>Even if you believe in a god, you get back to unanswerable questions of
> origin. Everything starts somewhere. And since we don't know what
> that start is, everybody is going to be wrong about it. That includes
> me. So, it seems to me any approach you take to that unanswerable
> question is as good as anyone else's.
I simply say this isn't true. If my response to unknowability is to either
attempt another excursion into it armed with whatever instrumentarions I can
muster, or to say that certain physical phenomonon are beyond my
explication, I say that is a better approach than claiming - since we cannot
know - that red-headed elves started the universe on a drunken weekend whim.
If you wish to believe in those elves (or whatever your vague alternative
might be) you are welcome. I feel quite comfortable with just admitting
that - first - there may be no way of human ability plumbing certain
questions and -second - that these unplumbed questions - based on the
overwhelming evidence of other discoveries - are both physical in nature and
unguided by a supernatural intelligence.
>I simply believe that everything in the universe is there to be
examined--and >yes, questioned--and is there for creative inquiry.
Certainly honorable, but in essence a supernatural explanation is the END
not the beginning of examination. If one can say simply "God dood it" then
why look further?
>
> The bottom line is that I feel that there is something larger than me.
Jupiter? Of course there is something "larger" than you, and we all
experience it every day: physical law.
> I feel that there is something that I have been able to "commune"
> with. That is the root of my own personal theology. Communion. Joy.
> A "cosmic buddy" if you will.
This is a totally unbearable assumption.
>But who among us has not experienced the long shot in our favor, and
>breathed a sigh of relief, or gratitude? I survived two car accidents--one
in >which the other driver came into my lane on a two-lane highway at 65 mph
and >came close enough to knock the rear view mirror off my door. Yet except
for >getting hit in the head by the mirror, I was not hurt at all. Nor were
the three
> cars ahead of and behind me. Was that "the hand of god?" I can't say--
> i certainly can't say it was without sounding silly or superstitious.
> But I am very grateful and I frequently have flashbacks of what might
> have been had everything been off by just a milisecond.
This is a rather pointless example. You survived because a complex of
physical conditions: force vectors of flying matter, inertia, etc. worked
(quite unheeding of you except as another mass of physical potentials) came
together in a very complex event in such a way as to spare one of your vital
organs. I see no mystery in this.
>
> >
> Again, you are basing this on a notion of religion. Stealing creative
> power from God and returning it to man. Everything that exists is here
> for us to use. Nothing is stolen because it all belongs to all of us.
> You are talking about god in the context of a 19th century literary
> movement. Certain, despite the fact that you think theism (and I even
> hate that term because it is still an ISM, which implies a rigid set of
> beliefs) is a superstition, and therefore incapable of being
> reinterpreted in terms of the past 100 years. Everything I am is the
> result of everything around me--science, technology, art, philosophy.
> My art is just as influenced by existentialism and certainly by
> absurdism as by any notions of deities. I have borrowed from paganism,
> hinduism (which has many fine tenets about the nature of life and
> experience), as well as the symbols that exist when you are immersed in
> a Judeo-Christian culture. Frankly, I do reject most of what the
> culture teaches about religion. But I have still been able to retain a
> small shred of something that makes sense to me based on all of this
> outside stimulus and information as well as on my own internal
> experience.
I am happy for you. I have no quarrel with culture.
>
>
> I have reasons for my beliefs. I do not have beliefs that supply me
> with reasons.
>
I never denied you this, but - given the car accident example you front
here - I just find the assumptions you drew from a quite understandable
event to be strangely pointless.
DMH
barrett john erickson
news:889gda$sdl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> I assume that you know that the word gnosis has to do with
"knowing".
> I am interested that you keep bringing up science in this
discussion.
> I suppose surrealism's link to the unconscious/subconscious
brings up
> for me notions of intuition.
there's no reason to assume "notions of intuition" run counter to
science. the imagination can be understood from a scientific
perspective, and the imagination might be considered the "organ"
of intuition (pattern recognition, etc.).
> [...]
>There is currently and will probably always be something
unexplainable.
certainly, but...
> The big bang may explain the
> creation of the universe, but what led to the big bang? Science
says
> that things at rest tend to stay at rest. What kicked
everything off?
prigogine has shown that order can emerge spontaneously from
chaotic systems of certain characteristics. and further, that
what form that emerging order will take is unpredictable and what
form some posited order prior to the intervening chaos might have
had is not deducible.
so to ask this question and expect any answer other than chaos, is
to assume that cause and effect are always determinable after an
event. an assumption prigogine showed was false.
we live in an isle of boole.
> Ok, you solve that, you still get back to questions of origin.
Even if
> you believe in a god, you get back to unanswerable questions of
> origin.
only if you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
try viewing this all from the stand point of autopoiesis. an
evolution of increasing complexity emerging from chaos. it
changes all the questions.
>Everything starts somewhere. And since we don't know what
> that start is, everybody is going to be wrong about it. That
includes
> me. So, it seems to me any approach you take to that
unanswerable
> question is as good as anyone else's.
but we do know what that start is -- at least the start to
everything we know. all we have to do is avoid the common habit
of reductionism. begin the inquiry at the beginning -- with an
understanding of the biology of cognitive processes -- the place
where all knowledge begins.
there is no knowing without cognition nor is there anything to be
known.
> [...]
> One final thought:
>
> I have reasons for my beliefs. I do not have beliefs that
supply me
> with reasons.
i have no beliefs. i have expectations based on cumulative
experience.
Dale Houstman
> <snip>
>
>
> > >There is always a point where science hits a wall, where chaos creeps
in.
> >
> > Science - unlike religion - admits that its grasp of any phenomenon is
> > somewhat tentative and subject to revision due to better math, better
> > instrumentation or -frankly - better imagination.
> >
>
> insecurity"
I really don't know what you might mean by this, unless you are making the
all too common error of confusing science with the
industrial/military/political exploitations of science and scientists.
Science is a codified system for testing of assumptions. Scientists are
people.
>
> It might as well have done so,propagating the idea that anti-gravity is a
> joke, denying the fact that it is just a misnamed em propulsion method.
> And the fact there are several dark places in between certain theories
that
> might as well be full of space wurms.
Amusing tripe.
>
>
DMH
elag
Never let it rest.
'till the sad is sadder.
and the sadder is saddest.
Fascinan wrote:
>
> Dale in a huff (bitter):
>
> >Your mind is so fat (I notice that its arthritic state it has fallen to sad
> >repetition of the word "bitter" in relation to any mention of me: a
> >linguistic prop no doubt for that empty skull you once stored your thoughts
> >in)
>
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > Certainly honorable, but in essence a supernatural explanation is the
END
> > not the beginning of examination. If one can say simply "God dood it"
then
> > why look further?
>
> is that He did.
Maybe, but my response was attuned to a specific point of inquiry. We KNOW
what "HE did" (it's all around us and exists in a "document"), but if we
assume that the beginning of the universe was one of his magical acts, it
would make it damn near impossible to discover exactly what the processes
that went into it were, if only because magic is not knowable: that is the
nature of magic. It is magic precisely because it appears to act in ways we
cannot explain. If God created the cosmos according to physical laws, then
his presence becomes a redundancy, and we're back where we were. As for the
notion of "initial intent" and "everything arising out of nothing" Barrett
addresses this more clearly than I could.
>If 'twere god that created the yewneeverse, that doesn't tell us anything
from >thee scientific point of view, or imply anything about how far into
the history of >creation we can inquire.
Well, judging say from the only accounts of God's creative acts (the Bible,
and mainly Genesis) I think you might have to be insane to search for the
"scientific basis" of Eden and Adam's rib. But hell, knock yourself out!
Once you discover it, God will be out of a job...
>I would disagree, also with your assent (not quoted) to the verity of the
>statement that the world must necessarily have had a beginning. That's far
from >proven.
I didn't assent to this, but you either buy God's word (which says precisely
that the world did have a beginning), or you turn to the scientific evidence
that does exist. You're right, this is far from proven, and I don't
necessarily disagree. The rapid expansion away from a common point that
certainly appears to be the case in the universe is one argument in favor of
this idea, and certain residual radiations found at specific distances etc.
But who's claiming much of a much here? It's the godsters who figure they
have it all sussed, not me.
DMH
Dale Houstman
I think the schoolboy wet himself again.
If only he could get an art grant for the stain.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
> >There is always a point where science hits a wall, where chaos creeps in.
>
> Science - unlike religion - admits that its grasp of any phenomenon is
> somewhat tentative and subject to revision due to better math, better
> instrumentation or -frankly - better imagination.
>
Unless of course it denies certain breakthroughs due to "national
insecurity"
> >There is currently and will probably always be something unexplainable.
> The >big bang may explain the creation of the universe, but what led to
the
> big >bang?
>
> True, but if there is an unknown, then why attempt to fill it with spirit,
> unless you simply don't want to admit you can't stand the vacuum? for
> instance science really can only guess at the real nature and processes of
> gravity, but it doesn't attempt to fill that blank with - say - anchor
> gnomes.
jsday
>
> Certainly honorable, but in essence a supernatural explanation is the END
> not the beginning of examination. If one can say simply "God dood it" then
> why look further?
D00d! Just 'cause God did it doesn't mean we can't ask exactly what it
is that He did. If 'twere god that created the yewneeverse, that doesn't
tell us anything from thee scientific point of view, or imply anything about
how far into the history of creation we can inquire. I would disagree,
also with your assent (not quoted) to the verity of the statement that the
world must necessarily have had a beginning. That's far from proven.
>> The bottom line is that I feel that there is something larger than me.
>
> Jupiter? Of course there is something "larger" than you, and we all
> experience it every day: physical law.
heheh. Jupiter.
As one who's been in a rather extreme car accident, I can understand
how it brings out the mystical tendencies that people have. It really
breaks through a lot of assumptions people tend to have about how their
lives work. It can really screw with your head... I had a few minor
injuries which kept me in the hospital for a few days with no short- or
long-term memory, one morphine hallucination-filled moment to the next.
If there's anything that'll cause one to get mystical, it's that kind of
thing. Thinking back on it, the idea of God or the mystical beyond never
once entered my head (that I remember). But I can see how if I was trying
to cling to any sanity, that would have been an obvious way to go.
> I never denied you this, but - given the car accident example you front
> here - I just find the assumptions you drew from a quite understandable
> event to be strangely pointless.
_
Fascinan
>Sad, sadder, saddest.
>Never let it rest.
>'till the sad is sadder.
>and the sadder is saddest.
attenuations of grief, to be brief.
Leo Sgouros
>
> "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:K31q4.2447$74.3...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> in.
> > >
> > > Science - unlike religion - admits that its grasp of any phenomenon is
> > > somewhat tentative and subject to revision due to better math, better
> > > instrumentation or -frankly - better imagination.
> > >
> >
> > insecurity"
>
> all too common error of confusing science with the
> industrial/military/political exploitations of science
Oh yeah Dale, tell me something about my confusion.
Please tell me where the military is NOT a bunch of corporations that hold
onto secrets.
and scientists.
> Science is a codified system for testing of assumptions. Scientists are
> people.
>
Well thanks for straightening me out.
> >
> > It might as well have done so,propagating the idea that anti-gravity is
a
> > joke, denying the fact that it is just a misnamed em propulsion method.
> > And the fact there are several dark places in between certain theories
> that
> > might as well be full of space wurms.
>
> Amusing tripe.
> >
Its a fact.Except the worm part.
I cant help your anger, however.
Here is a post you might want to explain, while you are in that haughty
mode.
Oh by the way, this was before the quantum telepathy post on sci.physics.
its up to you to figure out what it all means
From: "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Secret NSA Interplanetary Probes??
Date: Sunday, February 06, 2000 6:14 PM
Go look it up.Up there at alt.alien.visitors.
Or stick to subjects you know about.
Dale Houstman
> Nikolaus Maack (ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> > Did you get along well with your father? I'm curious because I think
> > there's a lot of truth to the statement that, in men, the concept of
"God"
> > is mostly shaped by an idealized version of our fathers. I think this
is
> > especially true in children. You say you've been an atheist since the
get
> > along well with your father, back then? Do you get along with him now?
>
> Many an atheist has said this before, by the way.
Please give me those "many" examples.
>It's a popular theory.
Oh, so now you're into "popular" theories. How quaint...
>After all, why is God portrayed in our culture as a wise old man with a
long >flowing white beard?
This is true and not: I once spent an entire year asking theists their
"image" of God: most actually tended to envision him as a sort of cloud
filled with electricity or some other vague image of ephemera plus power.
The truth is you DON'T see a lot of imagery associated with God. He is
referred to as male, but the long-standing tradition is one of mystery. The
"Santa Claus" image is - in the main - one of media compromise (cartoons and
the like).
> The idea that God is a wise old ancestor of ours -- either father or
>grandfather -- is fairly common. When we are children, our parents seem
like >Gods. They have that sort of power over us.
This is true but trite and - at any rate - does not address your core
assumption: that my atheism MUST be a result of a flawed son/father
relationship. This seems to have no real validity as a full explanation. How
many deeply religious persons also are the result of often devastatingly
brutal or disassociative fathers? From what I've read, so many it would make
your head spin. To be honest, my "conversion" came about because (A) My
religious upbringing was relatively liberal (in the sense that it was
lackadaisical) and (B) Because I had a tendency towards thoughfulness. Your
psychological explanation - like so many psychological explanations -
explains almost nothing. I also went to two psychologists when I was young:
both are remembered as being shockingly dense.
The point is: to say that the Gods are a projection of parents into the
realm of numinosity is only partly true and almost wholly inadequate as a
psychological toehold. Many of the ancients gods (and even the earliest
mentions of Yahweh) grow out of natural observation and the quite human
desire to understand, to project patterns, and to feel central to these
patterns. Hermes - for only one among many - is obviously no one's idea of a
father, nor is Aphrodite (the great Bitch!). Some of the early presentations
of Yahweh (who is - like so many deities - an imaginative complex) show him
as an almost sexless nature manifestation, and many of the Hindu gods are
both sexes or neither. I have a statue of Shiva given to me by a friend who
visited India, and it is so sexless as to be scary. Other Hindu images make
up for this in spades of course, especially the yakshi (sp?) found on many
temples: pneumatic women figures obviously overflowing with love juices and
ready for one thing only. Leave a few dollars on the stupa dresser in the
morning. These are nobody's notions of mother either, unless you're an
Italian and confused between Madonna/whore.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> your core assumption: that my atheism MUST be a result of a flawed
> son/father relationship.
Did I say it *MUST* be a result of a flawed father/son relationship? I
said no such thing. I'm just trying to talk to you. I asked you what
your relationship with your dad was like, and speculated on the connection
between parents and gods. That's it. I drew no hard lines between these
two statements.
I asked if you got along well with your father. You still haven't told
me. The reason I am harping on the point has nothing to do with atheism
or the theory that God is based on our parents. I'd just like to hear
some personal details from you. Who was your father? What was he like?
I spoke of my father. It was easy. I can do it again, if you'd like.
My dad owned a restaurant, where German cuisine was the specialty. He was
the manager / head-waiter. It was a small place -- 40 seats. I worked in
the kitchen, because I hated serving people. I was the "dish-pig" for ten
years, on and off. This involved scrubbing pots, washing dishes,
preparing desserts, making "spetzel" (a german noodle), cleaning the
kitchen, etc. In my final years as a dish-pig, I was making CAN$8 an
hour, which was a lot, for the time. I got that much because no one else
wanted thr job.
The other dishwashers were drug-addled teenage assholes, and had a
tendency to not show up. My father, being strangely loud and timid at the
same time, refused to fire them. Instead, whenever one of them failed to
show up, he would call me, and insist I go to work. I would, on occasion,
be at a friend's house and get a phonecall -- come wash dishes. This
pissed me off incredibly.
When I told my dad I didn't want to come into work, that this was driving
me crazy, hours all over the place, he would inevitably respond with,
"Fine, we'll close the restaurant. Fuck it, we'll close the restaurant
and have no money."
How can you argue with logic like that, when you're fourteen? His
irrationality used to make me burst into tears. There was no reasoning
with him.
Over time my perception of my father changed. At first he seemed like a
mad tyrant. Now he looks like a ridiculous, attention-hungry loon. On
some levels I still respect him. There's no denying he's a good
businessman. But psychologically speaking, he's pretty broken. He's
convinced that Jews run everything -- "Jews are smarter than everybody
else!" -- and he tends to bully everyone around him. Dad has to be the
centre of attention or he goes nuts.
My entire family tends to see dad as a ridiculous (but loud) cartoon
character. I think he must sense this, but can't change his own behavior.
In some way, he's stuck, and doesn't know what to do with himself, so he
does the same thing over and over again.
And before anyone points it out -- yes, I see parallels between my father
and myself. I like getting attention, and I like playing the fool. I
sometimes wonder if my dad's craziness is all an act. He's a fool, but an
angry one. I don't think he's playing at it.
I'm curious, Dale, why you are so reluctant -- possibly incapable -- of
discussing your father. Oh sure, you'll discuss the intellectual notion
of Gods and fathers, but actually talking about your father, and what he
was like while you were growing up, seems utterly alien to you. What's
the big deal?
> Your psychological explanation - like so many psychological explanations
> - explains almost nothing. I also went to two psychologists when I was
> young: both are remembered as being shockingly dense.
Why did you see two psychologists when you were young? My god. My cracks
about you being autistic don't have any basis in reality, do they?
jsday
>
> Well, judging say from the only accounts of God's creative acts (the Bible,
> and mainly Genesis) I think you might have to be insane to search for the
> "scientific basis" of Eden and Adam's rib. But hell, knock yourself out!
> Once you discover it, God will be out of a job...
The literal truth of biblical accounts has little or nothing to do with
the larger concept of God. I think it was you who mentioned earlier that
Einstein's understanding of God could be viewed as having been a hinderance
to his work on quantum mechanics. I don't think that's true. The theory
had reached an impasse (it's still there) beyond which it could advance no
further except through evidence-free speculation (hence all the wackiness
of some of the theories proposed since then). Quite right that God becomes
irrelevant to scientific enquiry of the phyiscal conditions at the "beginning"
of the universe. That was my point, that God is irrelevant and redundant to
that, but that this does not say anything about whether God is alive, dead, or
nonsense. If the theories are correct and we can make no observations before
the "big bang" or below the quantum threshold, it does no harm to scientific
inquiry to say either that God rules those realms, or that they are unknowable.
It reminds me of the relation that some musicians have to God. When I sing,
it's very difficult to explain why I do it. Saying "for the glory of God"
is a convenient answer because it conveys exactly the right feeling, even
if I don't believe that it's literally accurate for most definitions of "God".
_
elag
Dale Houstman wrote:
I once spent an entire year asking theists their
> "image" of God: most actually tended to envision him as a sort of cloud
> filled with electricity or some other vague image of ephemera plus power.
Reminds one of Zeus/Jupiter.
> The truth is you DON'T see a lot of imagery associated with God.
Not in Saudi Arabia at any rate.
>Many of the ancients gods (and even the earliest
> mentions of Yahweh) grow out of natural observation and the quite human
> desire to understand, to project patterns, and to feel central to these
> patterns. Hermes - for only one among many - is obviously no one's idea of a
> father, nor is Aphrodite (the great Bitch!).
Isis, however (in her later sycretistic incarnation) made a fine mother.
Some of the early presentations
> of Yahweh (who is - like so many deities - an imaginative complex) show him
> as an almost sexless nature manifestation, and many of the Hindu gods are
> both sexes or neither. I have a statue of Shiva given to me by a friend who
> visited India, and it is so sexless as to be scary.
Why scary?
Other Hindu images make
> up for this in spades of course, especially the yakshi (sp?) found on many
> temples: pneumatic women figures obviously overflowing with love juices and
> ready for one thing only. Leave a few dollars on the stupa dresser in the
> morning. These are nobody's notions of mother either, unless you're an
> Italian and confused between Madonna/whore.
Questo qua, non capisce nulla... Fellini è morto!
elag
> difference to the drivel you write... oh this group (with the exception of a
> few) is so sadly lacking...
> Kristina.
Oh, dear... you didn't come back just for snipin' now did you? The
hunting must surely be better elsewhere.
elag
> It reminds me of the relation that some musicians have to God. When I sing,
> it's very difficult to explain why I do it. Saying "for the glory of God"
> is a convenient answer because it conveys exactly the right feeling, even
> if I don't believe that it's literally accurate for most definitions of "God".
Um... why not sing just because it gives you pleasure?
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > Well, judging say from the only accounts of God's creative acts (the
Bible,
> > and mainly Genesis) I think you might have to be insane to search for
the
> > "scientific basis" of Eden and Adam's rib. But hell, knock yourself out!
> > Once you discover it, God will be out of a job...
>
> The literal truth of biblical accounts has little or nothing to do with
> the larger concept of God.
It has something to do with it, surely? Really though I was being rather
light-hearted about the subject. The mixing of science with god is a dubious
concoction in any light.
> I think it was you who mentioned earlier that Einstein's understanding of
God >could be viewed as having been a hinderance to his work on quantum
>mechanics. I don't think that's true. The theory
> had reached an impasse (it's still there) beyond which it could advance no
> further except through evidence-free speculation (hence all the wackiness
> of some of the theories proposed since then).
Quantum physics was just starting, so to claim it had reached its impasse by
the time Einstein claimed "God doesn't play dice with the universe" is sort
of silly. At any rate I am not claiming anything for quantum physics, only
that Einstein's notions of divine order prevented him from considering it on
a better footing.
>Quite right that God becomes irrelevant to scientific enquiry of the
phyiscal >conditions at the "beginning" of the universe. That was my point,
that God is >irrelevant and redundant to that, but that this does not say
anything about >whether God is alive, dead, or nonsense. If the theories
are correct and we can make no observations before
> the "big bang" or below the quantum threshold, it does no harm to
scientific
> inquiry to say either that God rules those realms, or that they are
unknowable.
It certainly does, at least to my mind. Anyway, if "god" only rules those
unknown areas, He must be be getting pretty crowded by now, besides being
irrelevant to any human discussion that doesn't border on gaseous emptiness.
>
> It reminds me of the relation that some musicians have to God. When I
sing,
> it's very difficult to explain why I do it. Saying "for the glory of God"
> is a convenient answer because it conveys exactly the right feeling, even
> if I don't believe that it's literally accurate for most definitions of
"God".
I don't deny that it conveys "exactly the right feeling" for you, but I hate
to inform you that your "feelings" aren't the only ones under discussion
here. "The glory of God" is phrase that makes me feel slightly ill, and is
just another vague concoction to fill in areas you don't feel up to
exploring. There are so many explanations for why creative work induces
profound emotion (as well as equally profound thought) that your inability
to even conjecture upon this score is a sort of denouncement of "god's
glory" all in itself.
DMH
Dale Houstman
"elag" <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:38A995CA...@concentric.net...
>
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> I once spent an entire year asking theists their
> > "image" of God: most actually tended to envision him as a sort of cloud
> > filled with electricity or some other vague image of ephemera plus
power.
>
>
> Reminds one of Zeus/Jupiter.
Yes, it does doesn't it? This is pretty much what I felt at the time. It was
an interesting experiment really, although I wasn't particularly surprised
at the response: most people are VERY hesitant to picture God as an image. I
think sometimes they created Jesus and Mary just so they could illustrate
the Bible and give us all those terrible "3-D" pictures.
>
>
> > The truth is you DON'T see a lot of imagery associated with God.
>
>
> Not in Saudi Arabia at any rate.
Not anywhere really: Michaelangelo certainly and others here and there, but
mainly it's Jesus and Mommy. Now the East Indians... different story there,
huh?
>
> >Many of the ancients gods (and even the earliest
> > mentions of Yahweh) grow out of natural observation and the quite human
> > desire to understand, to project patterns, and to feel central to these
> > patterns. Hermes - for only one among many - is obviously no one's idea
of a
> > father, nor is Aphrodite (the great Bitch!).
>
>
> Isis, however (in her later sycretistic incarnation) made a fine mother.
Sometimes a woman's just gotta grown into motherhood...
>
>
> Some of the early presentations
> > of Yahweh (who is - like so many deities - an imaginative complex) show
him
> > as an almost sexless nature manifestation, and many of the Hindu gods
are
> > both sexes or neither. I have a statue of Shiva given to me by a friend
who
> > visited India, and it is so sexless as to be scary.
>
> Why scary?
Because (and it's minor enough) I was expecting a sexual image: I had seen
so many of them from the Hindus previously that this sexless
destroyer/creator struck me as creepy. Of course (after therapy and
electroshock) I have recovered...
>
> Other Hindu images make
> > up for this in spades of course, especially the yakshi (sp?) found on
many
> > temples: pneumatic women figures obviously overflowing with love juices
and
> > ready for one thing only. Leave a few dollars on the stupa dresser in
the
> > morning. These are nobody's notions of mother either, unless you're an
> > Italian and confused between Madonna/whore.
>
>
> Questo qua, non capisce nulla... Fellini č morto!
Pesto farina cuchi cuchi oblong grotto, mia faro...
DMH
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> But "God" is an imaginative concept of (obviously) rude power, and a form of
> poetry, but I prefer my poetics more human-sized, which (as shown by
> Rimbaud) is quite large enough to contain all the beauty and enigma and
> marvel one could want.
... but neverless ignores the beauty and enigma and marvel of much
of the physical world around us which is not human-sized. Anyone
for a milliscond pulsar or a macroscopic bose-condensate?
Appealing to the benefits of "human-sized" is merely a disguised
form of censorship, a censorship which attempts to blind yourself
to just about anything the universe does, and even a fairly large
amount of what humans do. Do you understand the interconnections
and dynamics of the global telphone system?
#Paul
Nikolaus Maack
> Do you understand the interconnections
> and dynamics of the global telphone system?
The Scent of Unseen Flowers
by Nik
I am a telephone. You hold me to your ear and hear me sing ocean waves
from ten thousand miles away. Thinking it's static, you hang up on me. I
am a video screen in a mall window. You walk by and don't notice my face
pressed against the glass, trying to say hello. I am a newspaper, left on
the backseat of the bus, unread. I am an untuned radio station. I am a
flyer under your windshield wiper that melted in the rain. I am a
billboard you fail to read, a misfiled library book, a song by a band
you've never heard of, a website never visited. I'm a unique flower you
will never smell that grows in the locked up garden of an eccentric
billionaire.
Fascinan
>Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>> But "God" is an imaginative concept of (obviously) rude power, and a form
>of
>> poetry, but I prefer my poetics more human-sized, which (as shown by
>> Rimbaud) is quite large enough to contain all the beauty and enigma and
>> marvel one could want.
>
>... but neverless ignores the beauty and enigma and marvel of much
>of the physical world around us which is not human-sized. Anyone
>for a milliscond pulsar or a macroscopic bose-condensate?
>Appealing to the benefits of "human-sized" is merely a disguised
>form of censorship, a censorship which attempts to blind yourself
>to just about anything the universe does, and even a fairly large
>amount of what humans do. Do you understand the interconnections
>and dynamics of the global telphone system?
I totally agree Paul. One of the biggest problems that humanity faces is a
consciousness that focuses totally on the local: what's going on at work this
week, how much money do I need to save for such and such, and at best, how much
money do I need to do such and such a few years down the road. This is the
local mind.
Chimps made great strides intellectually over their evolutionary precursors
because of the local mind. See a cheetah ---> run to the trees. Food is
getting scarce ---> move to the next area that has it.
We still act with a localized mind, but our actions affect the global level.
There is no level of mind that says, "this is *too* much, or this action will
cause severe repercussions at this level of the ecosystem, etc." We grow up
wanting to make as much money as possible for ourselves. There is no conscious
extension towards all things related. There is no sense of man's interrelation
to the environment, let alone to all things in the cosmos.
Any epistemology needs to include the greatest context of all: the universe
story.
How can we even begin to have a vision of the future, with such limited
knowledge of the past, the WHOLE past. Science (cosmology) affords us these
glimpses into the past.
As one approaches the whole with a humble, yet expansive consciousness, one
struggles to grasp the sheer massiveness, the power, the brilliance, of the
universe....the macrocosm. This instills a reverence, a sense of awe.
Meanwhile back on the mesocosmic level of the local mind, we are beating the
shit out eachother in a rather vacant cycle that many consider a *game*. It is
from this perspective that we approach everything with a sense of coldness,
alienation, and an underlying, pervasive desire to empower the self. From this
point-of-view, the liberation of the imagination seems dubious at best.
Fas
Dale Houstman
> Paul Kinsler:
>
> >Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >> But "God" is an imaginative concept of (obviously) rude power, and a
form
> >of
> >> poetry, but I prefer my poetics more human-sized, which (as shown by
> >> Rimbaud) is quite large enough to contain all the beauty and enigma and
> >> marvel one could want.
> >
> >... but neverless ignores the beauty and enigma and marvel of much
> >of the physical world around us which is not human-sized. Anyone
> >for a milliscond pulsar or a macroscopic bose-condensate?
You misconstrue: I didn't actually mean mere physical size, but "as sensed
by human ratio" or "able to be sensed or contemplated upon" or (particulary
in Rimbaud's case maybe) "able to be imagined by man, and presented as an
imaginative process of man" as opposed to being Other. Simple enough. Or did
you really believe I am not aware that man is bigger than a mailbox and
smaller than a galaxy?
> >Appealing to the benefits of "human-sized" is merely a disguised
> >form of censorship, a censorship which attempts to blind yourself
> >to just about anything the universe does, and even a fairly large
> >amount of what humans do.
Certainly untrue. All of it. Every word. Since I also happen to think the
"idea" of God is "human-sized" (in the ways I explained it) nothing is
beyond consideration of the human, and - in fact - we can only think upon
those things that our nerural systems have access to in some fashion. It
goes without saying - I would hope - that the imagination is also
human-sized.
>Do you understand the interconnections and dynamics of the global telphone
system?
Yawn... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the global telecommunications system
was imagined by men, created by men, used by men, and maintained by men. Or
are you one of those odd little people who really think a complex
communication system becomes a deity at some point?
>
> I totally agree Paul. One of the biggest problems that humanity faces is
a
> consciousness that focuses totally on the local: what's going on at work
this
> week, how much money do I need to save for such and such, and at best, how
much
> money do I need to do such and such a few years down the road. This is
the
> local mind.
Yes, but anyone who has read what I have written before knows that I am as
against this constriction as much as anyone, and that your miscomprehension
has led you into arguing a point that is totally unnecessary to argue. I
said nothing about localization, and was using human-sized in contrast to
god-thought. And really the belief in deities can be seen as a restriction
of human imagination, in that it assigns what is truly most human; the
baroque and creative imagination; to the Other, in which case it is lost to
ritual.
>
>Science (cosmology) affords us these glimpses into the past.
Who's arguing?
>
> As one approaches the whole with a humble, yet expansive consciousness,
one
> struggles to grasp the sheer massiveness, the power, the brilliance, of
the
> universe....the macrocosm. This instills a reverence, a sense of awe.
Awe is one thing, assignation of this awe to a god quite another: awe is not
exclusive to those who would think - for instance - the stars are god's
candles. I am as moved by the night sky as anyone, but I feel no need to
inject deity into it to find it overwhelming, and (in fact) the infinitely
complex processes that I realize went into producing this "sight" are a
portion of that awe. I find this more compelling than any ( admittedly
charming ) tale of a series of deities and heroes being placed there. I am -
at the same time - quite stunned by the exotic imaginations which have given
us Orion, Pegasus, and Cygnus. There is no contradiction between knowledge
and awe.
>
Personally I don't know where you are going with this, unless you actually
have the temerity to suggest any of my statements point to a person obsessed
with weekly pay and schedules. If you think this, then I suggest you are
misreading so badly that a checkup is in order.
DMH
jsday
>
> Quantum physics was just starting, so to claim it had reached its impasse by
> the time Einstein claimed "God doesn't play dice with the universe" is sort
> of silly. At any rate I am not claiming anything for quantum physics, only
> that Einstein's notions of divine order prevented him from considering it on
> a better footing.
Well, I was just hoping that you might have some kind of evidence or logic to
support that claim, because on the surface it appears to simply be a statement
made out of emotional reaction to the idea of God as you perceive it. I think
the impasse that was reached, the problem that was uncovered, that caused Al to
say "God does not play dice", was a real one that has remained formidable to
this day. Sure the theory has advanced in many ways, but that fundamental
uncertainty still remains impassable, far as I know.
> "The glory of God" is phrase that makes me feel slightly ill, and is
> just another vague concoction to fill in areas you don't feel up to
> exploring.
The mere mention of God sickens you? That's unfortunate. It's not vague,
although it is obfuscated. It usually makes people think, since they generally
know me as an atheist. It's not that I'm unable to come up with better
answers, just that I like throwing out the "God" one once in a while to
see if it gets a good reaction. Guess it didn't here, oh well.
_
Fascinan
>Personally I don't know where you are going with this, unless you actually
>have the temerity to suggest any of my statements point to a person obsessed
>with weekly pay and schedules. If you think this, then I suggest you are
>misreading so badly that a checkup is in order.
Dale, why do you infer that all of my intimations were point, counterpoint
against you? I was just finding some themes in Paul's post that I wanted to
elaborate upon. I never said, "Dale is an example of this," or used the term
the Dale-consciousness (a scary thought) . I was referring to the local mind,
which I believe, we have inhereted via evolution, and have -- for the majority
-- been unable to experiece a collective shift towards the next level of
cognitive and I dare to say a sort of "spiritual" evolution -- and I do not
rule out the "spiritual" realm as being some sort of product of cognition.
Nonetheless, it's part of being human, and a central part of the human story.
But, on one point you make (I *am* now addressing the mighty and tidy
Dale-consciousness) :
>awe is not
>exclusive to those who would think - for instance - the stars are god's
>candles. I am as moved by the night sky as anyone, but I feel no need to
>inject deity into it to find it overwhelming, and (in fact) the infinitely
>complex processes that I realize
>went into producing this "sight" are a
>portion of that awe. I find this more compelling than any ( admittedly
>charming ) tale of a series of deities and heroes being placed there.
Who said inject a deity into something that produces awe? I'm just against
taking all of the historical (and highly imaginative) deities out, and the
possibility of an -- as of yet -- unexplainded "presence".
>at the same time - quite stunned by the exotic imaginations which have given
>us Orion, Pegasus, and Cygnus. There is no contradiction between knowledge
>and awe.
Ah, very good then.
Fas
barrett john erickson
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > Quantum physics was just starting, so to claim it had reached
its impasse by
> > the time Einstein claimed "God doesn't play dice with the
universe" is sort
> > of silly. At any rate I am not claiming anything for quantum
physics, only
> > that Einstein's notions of divine order prevented him from
considering it on
> > a better footing.
>
> Well, I was just hoping that you might have some kind of
evidence or logic to
> support that claim, because on the surface it appears to simply
be a statement
> made out of emotional reaction to the idea of God as you
perceive it. I think
> the impasse that was reached, the problem that was uncovered,
that caused Al to
> say "God does not play dice", was a real one that has remained
formidable to
> this day. Sure the theory has advanced in many ways, but that
fundamental
> uncertainty still remains impassable, far as I know.
as heisenberg said, "what we learn about is not nature itself, but
nature subjected to our methods of questioning."
if einstein hadn't taken refuge in his concept of divine
determination when confronted with quantum uncertainty, his
formidable imagination might have turned to investigations of
chance, complexity and organization rather than becoming possessed
by visions of a grand unified theory of beautiful simplicity. he
might have sired chaos theory in the 50's. i see this as his
failure.
chaos theory, autopoiesis and enactive cognition are converging in
a way that can provide resolution to the paradoxes of quantum
mechanics (and this is also a convergence on paths long walked by
surrealists) . once we see how self-organization can bring us
from the chaos of the pre-cognitive realm (the pre-measurement
quanta) to our current state of complex organization, gods lose
their original purpose (as organizers of the universe) and must be
viewed as a detrimental distraction at best.
but this resolution, of course, will be quite distressing for
those who are unable to embrace the authentic uncertainty at the
core of our existence and cling instead to surrogate mothers of
wire and carpet.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
elag
>
> but this resolution, of course, will be quite distressing for
> those who are unable to embrace the authentic uncertainty at the
> core of our existence and cling instead to surrogate mothers of
> wire and carpet.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An excellent reference to one of my favorite psych experiments of all time:
http://www.birdhouse.org/spong/napier/experim.html
http://www.nmh.northfield.ma.us/academics/museum/studentfiles/jason/monkid.htm
Leo Sgouros
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:UIWq4.95$Yd2....@ptah.visi.com...
_the sungularity_
> but this resolution, of course, will be quite distressing for
> those who are unable to embrace the authentic uncertainty at the
> core of our existence and cling instead to surrogate mothers of
> wire and carpet.
>
>
event with party hat horizon
>
> -- 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
>
> ==============================================
>
>
did i spell
s i n g u l a r i t y cor r e ct
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> Well, I was just hoping that you might have some kind of evidence or logic to
> support that claim, because on the surface it appears to simply be a statement
> made out of emotional reaction to the idea of God as you perceive it. I think
> the impasse that was reached, the problem that was uncovered, that caused Al to
> say "God does not play dice", was a real one that has remained formidable to
> this day. Sure the theory has advanced in many ways, but that fundamental
> uncertainty still remains impassable, far as I know.
These are our choices:
1) The universe plays dice, but allows apparently non-local effects to
occur -- although the non-local effects can never be used for sending
any information. (non-local + hidden variables)
2) The universe doesn't allow non-local effects, but does something that
might be considered dice-like. However, the "dice-like" uncertainty
is not described by standard probability theory. (local + quantum-uncertain)
#Paul
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> Yawn... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the global telecommunications system
> was imagined by men, created by men, used by men, and maintained by men. Or
> are you one of those odd little people who really think a complex
> communication system becomes a deity at some point?
Nope. I'm saying that even though it is imagined by men[1], created by
men, used by men, and maintained by men; no one man can visualise all it's
properties in any short period of time. Or, arguably, at all. What on
earth led you to bring a God into this?
#Paul
[1] In the old sense refering to both men and women.
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
Dale. there's a huge world out there and only a portion of those
people are Christian, not to mention that there were many different
religions and mythologies long before Christianity.
Again, you are so MIRED in the western Judeo-Christian notion of god.
every post is whether or not god created things, and if god makes
everything then there is no point in inquiry or scientific discovery.
Free your mind. (and your ass will follow . . . )
You and I are arguing apples and oranges. No apples and otters.
Mkay? I have talked about mystical experiences, feelings of COMMUNION
and you keep trying to argue about the Christian notion of god as
creator and the freakin' Garden of Eden.
You can rag on Nik all you want, but in the 100s of posts I've been
reading today, I have to agree. First, you are arguing from an
extremely culturally-specific prejudice. Second, you have rejected
religion since you were 13, as you admitted, therefore it is safe to
say that you have not educated yourself on what anyone else believes
except for what is available to you on Sunday morning in between
cartoons and news programs, so I have to assume that you are arguing
from an uninformed position on what any kind of spirituality might
ential. And third, I, too, see your posts as divorced from the realm
of personal experience and solely stuck inside your "intellectual"
notions, which are coming from a somewhat limited range of subjects--
Science and Otters.
My reference earlier to "gnosis" meaning to know, I felt cast an
interesting light on the word A-gnostic, which would literally mean
someone without knowing.
I "know" what I know not only through science or rationalism, but
because of what I feel, what I have experienced. Barrett's emails
quote Breton that "the real and the unreal, life and death will cease
to be contradictions." Yet you tell me that as a surrealist, one can
only believe in what is known by the five senses. I would further like
to know how one who believes that this earthly existence is all there
is can see life and death as anything EXCEPT contradictions?
You are an evangelical atheist. I see your position as refusing to
allow any inquiry that you are uncomfortable with. And I know now from
personal experience your willingness to avoid situations that make you
uncomfortable, rather than moving forward in a spirit of cooperation
and open inquiry.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dale Houstman
<fluffy_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88k0on$9jf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Also "fluffy," if you had the intelligence to listen to what we were
attempting to tell you, you would realize WHY I didn't want to meet -
barrett explained it to you I am told - and that we had every intention of
asking you to remain a member of the group in some capacity. Truth is we
debated the course to take, and agreed that your involvement was both wanted
and appreciated. Also that why we felt this theist notion - in a small
group - was bound to take up too much of any energy we could muster at the
weekly meetings, such a stance would not be a problem if only the group were
somewhat larger. But - I forget - you're a dualist and can only see "want
me/don't want me."
You are now free to move to Ottawa and help your new mindmate Nik with his
fascinating experiments in harassing fastfood counter help with vegetables.
What a dolt! Now I know the "A" in Type-A means asinine...
DMH
Dale Houstman
> Dale. there's a huge world out there and only a portion of those
> people are Christian, not to mention that there were many different
> religions and mythologies long before Christianity.
God with a capital "G" and lacking "the" or "a" almost always refers to the
Christian God. This is a cultural given, and so your argument on this point
goes beyond the trivial. Or do you really suppose that I haven't heard of
and read Hesiod, Ovid, etc?
>
> Again, you are so MIRED in the western Judeo-Christian notion of god.
> every post is whether or not god created things, and if god makes
> everything then there is no point in inquiry or scientific discovery.
See above: the original thread is about the Christian God, and I am not
mired in any concept of god, God, or godlings. They are all more or less
interesting imaginative projections to me. In fact, I have read much more on
and been much more intrigued by the ancient Greek/Roman/Norse deities. For
me they are more psychologically telling.
>
> Free your mind. (and your ass will follow . . . )
Cute...
>
> You and I are arguing apples and oranges. No apples and otters.
> Mkay? I have talked about mystical experiences, feelings of COMMUNION
> and you keep trying to argue about the Christian notion of god as
> creator and the freakin' Garden of Eden.
Again, the original ideas expressed were about the Christian God and so I
responded appropriately. As for your ideas of COMMUNION, this notion - as
you have expressed it - is so vague and uninteresting as a topic of
discussion that I find myself falling asleep thinking about it.
>
> You can rag on Nik all you want, but in the 100s of posts I've been
> reading today, I have to agree. First, you are arguing from an
> extremely culturally-specific prejudice.
You don't know shit about much, do you?
>Second, you have rejected religion since you were 13, as you admitted,
>therefore it is safe to say that you have not educated yourself on what
anyone >else believes except for what is available to you on Sunday morning
in between
> cartoons and news programs, so I have to assume that you are arguing
> from an uninformed position on what any kind of spirituality might
> ential.
You can assume anything you want, but you'd still be wrong. I've read the
Bible, went to a year of Bible classes in preparation for conversion to
Episopalianism when I was 13, have read many books on mythology, and had
countless conversations with theists of all sorts, most of whom - I must
say - could express their spiritual beliefs in a much more coherent fashion
than you find yourself able to do.
>And third, I, too, see your posts as divorced from the realm
> of personal experience and solely stuck inside your "intellectual"
> notions, which are coming from a somewhat limited range of subjects--
> Science and Otters.
Booting you out wasn't enough, a shooting would have been more to the point.
>
> My reference earlier to "gnosis" meaning to know, I felt cast an
> interesting light on the word A-gnostic, which would literally mean
> someone without knowing.
It would be wildly interesting if I hadn't realized the etylmology of the
word since I was knee-high to a Catholic.
>
> I "know" what I know not only through science or rationalism, but
> because of what I feel, what I have experienced.
Same as any schizophrenic.
>Barrett's emails quote Breton that "the real and the unreal, life and death
will >cease to be contradictions." Yet you tell me that as a surrealist,
one can
> only believe in what is known by the five senses.
Six senses: the imagination is the extra one you both forget and misuse.
>I would further like to know how one who believes that this earthly
existence is >all there is can see life and death as anything EXCEPT
contradictions?
There are so many ways to address this sloppy thought that it is daunting.
First - like so many concepts fronted by dullards and dualists - this entire
"idea" is false. Dualists are forced by their limited parameters to seek
oppositions everywhere (right/wrong, night/day) when in actuality the
oppositions turn out to be merely different, not opposite, phenomenon. At
any rate, it is obvious that life cannot exist without death and vice versa:
they are two different nodes on a continuum.
>
> You are an evangelical atheist.
Balderdash. I NEVER bring up the idea of deity, it is always started by a
theist. And - as I have explained to you - I feel uncomfortable relating
such nonsense precisely because I DON'T feel the urge or the need to convert
others to artheism. What is appalling about you is not your belief in some
notion of deity, but the pure vague idiocy with which you discuss it. For
instance: I admire and enjoy deeply the thoughts and words of Blake and St.
Augustine, and the better written sections of the Bible, the mythologies of
Native Americans, Greeks, etc. All about God, by people who believed deeply
in their gods. What they reveal to me is the human imagination working at a
fever pitch to pattern its surroundings and events into marvelous accounts.
The truth is your conversation simply bores me. Gods are infinitely more
interesting than you are capable of making them seem.
>And I know now from personal experience your willingness to avoid
situations >that make you uncomfortable, rather than moving forward in a
spirit of >cooperation and open inquiry.
Right - and I now know how absolutely dull and dim-witted a theist can be
given enough vacuity to hang themselves with. Luckily I don't judge all
spiritually minded people by the low standards of thought you have
demonstrated.
DMH
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> chaos theory, autopoiesis and enactive cognition are converging in
> a way that can provide resolution to the paradoxes of quantum
> mechanics (and this is also a convergence on paths long walked by
> surrealists) .
There is no evidence that chaos theory will provide a resolution to the
(so called) paradoxes of quantum mechanics. QM is not wierd because
there is some underlying chaotic dynamics we do not understand -- Bells
Theorum indicated that much. Even a replacement (better) theory than
QM is going to have to replicate the non-classical-statistics xor
non-locality already observed, and you cant do that with chaos.
#Paul
kristina
I said:
> > I see you've changed your name Nik! Calling yourself Fas will make no
> > difference to the drivel you write... oh this group (with the exception
of a
> > few) is so sadly lacking...
> > Kristina.
>
> Oh, dear... you didn't come back just for snipin' now did you? The
> hunting must surely be better elsewhere.
I think you're right... I see the cythera entrail has made her/his way
back! (enough said on that). I AM beyond the point of caring to
participate in moronic conversations and constant bitch fighting with boring
little children (nik, cythera, Elizabeth, jill, fluffy fuckie-what-ever, and
on and on...)
So the fact that I am no more interested in discussion with a bunch of
morons (with the exception of Dale, Barrett, Brandon and John... and
possibly a few others that don't regularly contribute) there is nothing more
for me to add.
I COULD become a troll here, but time is of the essence and this is the
magnitude and magnificence of my contribution.
I have, sadly, come to find this newsgroup too trying on my patience (what
little I have), BUT, even more than that, I find it a great shame that the
content for the most part revolves around idiots like Nik and comments
similar to his display of (lack of) mind.
I'm no superhero, (although I dream of being Bettie Page morphed with Juan
Davilla) and I see people as having failings -- which I find rather
delicious -- however wanton ignorance and stupidity have no endearing
qualities to speak of.
It DOES make me sad. I came to this group quite excited, and hoping for
some like minded individuals who would engage in conversation that would
send shivers up my spine and spin me into a deeper state of thought and
feeling -- however, the drool that evaporates into this newsgroup leaves me
flat. There is a great lack of imagination and creativity.
IF I got into the humour and madness of the banal in fighting, I suppose
there may be some point in contributing -- and IF I had the energy or saw
the posts as worthy of reply, (or really felt complelled to debate a point)
I would surely say something. However idiots in my experience gain nothing
from intelligent (or attempted) conversation... and the ratio of idiots
compared to intelligent people on here is way too high for my liking. I am
EXHAUSTED trying to wade through the rubbish, and it is as I said A SHAME...
as I do miss some (very few) of the people on here, and honestly the only
reason I have a look in sometimes is to read their posts.
Anyway, there you have it!
So yes, elag, you are in essence correct with your observation.
Kristina.
Fascinan
[a lot of bitching, moaning, and insults]
There is nothing worse than someone who castigates others for a lack of
imagination, while having nothing to offer other than a few abrading
paragraphs. I wonder if the dingos are keeping you up all night.
You and Dale should correspond privately. Certainly, you are meant for
eachother.
Sitting there in the living room you could both agree on the conclusion that
everything is crap, and beneath yourselves.