A basic Qvestion
Marufur Raza
it possible to know?
If so please define, because I want to know where and how I stand (if I
stand anywhere at all that is).
Leo Sgouros
Marufur Raza <mr...@amtca.com> wrote in message
news:381F5148...@amtca.com...
> How does one know when one has achieved a surrealist sense of being? Is
> it possible to know?
>
Sure.
Can you describe a surreal sense of being?
If you were there, nothing would be surreal anymore, would it?
(see Barret's sig)
> If so please define, because I want to know where and how I stand (if I
> stand anywhere at all that is).
>
>
You asked the question.
You are looking so you are practically there!
L
dale houstman
Marufur Raza <mr...@amtca.com> wrote in message
news:381F5148...@amtca.com...
> How does one know when one has achieved a surrealist >sense of being? Is
it possible to know?
I really can't say. For me surrealism is NOT "a state of being" (which
strongly implies a static posture as regards sensation), but a process of
continuous discovery, utilizing
all the senses, including the imagination. If one is set to achieve a
certain state I think you may miss the train.
>
> If so please define, because I want to know where and how >I stand (if I
stand anywhere at all that is).
I assume you are standing (or sitting) exactly where you are. This is a good
place to begin. The rest is really a matter of allowing yourself to
"reaffirm" what is already there, attempting to do so freely, without "easy
settlements" for mere sensationalism, and outmoded habits of thought. If one
conceives of surrealism as a sort of "odd satori" it will be very difficult:
satori is really a form of self-brainwashing in which one "successfully"
eludes what is most human in a vain notion of getting beyond desire and the
mind. Although I also found this comforting at various points, I now find
(and have found for quite some time now) this to be a type of internally
turned fascism of disassociation, quite bereft of interest and reliant
entirely too much upon circular "logic" and vague tautolgies (EVERYTHING IS
TRUE) which create linguistic defense perimeters against desire and
knowledge.
DMH
DMH
dale houstman
<cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7vo2h2$sj3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> As well as emotional perimeters. re: process, in zen they >say everything
changes except the middle way. i can't say i >know what this means.
You're not supposed to. I have read quite a number of books on the zen
experience, and finally found most of the concepts to be rather simplistic
circularites, meant to bollocks the intellect.
>maybe it is similar to time?
Maybe - maybe not - maybe - maybe not - maybe -maybe not.
>dale, your definition of satori is different from what i heard: >that it
is a single-point concentration.
satori is that moment in which you suddenly "get it" which is to say you
realize your mind can't get it. It is enlightenment, but of a particulary
"non-western" type, as it is supposed to contain no intellectual content.
One of the methods used to achieve this is the classical zen koans which
defeat logical methodology. Also, many zen masters use sleep deprivation,
hunger, forced positions (sitting in one spot upright for days or longer),
striking with sticks randomly: all to create what is essentially a state of
dependence and desperate need to escape. It isn't put this way of course,
but the descriptions in many books are not encouraging. At some point one
achieves the "white light" of satori. It's really a sort of mental
disassociation.
>in buddhism the bodhisattva foregoes her own enlightenment >to help others
across.
Someone's gotta do the dirty work.
>there are 37 levels for this entity. the first is joyousness.
> enlightenment or nirvana seems to be about obliteration. >who wants that
anyway?
Well, various images of the afterlife appear in the literature, and it is
actually a quite involved nothingness at times. Buddhism (especially in
Japan) is (like the language) a rather bastard melange: some sects include
saints, ghosts, rebirth from various "wheels" bardos etc.And - really - the
pure notion of nirvana as a nothingness that follows the good life, is
nearer to my conception of after-death than the extremely silly
(and, over the years, equally bastardized with limbos) Christian schemata.
But neither appeals anymore.
>to me these as all religious forms are a mind-construct in
> which people can deposit their potent desires instead of >grinding down
with pain.
I have seen this again and again, but (like all opiates) there is a price to
be paid in overall obliviousness. As I have said, there is a self-professed
buddhist in our office who, despite all his supposed ego-control comes off
as the biggest snob I have seen in years. And it is true that too many use
the "methods" NOT to change their life but to merely feel better about their
own hideous treatment of others. And this is at center the problem with much
of this: it is really a system of egotism.
>in my book enlightenment can be instantaneous and needs >no container. it
is tempting to try to close up the circle, >would appreciate your input what
attracted me to zen >besides living in rural japan as a child was the
compassion, >which you already.
I believe firmly in personal revolution: there are those moments in which
everything matters intensely, and in which certain choices occur to you
clearly. There is probably a neurological basis for such peak moments, when
it becomes possible to enact emotional changes that otherwise might have
taken years.
And ethical persons can arise out of any "system." But - it seems - more is
to be laid on the shoulders of the individual than on the program. Zen can
be petty and ignorant, just as Christianity can: a certain grace radiates
from the person almost despite the corruption of these clumsy
instrumentations. I put my faith in the single human.
DMH
Kristina
have naturally asked myself, but I don't think there is such a thing
perhaps. For me, I find that surrealism embraces my way of approaching
life. The great freedom in it is something that connects me to it, and I
find myself finding a sanctuary of sorts in surrealist philosophies.
If you ask me whether I like Dali's work, no not particularly...LOL. (It
seems to be a basis for the introduction to surrealism for most people, and
the inherent thought that all people that identify in some way with
surrealism love Dali). So tiring.....LOL.
I just find a certain lover/empathic friend in surrealism...it's a lovely
journey of thought provoking liquid experiences for me. What was one minute
before may not be so in another second, and that whole thing of fuzziness
and overlapping in thought, creativity is so warming to me.
I don't identify with one specific thing in life, except that perhaps of
being an artist, and even that has certain connotations...depending from
which perspective you are coming from. (sorry, I'm being rather abstract
here now).
Basically, like I said...there is a certain sanctuary and identification
with the moving and changing state of surrealism that brings me closer to
myself? Something like that...
Now if you ask Nik, he will say......."ahhh yes, but do you know who you
are...PROVE IT!!! Where is your instruction book? Hey, hey!!!" LOL.
Kristina.
(footnote: Nik, just having some fun here...take me as lightly as you can).
--
.......................................................................
I am writing to you with my eyes - Frida Kahlo.
Kristina
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nNIT3.2756$Q82....@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Marufur Raza <mr...@amtca.com> wrote in message
> news:381F5148...@amtca.com...
> > How does one know when one has achieved a surrealist sense of being? Is
> > it possible to know?
> >
>
> Sure.
> Can you describe a surreal sense of being?
> If you were there, nothing would be surreal anymore, would it?
> (see Barret's sig)
Yes, this is a lovely way of putting it Leo...(with the help of Barrett's
sig file of course...).
Kristina.
>
>
>
> > If so please define, because I want to know where and how I stand (if I
> > stand anywhere at all that is).
> >
> >
>
Leo Sgouros
Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vns8l$ul6$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
I dont think that we are ready to proclaim Breton a God-fearing realist-
but imagine the press!!
WWWoooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhooooooooo!!!!
All the bugs in the world would be protesting with morphine dribbling out
their asses.
<hmm,note to self.Neu project consideration>
Kristina
> I have seen this again and again, but (like all opiates) there is a price
to
> be paid in overall obliviousness. As I have said, there is a
self-professed
> buddhist in our office who, despite all his supposed ego-control comes off
> as the biggest snob I have seen in years. And it is true that too many use
> the "methods" NOT to change their life but to merely feel better about
their
> own hideous treatment of others. And this is at center the problem with
much
> of this: it is really a system of egotism.
Isn't that incredible. Well it isn't really, but when you think of the
overall philosophies that Christians and Buddhists, etc live by (according
to faith) at the end of the day it is not so much that the belief is
followed accordingly. I don't know how to say this, but my past experience
with thechurch pretty much showed what a bunch of hypocrites they were. i
was noly a child but it was clear from the word get-go.
I've come across this supposed "good of all concerned" attitude in other
areas. It has always struke me rather amazing how the rudest people are
sometimes those who follow the (albeit a big lie) teachings of religion.
I've also known many women who call themselves "seperatist lesbian
fmeinists" and totally annihilate other women and impose there wretched
rules on living and what it means to be a woman. I think that is why I stay
away from any organised idea of anything...I don't like the hypocrisy they
exhibit. I realise people are people, I have no idealistic views
there...however, being without organised anything is just danty to me...
> I believe firmly in personal revolution: there are those moments in which
> everything matters intensely, and in which certain choices occur to you
> clearly. There is probably a neurological basis for such peak moments,
when
> it becomes possible to enact emotional changes that otherwise might have
> taken years.
This is so true as well...
>
> And ethical persons can arise out of any "system." But - it seems - more
is
> to be laid on the shoulders of the individual than on the program. Zen can
> be petty and ignorant, just as Christianity can: a certain grace radiates
> from the person almost despite the corruption of these clumsy
> instrumentations. I put my faith in the single human.
Yes, I like the single human, it is a lovely way to approach people, and
more so there is a certain dignity in it I think too, (it's a good way to
approach ourselves as well, perhaps more importantly) and freedom. It is
not a closed minded attitude to have...which is rampant in many organised
philosophical, religious, etc dogma.
I hope some of that made sense...
Kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
>satori is that moment in which you suddenly "get it" which is to say you
>realize your mind can't get it. It is enlightenment, but of a particulary
>"non-western" type, as it is supposed to contain no intellectual content.
It probably would be much simpler to say that a satori is when your
mind suddenly "inverts", as Barrett described in one of his posts.
Barrett learned a new theory -- "enactive cognition" -- and his mind
bent, twisted, and straightened out again. I don't know if he would
call it a satori, but the way he described it, it sounded like one to
me. He suddenly understood the world from a new perspective.
You can chase satoris using the buddhist shtick, or you can just
experience them at home, on your own, on special occasions. It's a
useful word, anyway.
>One of the methods used to achieve this is the classical zen koans which
>defeat logical methodology.
This should be something surrealists would appreciate. A koan
attempts to undermine logical thought processes. The answer is
supposed to be one of intuinition and un-reason.
Unfortunately, the way a koan is taught is often quite ridiculous.
For example, in a book I read a while back -- "Thank you and OK!" --
the author described how he was undergoing his buddhist training.
Every day he and all the other monks would have to approach the
master, and try to answer the koan that was put to them.
The answer to some koans is already known. One koan's answer, for
example, is "Mu," which means pretty much the same thing as "moot", as
in, "The question is moot." The way a master decides if the pupil has
learned the koan properly, is by how they say the word "Mu". (No, I'm
not kidding.)
Some masters will pass people through koans once a month. Maybe they
make you say "Mu" once a day for a week and then decide you get it.
Others will make you say "Mu" once a day for a year, and tell you you
still haven't quite digested the concept. All this based on how you
say the word "Mu".
And you thought Christianity could be silly.
>And this is at center the problem with much
>of this: it is really a system of egotism.
It can be, yes. But so can surrealism. And so can anything. Any
philosophy can be used to justify murder, and the ill treatment of
others. You would think that Christianity, which has "Thou shalt not
commit murder," in its rulebook would be an exception. Ha ha, no such
luck.
Does this mean the philosophy is wrong, if someone uses it to justify
killing? I don't think so. Every mundane object is potentially a
murder weapon, and every system of thought we have is a potential
justifier of it.
>I believe firmly in personal revolution: there are those moments in which
>everything matters intensely, and in which certain choices occur to you
>clearly.
I agree with this statement whole heartedly. Unfortunately for you --
because you'll say they're lying motherfuckers -- so would most
Christians and buddhists, who say they're doing the exact same thing,
through their religion.
>I put my faith in the single human.
As do I. Collectives tend to be quite nasty.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
zambianboy
i agree with what you say - totally - but, i am asking for a definition that
contemporary reality might comprehend. ie. define it as if you were outside
of surreality (i.e. in reality)
Leo Sgouros wrote:
> Marufur Raza <mr...@amtca.com> wrote in message
> news:381F5148...@amtca.com...
> > How does one know when one has achieved a surrealist sense of being? Is
> > it possible to know?
> >
>
> Sure.
> Can you describe a surreal sense of being?
> If you were there, nothing would be surreal anymore, would it?
> (see Barret's sig)
>
Leo Sgouros
that explains it more than I ever could.
L
OK, surrealism is a window in which the contradictions between what we see
and feel and experience become part of a larger signal that we all share.
Same thing, really.
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:382066D5...@a.com...
Nikolaus Maack
>hi, i asked the original question (just changed my name)....
>i agree with what you say - totally - but, i am asking for a definition that
>contemporary reality might comprehend. ie. define it as if you were outside
>of surreality (i.e. in reality)
Surrealism is about promoting non-rational ways of thinking. That's
pretty much it's main force. So, in order to know whether or not
you're in a "surrealist state of being", you'd have to consider
whether or not you give your irrational, intuitive, "mystical" side as
much speaking time as your rational, logical, sensible voice.
Hope this helps.
Galactor5
is about lately you still fail to grasp what it truely is and resort to
oversimplifying the definition and dismissing it as a kind of pure
irrationality. Is it now back to issuing misled and unfounded statements again?
What i dont understand is why you would visit a NG that you decidedly stand so
clearly apart from.
john
>
>Surrealism is about promoting non-rational ways of thinking. That's
>pretty much it's main force
>So, in order to know whether or not
>you're in a "surrealist state of being", you'd have to consider
>whether or not you give your irrational, intuitive, "mystical" side as
>much speaking time as your rational, logical, sensible voice.
and:
>Yes. A discussion goes against the >surrealist cause. In fact,
>speaking in coherent sentences goes >against the surrealist cause. If
>we gave complete, free reign to our >spontaneous nature, we wouldn't
>even speak in coherent words. A stream >of gibberish would fly from
>our lips, accompanied by flecks of >sweet-n-salty foam.
Leo Sgouros
Care to snatch this pebble from my hand?
<grin>
<cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote
> > Nik, please go ahead and trust yourself. Today is my birthday and i
> would like that.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
dale houstman
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:38202379...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> Surrealism is about promoting non-rational ways of >thinking. That's
pretty much it's main force. So, in order to >know whether or not you're in
a "surrealist state of being", >you'd have to consider whether or not you
give your >irrational, intuitive, "mystical" side as much speaking time as
>your rational, logical, sensible voice.
>
I often wonder that if we squeezed really hard if we could get all the crap
out of you in one sitting, rather than have to put up with you spreading
base lies and slander about surrealism week after week. Surrealism has
NOTHING to do with mysticism!! This is so fundamental that your resistance
to it strikes me as perverse...
DMH
dale houstman
> Happy Birthday.
> Care to snatch this pebble from my hand?
Or, as Nik would say
"Care to snatch this puddle from my head?"
DMH
Leo Sgouros
I am beginning to wonder if this is all an act.
Wood has more cognizance fer chrissakes!
dale houstman
I tend not to believe that Nik is acting (it's really giving him too much
credit), but if he is it has (at this far point) taken on the patina of
dull, throbbing obsession, and is as unbelievable a phenomenon as it would
be were it "earnest."
Defensive is perverse and tends to persist. I seriously doubt that (given
the ephemeral nature of e-mail) that he can be gotten through to via this
medium. Maybe if we could all sit down with him and interrupt his trembling
inanities as they were being formed there would be hope of a breakthrough.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> I seriously doubt that (given the ephemeral nature of e-mail) that he can
be gotten
> through to via this medium. Maybe if we could all sit down with him and
interrupt his
> trembling inanities as they were being formed there would be hope of a
> breakthrough.
My main question for Nik is "why?" Its the same question I would ask to
theists who trolls into alt.atheism. "Why?"
It's impossible to get through to Nik because he isn't listening. He would
rather spout his pseudo-idealist philosophical bullshit theology [i.e.
verging on the New Age crap] and have us pat him on the back than face any
direct criticism. Just look at his recent posts to me: after receiving my
serious criticisms, he response with nothing but attacks. This is not a good
way to communicate. I'm sorry but I can't work with an individual such as
Nik, and if these are the type of patients I'm going to have to be dealing
with then I resign.
Its all very frustrating. I feel sorry for him mostly. He's gobbled up so
much pop culture that television commercials are leering out of his ass.
He's lost. We'd have a better chance at communicating with Kip Kinkel.
zambianboy
for him it must be completely rational, thats why he thinks that way. so in
that sense, one can never truly consider ones ownself a surrealist, coz it when
you're in that moment, it IS reality. to others it may appear to be something
other than that, but it can never be so to yourself. like dali said, "the
difference between me and a madman is that i am not mad." reality was whatever
you choose to believe in at any point in time. a madman is not mad in his own
mind. its an analogy but it applies. If you truly subscribe to surrealism, then
it isnt really surreal at all - its very much reality to you. so all those you
consider themselves to be surrealists, i say bollocks - the true surrealist does
not know, because his surrealism in no surrealism at all. and this is why i
asked the original basic question and i very much thank you for your answers.
maruf
Nikolaus Maack
>but does a person who thinks irrationally know that his thinking is irrational?
>for him it must be completely rational, thats why he thinks that way. so in
>that sense, one can never truly consider ones ownself a surrealist, coz it when
>you're in that moment, it IS reality.
This is absolutely true. Except for one thing -- surrealism is an
act. It's a costume we put on. If you're lucky, you're also the sort
of person who can take it off again. We can be "irrational" one day,
and then be "rational" the next. All philosophies are a pose, a clown
suit. Put them on, take them off. Everything can be tried on for a
day.
The people who get stuck in a suit, unable to remove it, tend to be
rather painful to hang out with. They are unaware that they are stuck
dressed as a clown, and are a source of amusement to everyone. This
is why they are so utterly humorless -- what was a mere suit has
become sacred.
This is why a fundementalist Christian and a fundementalist surrealist
are equally amusing. They've decided their personal clown suit is the
only set of clothes that anyone in the world could possibly want.
They spend the rest of their lives trying to sell replicas of their
own suit.
The sad thing is, most people stuck in their suits are actually bare
assed naked. The emperor is a nudist, if you follow my meaning.
>If you truly subscribe to surrealism, then
>it isnt really surreal at all - its very much reality to you.
Makes sense to me. I suppose someone who claims to be a surrealist is
someone who strives to be mad, but hasn't quite taken that final step,
yet. They're just playing at being mad.
Then again, perhaps this metaphor says it best -- a buddhist is
someone who strives to be a buddha. A surrealist is someone who
strives to be... what? A surreala? Anyone have a better word?
Nik
---
PSST! Wanna buy a postcard?
Original hand painted art, for cheap. See:
Nikolaus Maack
>Why is there this obsessive compulsion by some people to treat
>surrealism like a fucking freak show that embodies the banal lyrics of Nik,
>and the like?
My lyrics are catchy. People find themselves singing them on the bus.
They dance in the street to my words. The beat I make as I tap out
another hunk of sweet drivel gets them all tapping their toes.
(Ah, what a valuable lesson the surrealists of this newsgroup have
taught me -- there is so much that is serious in comedy, and so much
that is comedic in seriousness. Figure that one out, if you dare.)
>To be
>ignorant and graciously believe that everything is everything and that we
>exist outside in some vacuum, that is horribly wrong to me.
Barrett said that admitting we know nothing is an incredibly mundane
act. His implication is that all right thinking people know they know
nothing. And yet you describe ignorance as somehow bad? We are all
ignorant, Kristina. Some of us revel in it, others spend their entire
lives trying to disguise the fact. Which one are you?
>You think that surrealists are
>somehow not surreal because they know what surrealism means
Maybe he's joking, and you're too uptight to laugh?
zambianboy
way or form...if i had negative perceptions on it, i would not be here. what i
was trying to say was that i just don't like this prancing about waving hands in
the air shouting 'i am a surrealist, i am a surrealist.' surrealism is not a
fashion or a whim, which it seems to be to a lot of people. The very act of
calling oneself a surrealist is an act of vanity; for a form of life that worked
so hard against definition, all of u are trying way too hard to define it - to
confine it. and thats what i say bollocks to.
Kristina wrote:
> > zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3821B7F3...@a.com...
> > but does a person who thinks irrationally know that his thinking is
> irrational?
> > for him it must be completely rational, thats why he thinks that way. so
> in
> > that sense, one can never truly consider ones ownself a surrealist, coz it
> when
> > you're in that moment, it IS reality. to others it may appear to be
> something
> > other than that, but it can never be so to yourself. like dali said, "the
> > difference between me and a madman is that i am not mad." reality was
> whatever
> > you choose to believe in at any point in time. a madman is not mad in his
> own
> > mind. its an analogy but it applies. If you truly subscribe to
> surrealism, then
> > it isnt really surreal at all - its very much reality to you. so all those
> you
> > consider themselves to be surrealists, i say bollocks - the true
> surrealist does
> > not know, because his surrealism in no surrealism at all. and this is why
> i
> > asked the original basic question and i very much thank you for your
> answers.
> >
> > maruf
>
> I think you need to go out and read some more...quoting Dali will not save
> you, (you're one of those people I was talking about earlier perhaps.....I
> could be wrong). However, you say:
>
> > If you truly subscribe to surrealism, then
> > it isnt really surreal at all - its very much reality to you. so all those
> you
> > consider themselves to be surrealists, i say bollocks - the true
> surrealist does
> > not know, because his surrealism in no surrealism at all. and this is why
> i
> > asked the original basic question and i very much thank you for your
> answers.
>
> This is just ridiculous. So if someone walks around calling themselves a
> realist, they are not a realist, becuase they have a certain awareness of
> what that means to them?....same for any "ism". Surrealism is no different
> to me. Why is there this obsessive compulsion by some people to treat
> surrealism like a fucking freak show that embodies the banal lyrics of Nik,
> and the like? Really...you ask a question, yet you don't listen. Awareness
> does not mean one cannot identify with certain things in life. To be
> ignorant and graciously believe that everything is everything and that we
> exist outside in some vacuum, that is horribly wrong to me. So what do we
> have here......(at 4am this is what I see). You think that surrealists are
> somehow not surreal because they know what surrealism means, and Nik thinks
> surrealism is something that means the more of a ignoramus you are the more
> surreal you become........very similar.
>
> Kristina.
> I take my leave here, I need coffee......and get Dali the fuck away from my
> face.
barrett john erickson
> Barrett said that admitting we know nothing is an incredibly mundane
> act. His implication is that all right thinking people know they know
> nothing. And yet you describe ignorance as somehow bad? We are all
> ignorant, Kristina. Some of us revel in it, others spend their entire
> lives trying to disguise the fact. Which one are you?
i said...
"on the contrary, [to say you know nothing is] such a banal observation that
it has no mass at all among those who see living as a process of creative
exploration."
this does not imply that "all right thinking people know they know nothing."
it implies only what i think it says quite clearly: that arguments taking
this epistemological position (that people "know nothing") have no influence
and are of no interest to those of us who see living as a process of
creative exploration.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #2 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.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
==============================================
barrett john erickson
> you have no idea what i am talking about. i am not criticizing surrealism
in any
> way or form...if i had negative perceptions on it, i would not be here.
what i
> was trying to say was that i just don't like this prancing about waving
hands in
> the air shouting 'i am a surrealist, i am a surrealist.' surrealism is not
a
> fashion or a whim, which it seems to be to a lot of people. The very act
of
> calling oneself a surrealist is an act of vanity; for a form of life that
worked
> so hard against definition, all of u are trying way too hard to define
it - to
> confine it. and thats what i say bollocks to.
>
[ as with many (most?) posts in alt.surrealism, my response could take me in
two very different directions, depending on what degree of connectedness
and/or knowledge i were to assume you have about the global surrealist
movement as it exists today. although there are some counter-indicators,
i'll assume little, since that is by far more likely by my experience, and
add this little prelude for clarification in case i'm wrong. ]
you seem to have reached a very common misunderstanding of the kind of
criticism Nik attracts -- nearly all of which consists of reactions to
statements he's made which imply that _he_ clings to a narrow and stilted
misunderstanding, that _he_ fails to see the full scope and fluid vitality
of "surrealism" as a _process_ (rather than a "tool" he can use as he
chooses).
surrealists didn't work against definition (dada did). one might even argue
that it was dada's nihilism, and it's lack of a definable agenda which
motivated the (comparatively) well defined process of "surrealism".
definition does not have to be confining. consider for instance, the
carefully documented games, the manifestoes, the many tracts which clearly
delineated the surrealist positions of their time even as the provoked
further explorations (an important clue toward understanding "surrealism").
this continues today.
sure, calling oneself a surrealist _can_ be an act of vanity (as it appears
to be with Nik), but among actual surrealists, it is simply a _recognition_
of what has always been at the center of one's living.
and now, just for a bit of spice, i'll repost from the "short book of
definitions" i put together last year during efforts to explain this all to
Nik among others ...
personalist (n.)
one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing matters
of theory -- particularly surrealist theory. The personalist believes, for
example, that it is sufficient for him/her to declare some belief or
position compatible with "surrealism" for it to be so (e.g. religion) and
that the disagreement (even universal disagreement) of surrealists past and
present is irrelevant. Consequently, the personalist is often found in a
defensive posture, hopelessly outnumbered by those he/she claims are trying
to enforce some orthodoxy, but who are in reality only insisting that they
have no obligation to accept the personalist's unilateral redefinitions, and
will continue to challenge them as incompatible with that theory as it
already exists.
surreal (adj., illiterate)
a vulgar colloquialism popularized as a synonym for "weird" or "bizarre,"
this is a word with no meaning whatsoever among surrealists, except as a
certain identifier of the user's carelessness or ignorance. [also: --
surrealistic, (adj.) -- surrealistically, (adv.)]
surrealism (n.,)
one of the most misused words of our time. Its communicative value is
limited to attempts to correct misrepresentations of the surrealist project.
Should always be enclosed in quotation marks to acknowledge its recuperated
status in popular culture.
surrealist (n.)
a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
colleagues.
surrealist project (n., process)
the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
transformation as well as a personal one.
zambianboy
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> This is absolutely true. Except for one thing -- surrealism is an
> act. It's a costume we put on. If you're lucky, you're also the sort
> of person who can take it off again. We can be "irrational" one day,
> and then be "rational" the next. All philosophies are a pose, a clown
> suit. Put them on, take them off. Everything can be tried on for a
> day.
Yes! this is exactly what i am accusing people in here of. Its a fashion a whim.
If you truly are surrealist, then you cannot judge that for yourself. You say it is
an
act - most definitely; for if it is truly surreal, then it is absolutely real to the
one
living it. Therefore those who advocate that they are surrealist are full of shit -
they are in plain and simple tones - clueless.
>
Nikolaus Maack
>You are ignorant.
>(and an idiot)
It's funny how you insist what a horrible brute I am -- you even
called me "violent" -- yet all the while you're the one constantly
throwing these nasty little words. Have I called you any nasty words,
Kristina? No, madame, I have not.
I play while you throw rocks. I actively avoid insults such as these,
while you revel in them. You're no fun at all, doll. There seems to
be a big black sucking hole where your sense of humour used to be.
Learn to laugh again, my friend.
But meanwhile, remind me -- which one of us is the violent brute?
Fortunately, for you, language is meaningless, so your terrible words
have no effect on me.
>I seek new experiences and
>processes, you don't get past your nose.
You (and the others) keep saying this -- that I don't seek new
experiences -- but I don't see that you have any evidence for it. For
that matter, I have yet to here anything about "experiences" from
either you, or Dale, or Brandon. Just theory, theory, and more
theory. What does that have to do with anything you've experiences?
But I'll give you all yet another chance. Tell me about some of your
experiences. I'm all ears.
Nik
PS.
It's tiresome to keep correcting misperceptions, so I must admit, I
haven't bothered to, lately. If you'd like to continue thinking of me
as an ogre, by all means, do so. I find it somewhat funny.
Nikolaus Maack
>"on the contrary, [to say you know nothing is] such a banal observation that
>it has no mass at all among those who see living as a process of creative
>exploration."
Ah. I suppose you do see how I could read these words and assume you
meant that it was banal to people because it's one of the fundemental
axioms?
To me, admitting you know nothing -- or at the least, very little, or
next to nothing -- means that every experience you encounter is a new
one, a fresh one, one that you will approach without bias. Thus
creative exploration is all the more intriguing. Every shred of data
is new data.
When a drunken homeless person approaches you on the street and starts
babbling about his life, most people -- based on prior experience --
would dismiss him as a loon. Someone who admits they know next to
nothing, in my opinion, would be more willing to talk to the fellow.
After all, who knows? He might be a former PhD in philosophy who has
hit rock bottom. Or even one of those strange broken people who see
so much that it has rendered them unemployable. He could be carrying
a message of great use to you.
This is what I mean when I say that knowing you know nothing -- or
"acting" like you know nothing -- is a useful skill. Every experience
becomes an unprejudiced, new, and exciting one.
Does this clear anything up, or just muddy the waters further?
Nik
Brandon J. Freels
> surrealism is an act.
Surrealism is an experience. Figure it out.
> The sad thing is, most people stuck in their suits are actually bare
> assed naked. The emperor is a nudist, if you follow my meaning.
And you have a problem with being naked?
> Then again, perhaps this metaphor says it best -- a buddhist is
> someone who strives to be a buddha. A surrealist is someone who
> strives to be... what? A surreala? Anyone have a better word?
It must be embarrassing for you to know so little about Buddhism. A Buddhist
strives to break the cycle of reincarnation [hell, banality] and reach
Nirvana [i.e. enlightenment, heaven] by way of the four noble truths of
Buddhism:
1. life is suffering
2. suffering is cause by desire
3. cease the desire
4. follow the 8-fold path
Brandon J. Freels
> Maybe he's joking, and you're too uptight to laugh?
Actually Nik, we're the one's laughing, and you're the one who is too
uptight. All it took for me to set your temper off was to seriously question
your "philosophies." Not very confident are you?
zambianboy
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
> > surrealism is an act.
>
> Surrealism is an experience. Figure it out.
>
by saying it is but merely an experiencing you are falling into the same
trap of which you are accusing nik of falling into. surrealism could be
an act or experience or both; isn't that the beauty (or ugliness) of it - that
we cannot know.
zambianboy
barrett john erickson wrote:
> surrealist (n.)
> a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
> practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
> but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
> reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
> as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> colleagues.
>
but you assume that the theoretical act of exploration delineatesone as a
surrealist.
i disagree.
all of us including me and nik are in some way or form exploring this;
our very presence here in this group dictates that. but does this make
us surrealists? i don't think so. it makes us more open to new ideas,
but does not take us over that edge...whatever it may be. i don't
believe that one can truly know when one has crossed this boundary.
it is this very unknowing that makes it surreal; therefore the very act
of claiming to know is a contradiction to the 'movement' - and the term
movement is used loosely.
Brandon J. Freels
> Have I called you any nasty words,
> Kristina? No, madame, I have not.
This is a sign of how assimilated you are into society. The more you say
'fuck' the more you fight imperialism.
> I play while you throw rocks.
Are you implying that she shouldn't throw rocks? You may prefer to play, but
Kristina and myself have a strong inclination towards the sport of tossing
rocks at idiots.
> which one of us is the violent brute?
I am. You're the ugly cow.
> You (and the others) keep saying this -- that I don't seek new
> experiences -- but I don't see that you have any evidence for it.
Where's yours? All we've heard from you is a pseudo-idealist bullshit
philosophical psychological trash new age mystical crapfilled theology which
implodes on itself.
> But I'll give you all yet another chance. Tell me about some of your
> experiences. I'm all ears.
I met an idiot on the internet named Nikolaus Maack...
Leo Sgouros
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:38220617...@a.com...
>
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > surrealist (n.)
> > a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> > project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and
collectively
> > practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of
rules"
> > but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> > surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted
and
> > reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as
well
> > as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> > colleagues.
> >
>
> surrealist.
> i disagree.
> all of us including me and nik are in some way or form exploring this;
> our very presence here in this group dictates that. but does this make
> us surrealists? i don't think so. it makes us more open to new ideas,
> but does not take us over that edge...whatever it may be. i don't
> believe that one can truly know when one has crossed this boundary.
> it is this very unknowing that makes it surreal; therefore the very act
> of claiming to know is a contradiction to the 'movement' - and the term
> movement is used loosely.
>
eeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww!
Loose movements?
We gots too many in here, sirrah!
Galactor5
seperating (and protecting) yourself from the real communication between those
you feel frustrated with by now. you refuse to so much as try, or have given up
trying to understand what surrealism really is and instead interpolate these
silly ideas regarding it. im not sure what positive result the "playing" is
actually supposed to have for anyone right now except yourself, by attempting
to appear ultimately 'correct' or the exposer of the 'sham' surrealism is. I
don't believe it is merely to lighten up matters or interject humor into the
newsgroup, Nik babe.
Brandon J. Freels
> god you do go on don't you, and with each new post your views start
creeping
> into somethiing else. You go on and on about this "knowing nothing thing"
> and now it is suddenly "a useful skill acting like you know nothing".
Kind
> of like you acting you're intelligent.
This is a good point. Nik goes on an on with a new view on every new post.
I'm sure the group would appreciate it Nik if you would post your theory,
point by point, in one post so that we can dismantle it once and for all.
Okay?
Brandon J. Freels
> by saying it is but merely an experiencing you are falling into the same
> trap of which you are accusing nik of falling into. surrealism could be
> an act or experience or both; isn't that the beauty (or ugliness) of it -
that
> we cannot know.
I think I understand what you're saying. Can you elaborate on how you see
Surrealism? I usually find the simple definition "freedom of the mind" to be
most appropriate, but also rather vague. As I posted it before, here is my
working definition of Surrealism:
***********
The actions of the brain's personnel that conceives, desires, selects,
perceives, and the like, without the interference of external constraints,
such as utilitarianism, rationalism, aestheticism, and so on, to create an
untainted awareness of existence which is the most complete experience of
reality.
***********
When I say Surrealism is an experience I would be referring to the
experience of having ones mind freed from external constraints. Does this
make more sense?
barrett john erickson
>
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > surrealist (n.)
> > a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> > project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and
collectively
> > practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of
rules"
> > but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> > surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted
and
> > reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as
well
> > as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> > colleagues.
> >
>
> surrealist.
to say that surrealists explore is not to say that exploring makes one a
surrealist.
overt hint: the _project_ is the key.
>...]
>therefore the very act
> of claiming to know is a contradiction to the 'movement' - and the term
> movement is used loosely.
somehow, i doubt you've thought your position through to its ultimate
conclusion:
when you say that anyone who claims to be a surrealist can't really be one,
you are not only declaring that those who currently participate in the
global surrealist movement (in Paris, Leeds, London, Lisbon, Stockholm,
Madrid, Prague, San Francisco, Chicago, Milwaukee, and many other places --
including minnesota) are all imposters, you are also proclaiming that Peret,
Tanguy, Ernst, Desnos, etc., were also not surrealists.
by your logic, Alan Greenspan, Rudy Gulianni, and Tipper Gore might still be
surrealists but Breton was definitely not?
Kristina
Kristina
> "Kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
> >To be
> >ignorant and graciously believe that everything is everything and that we
> >exist outside in some vacuum, that is horribly wrong to me.
>
> Barrett said that admitting we know nothing is an incredibly mundane
> act. His implication is that all right thinking people know they know
> nothing. And yet you describe ignorance as somehow bad? We are all
> ignorant, Kristina. Some of us revel in it, others spend their entire
> lives trying to disguise the fact. Which one are you?
Ignorance and knowing nothing are two different things. You are ignorant.
(and an idiot) And I would never say I know nothing, that is bullshit...
however the beatuy in my life is that I don't know everything, and that is
what I enjoy. (I don't see myself as an ignoramus either, not intentionally,
that's the difference between you and me. I seek new experiences and
processes, you don't get past your nose). Figure that out if you can get
your head around it.
Kristina.
Kristina
> called me "violent" -- yet all the while you're the one constantly
> Kristina? No, madame, I have not.
I said you respond with 'violence'. Don't you know the difference between
the different kinds of 'violence' that exist? Being a psychology degree I
would have thought this would have been rather clear to you. As for nasty
little words, it depends if you think truth is nasty, doesn't it.
>
> You (and the others) keep saying this -- that I don't seek new
> experiences -- but I don't see that you have any evidence for it. For
> that matter, I have yet to here anything about "experiences" from
> either you, or Dale, or Brandon. Just theory, theory, and more
> theory. What does that have to do with anything you've experiences?
It is impossible to share anything with you, we never get past the crap here
do we nik? So don't patronise me by saying I'm stuck in my theory...if you
read my posts you will see that I'm really rather thin on the intellectual
rants you display. (I should read more, and have started to...it does not
feel too good to be lacking on the intellect part). I ultimately express
myself as I see it with the limited knowledge I do have....and I think I'm
not de-void of sharing on a personal level if people want to know. You've
never asked me anything anyway, so get lost.
I and others, no matter how we speak here and in what voice all express our
experiences, (and the differences of those voices are sheer beauty if you
listen) but you don't understand that, I doubt you even read the posts
sometimes. I bet this goes straight through your head too.
>
> But I'll give you all yet another chance. Tell me about some of your
> experiences. I'm all ears.
I just did rather unfortunately, I responded to your post, perhaps I'll grow
out of that soon...
Kristina.
>
> Nik
>
> PS.
>
> It's tiresome to keep correcting misperceptions, so I must admit, I
> haven't bothered to, lately. If you'd like to continue thinking of me
> as an ogre, by all means, do so. I find it somewhat funny.
Kristina
news:WolU3.2002$rK2.1...@ptah.visi.com...> news:38218a79...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
>
> > Barrett said that admitting we know nothing is an incredibly mundane
> > act. His implication is that all right thinking people know they know
> > nothing. And yet you describe ignorance as somehow bad? We are all
> > ignorant, Kristina. Some of us revel in it, others spend their entire
> > lives trying to disguise the fact. Which one are you?
>
>
> "on the contrary, [to say you know nothing is] such a banal observation
that
> it has no mass at all among those who see living as a process of creative
> exploration."
>
>
nothing."
>
> it implies only what i think it says quite clearly: that arguments taking
> this epistemological position (that people "know nothing") have no
influence
> creative exploration.
Thank you Barrett! Now Nik do you understand the difference.
Kristina.
Kristina
> "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> >"on the contrary, [to say you know nothing is] such a banal observation
that
> >it has no mass at all among those who see living as a process of creative
> >exploration."
>
> meant that it was banal to people because it's one of the fundemental
> axioms?
>
> To me, admitting you know nothing -- or at the least, very little, or
> next to nothing -- means that every experience you encounter is a new
> one, a fresh one, one that you will approach without bias. Thus
> creative exploration is all the more intriguing. Every shred of data
> is new data.
knowing nothing and knowing very little are worlds apart.....get your
position right before you launch into your coco pops bitter breakfast. I
want my food to stay down not sprayed all over my screen laughing.
>
> When a drunken homeless person approaches you on the street and starts
> babbling about his life, most people -- based on prior experience --
> would dismiss him as a loon. Someone who admits they know next to
> nothing, in my opinion, would be more willing to talk to the fellow.
> After all, who knows? He might be a former PhD in philosophy who has
> hit rock bottom. Or even one of those strange broken people who see
> so much that it has rendered them unemployable. He could be carrying
> a message of great use to you.
>
> This is what I mean when I say that knowing you know nothing -- or
> "acting" like you know nothing -- is a useful skill. Every experience
> becomes an unprejudiced, new, and exciting one.
god you do go on don't you, and with each new post your views start creeping
into somethiing else. You go on and on about this "knowing nothing thing"
and now it is suddenly "a useful skill acting like you know nothing". Kind
of like you acting you're intelligent. I'm going to go and find Brandon
now, I like him, he makes me laugh...
Kristina.
>
> Does this clear anything up, or just muddy the waters further?
>
> Nik
Kristina
> you have no idea what i am talking about. i am not criticizing surrealism
in any
> way or form...if i had negative perceptions on it, i would not be here.
what i
> was trying to say was that i just don't like this prancing about waving
hands in
> the air shouting 'i am a surrealist, i am a surrealist.' surrealism is not
a
> fashion or a whim, which it seems to be to a lot of people. The very act
of
> calling oneself a surrealist is an act of vanity; for a form of life that
worked
> so hard against definition, all of u are trying way too hard to define
it - to
> confine it. and thats what i say bollocks to.
Your wording is quite different here to your orignial letter I responded to.
I responded to "if you truly subscribe to surrealism, then it isn't really
surreal at all" and I say that's not necessarily true. You generalised a
huge area there, I responded to that.
Anyway, I see there have been a few posts outlining the meaning, coutersy of
Barrett, so I won't go on unnecessarily here.
Kristina.
> > does not mean one cannot identify with certain things in life. To be
> > ignorant and graciously believe that everything is everything and that
we
> > exist outside in some vacuum, that is horribly wrong to me. So what do
we
> > have here......(at 4am this is what I see). You think that surrealists
are
> > somehow not surreal because they know what surrealism means, and Nik
thinks
> > surrealism is something that means the more of a ignoramus you are the
more
> > surreal you become........very similar.
> >
> > Kristina.
> > I take my leave here, I need coffee......and get Dali the fuck away from
my
> > face.
> >
> > >
> > > dale houstman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
Kristina
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:9XsU3.21454$C7.9...@news1.teleport.com...
> Kristina wrote
> > god you do go on don't you, and with each new post your views start
> creeping
> > into somethiing else. You go on and on about this "knowing nothing
thing"
> > and now it is suddenly "a useful skill acting like you know nothing".
> Kind
> > of like you acting you're intelligent.
>
> I'm sure the group would appreciate it Nik if you would post your theory,
> point by point, in one post so that we can dismantle it once and for all.
> Okay?
Good point, Brandon...
I think Dale said something interesting like this recently too...that
perhaps if we could all sit down with Nik we could get it all out and done
with...pretty much...
In whatever form this takes, (and the physical is obviously out of the
question for some) sounds rather good to me. In writing Nik has the time
to work on it and get it right, minus the generalisations that creep into
his mind on the spur of the moment....but I'd rather write something else
here now...however, before I go on......yes lets get to the bottom of the
mud spool...
the glass smile turned boomerang white lotus words into
litlte crocodiles that festered in my hair,
charmingly I ate my way through kelvinator fridges of thought.
I'm pickling textas upon myself here...
Kristina Posterior.
>
>
dale houstman
cythera <luk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7vtpn0$ql$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > > zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message
> news:3821B7F3...@a.com...
> > > but does a person who thinks irrationally know that his >thinking is
irrational?
>
True...
>like dali said, "the difference between me and a madman is >that i am not
mad."
>
> Show me a madman who ever painted anything even halfway decent.
Actually, you are dealing here with with two wavering horns of a translucent
bull: one has to define "madman" and then start trudging about in the murky
light of "decent." I can tell you that quite a few people designated as
schizophrenic have produced works of intense obsessional power. Geoff Wolffi
(or some such as that) was both an artist and a poet. Judged by any academic
standards they would possibly fail to elicit a titter of notice. Still, the
Dali comment is irrelevant, since it is really only a typical piece of
clever self-promotion, and hardly consitutes an analysis of anything but the
marketplace's enduring attracting for charming oddities.
> >>a madman is not mad in his own mind.
>
> How would you determine this?
Quite frankly (as my partner is a public health nurse) I can tell you that
an alarming number of schizophrenics are quite aware that they are not
precisely "in control" of their own perceptions. If a disassociated person
was always totally unaware of (let's say) the uncanniness of their "visions"
they would not report quite so often of their panic and fear in the face of
(to use a real example she encountered a few years ago) a fish-headed man.
To suggest that madness is a matter of total oblivion, or a complete shift
away from "normal" perceptions is incorrect: this is noted by the fact that
the vast majority of those labelled schizophrenic lead average lives, wear
clothing, pay bills, etc. They are usually aware of their condition to some
degree, although they may resent intrusion.
> >>so all those you consider themselves to be surrealists, i >say bollocks
the true surrealist does not know, because his >surrealism in no surrealism
at all.
This is a cognitive leap that connects a fallacious statement about the
disassociated with a revolutionary philosophical movement to come up with
this! It's as good to say "Because a madman does not know he is mad, any
fireman who considers himself to be a fireman is no firmean at all."
Surrealism (despite all of Nik's awkward attempts to link
super-irrationalism to the movement) is not a society of madmen.
Dali would have told you he was his mother's intestinal parasite is you had
paid him to... his commentary (amusing as it could be) is not to be taken
seriously. He said this himself on several occasions: he is not a
theoretician, but an art agent.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>Surrealism (despite all of Nik's awkward attempts to link
>super-irrationalism to the movement) is not a society of madmen.
As you said, schizophrenics often are aware of their madness, and in
most of their ordinary lives struggle to appear sane. They have
flashes of clairity, where they know their delusions are "false".
That's why they seek help.
"No, no, I'm not the messiah. It's a delusion. I need to get help,
before I have another attack."
However, the opposite is also true -- there are people who are so
painfully sane, abormally sane, that they struggle to look a little
mad. If you encountered someone in your life who was "normal" in
every sense of the word -- completely average, completely rational,
without any quirks or eccentricities -- you would think him insane.
In other words, it is sane to be slightly insane.
>Dali would have told you he was his mother's intestinal parasite is you had
>paid him to... his commentary (amusing as it could be) is not to be taken
>seriously. He said this himself on several occasions: he is not a
>theoretician, but an art agent.
Did you ever consider the idea that Dali never intended for himself to
be taken seriously?
"The difference between me and a madman is that I am not a mad."
This is a great quote is because it's *funny*.
zambianboy
cythera wrote:
> > > zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message
> news:3821B7F3...@a.com...
>
>
> >>a madman is not mad in his own mind.
>
> How would you determine this?
>
thats the bloody point - you can't.
>
>
> Well, somebody knows, otherwise how could any surrealist art or writing
> or film, etc., ever be collected into one place?
>
this very collection goes against the "spirit" of surrealism; by putting it
all in oneplace we put parameters and limitations on what it can't be. this
inherently goes
against the ideology of surrealism
> >Really...you ask a question, yet you don't listen.
> It seems irrational. This is just going in circles. The repetition has
> no value unless it gets us somewhere.
>
on the contrary - the answers show me how full of it most people are
> >
zambianboy
> to say that surrealists explore is not to say that exploring makes one a
> surrealist.
>
> overt hint: the _project_ is the key.
agreed. but most people here think that just coz they are here
exploringideologies, this makes them surrealists. it does not.
>
>
> >...]
>
> >therefore the very act
> > of claiming to know is a contradiction to the 'movement' - and the term
> > movement is used loosely.
>
> somehow, i doubt you've thought your position through to its ultimate
> conclusion:
>
> when you say that anyone who claims to be a surrealist can't really be one,
> you are not only declaring that those who currently participate in the
> global surrealist movement (in Paris, Leeds, London, Lisbon, Stockholm,
> Madrid, Prague, San Francisco, Chicago, Milwaukee, and many other places --
> including minnesota) are all imposters, you are also proclaiming that Peret,
> Tanguy, Ernst, Desnos, etc., were also not surrealists.
yes.
>
>
> by your logic, Alan Greenspan, Rudy Gulianni, and Tipper Gore might still be
> surrealists but Breton was definitely not?
could be...who are we to judge. i accept the possibility that i may be wrong,
butyou do not acknowledge that your trajectory may be flawed as well.
>
>
zambianboy
Kristina wrote:
> I think Dale said something interesting like this recently too...that
> perhaps if we could all sit down with Nik we could get it all out and done
> with...pretty much...
>
> In whatever form this takes, (and the physical is obviously out of the
> question for some) sounds rather good to me. In writing Nik has the time
> to work on it and get it right, minus the generalisations that creep into
> his mind on the spur of the moment....but I'd rather write something else
> here now...however, before I go on......yes lets get to the bottom of the
> mud spool...
>
may i ask why all of you are so deterred against a different point of view
thanyours. i niether acknoledge nor defend what nik has said or will say, but
his
viewpoints are no less valid than your own. for all we know he may be more
of a surrealist than all of you put together. judge not lest you be judged
yourselves.
dale houstman
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3823301C...@a.com...
>
>
> may i ask why all of you are so deterred against a different >point of
say, but his viewpoints are no less >valid than your own.
Or more either I presume? But please, how do you figure this? Is it based
(as I suspect not) on a real comprehension of what surrealism is? If so,
please to enlighten us. Or is it more just more of that typical "everyone's
opinion is as good as everyone else's" generalization which has no basis in
any intelligence? You just "feel" this is true, so it must be?
> for all we know he may be more of a surrealist than all of >you put
together. judge not lest you be judged yourselves.
Please to leave your sentimental and foul Christian aphorisms at home. They
are less than welcome.
At least Nik finally found someone stupider than himself to lick his behind.
Nik and his proud band of Nikwits will soon rival the Boy Scouts! This clod
of flesh is halfway to a merit badge for spurious reasoning.
DMH
zambianboy
> At least Nik finally found someone stupider than himself to lick his behind.
> Nik and his proud band of Nikwits will soon rival the Boy Scouts! This clod
> of flesh is halfway to a merit badge for spurious reasoning.
>
> DMH
well shit! so much for discussion - i guess you bunch of sods are so narrow
minded that when you come across differing points of view you have to lunge
out them to protect your own insecurities. kindly get a fucking life.
jeez what a bunch of brainless moaners you all are. i come for knowledge
and information and what i get is neanderthal like chit chat.
barrett john erickson
> > by your logic, Alan Greenspan, Rudy Gulianni, and Tipper Gore might
still be
> > surrealists but Breton was definitely not?
>
> could be...who are we to judge.
you obviously cannot.
as a surrealist, however, i have no trouble identifying Breton as a
surrealist and the other three as enemies of "surrealism" (and you -- need i
say it? -- have abandoned any basis from which to argue otherwise).
> i accept the possibility that i may be wrong,
you are -- this isn't even remotely ambiguous.
> butyou do not acknowledge that your trajectory may be flawed as well.
on the contrary. anything i say about "surrealism" -- anything any
surrealist says about anything -- is open to challenge _by any surrealist_.
most of what i say here has already passed through such challenges -- which
isn't to say it is universally agreeable. that's how surrealist theory
evolves.
however, you have (as has Nik) removed yourself from the ranks of those
qualified to make such challenge since you reject the current reality and
historical context of "surrealism".
barrett john erickson
>
> may i ask why all of you are so deterred against a different point of view
> than yours.
we aren't deterred.
we're alternately bored and pissed, because it's not just a "different point
of view". he (and you) are making statements about "surrealism" and
surrealists which misrepresent and even deny the reality of today's
"surrealism" and living surrealists.
why wouldn't we defend ourselves against such slander.
> i niether acknoledge nor defend what nik has said or will say, but
> his viewpoints are no less valid than your own.
bullshit. we're talking about something real and very well documented.
surrealists are not very shy about making their positions known. the
validity of the perspectives being offered on what is or is not compatible
with "surrealism" is easy enough to check.
> for all we know he may be more
> of a surrealist than all of you put together.
only if you insist on remaining ignorant.
> judge not lest you be judged
> yourselves.
go ahead. judge. but your judgment in this will be irrelevant unless it is
based in its only legitimate context (i.e. the current and historical
context of today's surrealist movement).
dale houstman
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:382341B0...@a.com...
>
>
>
> >
> > DMH
>
> well shit! so much for discussion
You have already proven your inability - in fact outright hostility - to
communication. At this point, after having listened to the same throbbing
shit/nonsense from Nik for about a year, I feel it is not at all my duty to
take seriously the puking irrelevancies of another subliterate with a
keyboard.
>kindly get a fucking life.
Oh look - a high school cliché...
>
> jeez what a bunch of brainless moaners you all are. I come for knowledge
> and information and what I get is Neanderthal like chit chat.
You never asked a decent intelligent question. You got better than you
deserved. You make Nik look bright. And that -kudos - isn't easy. All the
vowels and most of the consonants in your posts bore me. Your whiny little
christturds ("judge not lest...etc>) bore me. Even your fake name bores me.
I've had better conversations with, and more intelligent questions from
stink beetles with all their legs pulled off.
Your "point of view" isn't a differing one, it is merely inept. You flatter
yourself immensely to believe you ever once engaged anyone beyond the level
of disgust and tedium.
Sod off, mackerel brains!!
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> jeez what a bunch of brainless moaners you all are. i come for knowledge
> and information and what i get is neanderthal like chit chat.
I politely asked you a question in my last post and you never responded. It
appears as if you didn't really want to chit chat afterall.
Kristina
> Kristina, did you say a week ago--during my Blue Period!--that you had
> tried to e-mail me? That's the address above....
Elizabeth, I don't quite recall, the week has been too big this time
round...
I know my closet is too full and needs cleaning out, I hoard too many
things.
(sorry, I can't think tonight...I'm way too tired).
Kristina.
> Elizabeth
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Kristina
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3823301C...@a.com...
> Kristina wrote:
>
> > I think Dale said something interesting like this recently too...that
> > perhaps if we could all sit down with Nik we could get it all out and
done
> > with...pretty much...
> >
> > In whatever form this takes, (and the physical is obviously out of the
> > question for some) sounds rather good to me. In writing Nik has the
time
> > to work on it and get it right, minus the generalisations that creep
into
> > his mind on the spur of the moment....but I'd rather write something
else
> > here now...however, before I go on......yes lets get to the bottom of
the
> > mud spool...
> >
>
> may i ask why all of you are so deterred against a different point of view
> thanyours. i niether acknoledge nor defend what nik has said or will say,
but
> his
> viewpoints are no less valid than your own. for all we know he may be
more
> of a surrealist than all of you put together. judge not lest you be judged
> yourselves.
Have you read the posts that Nik has been posting? Do you agree
wholeheartedly with what he says? What are you foing here, if you don't
have any opinions of ideas, other than just asking why people are
communicating, which is what you are in essence saying. I'll put this as
simply as I can...I don't particularly like the thought of mindlessly going
about life without questioning anything. I do not subscribe to the theory
that "everything is everything". That is such a farce, and banal.
I like the communication, see you and I are doing it now, I say something
you disagree and we discuss it, what is the difference between the Nik
situation and this here? Absolutely nothing. And please excuse but me what
is this crap about "judge lest not you be judged yourself?"
Do you just take everything in? What is the point of communication if you
are just going to agree with everything...that is not a possibility to me.
No one can tell me they AGREE with everything, that is an impossibility.
Kristina.
>
Kristina
>
>
>
> > At least Nik finally found someone stupider than himself to lick his
behind.
> > Nik and his proud band of Nikwits will soon rival the Boy Scouts! This
clod
> > of flesh is halfway to a merit badge for spurious reasoning.
> >
>
> well shit! so much for discussion - i guess you bunch of sods are so
narrow
> minded that when you come across differing points of view you have to
lunge
Oh is this your mode of communication? LOL ...Nik goes on with mindless
drivel and you go on with mindless defensive behaviour. I have a life, and
you're quite right, I like fucking too. (That's one thing you got right so
far). However, you appear to me a little soggy biscuit, left out in the
rain of your own ludicrous thoughts.....buy an umbrella and poke yourself in
the eye with it,, then you and Nik can unite in completeness.
>
> jeez what a bunch of brainless moaners you all are. i come for knowledge
> and information and what i get is neanderthal like chit chat.
You have come for knowledge, well this is an interesting way you have about
attaining it........but you say that Nik could quite possibly be more
surreal than all of us here, so in essence, you already know everything if
you subscribe to his theories. You don't really need anything else do you.
Such illumination is firecly blinding to a porcupine trying to weasel into
the tar. Try not to get run over in the process of your acceptance of
truth.
Kristina.
>
>
>
dale houstman
cythera <luk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> A Basic Question: Does Humor Have Any Rooms Inside >Of Sur-realism? How
would you determine this? And such >like.
> >
Historically, this is easy to answer: of course! But we have already gone
into this. They are well-appointed efficiences overlooking the East River,
NYC. I once saw a nude woman eat a moth in one of these rooms. Desperate for
love.
In the field today? A small condo (tastefully decorated) that hangs over a
muddy cliff-face in California. I love to watch the rich people crashing
through the panoramic windows as the house tilts. Their faces reveal all I
need to know of algebra.
How to determine this? Squeeze the head until the proper answer slips out
through a crack in the green anemometer.
works for me...
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> well shit! so much for discussion - i guess you bunch of sods are so narrow
>minded that when you come across differing points of view you have to lunge
>out them to protect your own insecurities. kindly get a fucking life.
Let me apologize for them. Forgive them, for they know not what they
do.
>jeez what a bunch of brainless moaners you all are. i come for knowledge
>and information and what i get is neanderthal like chit chat.
Yep. What's funny is you said, "I admit that I might be wrong," to
which Barrett responded, "You are wrong," quite clearly missing the
point. In any communication of use, every person HAS to admit that
they might be wrong. It's essential. That is, unless being right,
and winning, and being the top dog, is more essential than
communicating. Or more important than having fun.
Nikolaus Maack
> grrr. every camel is not a brood.
It seems that my choices are to be a camel in the brood, or a brooding
camel.
barrett john erickson
> Yep. What's funny is you said, "I admit that I might be wrong," to
> which Barrett responded, "You are wrong," quite clearly missing the
> point.
i missed no point here.
[and the record will show i am almost never this blunt in dismissing
another's perspective.]
but to suggest that it is even remotely possible that "Alan Greenspan, Rudy
Gulianni and Tipper Gore might still be surrealists, but Breton was
definitely not", is simply and plainly wrong to the point that it is silly
to do anything but dismiss it, and anyone who could make the statement.
there is no ambiguity here for an surrealist.
Kristina
> In article <7vulkg$dqh$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
> >
> > > Kristina, did you say a week ago--during my Blue Period!--that you
> had
> > > tried to e-mail me? That's the address above....
> >
> > Elizabeth, I don't quite recall, the week has been too big this time
> > round...
> > I know my closet is too full and needs cleaning out, I hoard too many
> > things.
>
> English!
>
> > (sorry, I can't think tonight...I'm way too tired).
> > Kristina.
> >
> clear mind. as i heard a poetic genius once say. Whenever that was.
> Packs are for cigarettes. Angry mob [of 1] not angered as a woman
> surrealist recently said.
> > > Elizabeth
Yes, the closet is too full in the bright light of day, and even heavier at
night.
What do you think one is to do in these times? I thought Barbados for a
year would be good,
but I don't want to frag my tender skin...still smoking does look beautiful
as it exhales another
thought unfettered.
I do try and speak to my mind....clearly it has left me all alone.
Thanks Elizabeth...
Kristina.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> >
>
> --
> cythera
zambianboy
dale houstman wrote:
>
>
> Oh look - a high school cliché...
you are the cliches my dear friends...your revolt is the cliche
> You never asked a decent intelligent question.
didn't I? well then if my questions were so dumb why all the replies to itthe
last few days. so maybe the question was dumb (by your judgement),
but why did u bother with it if you were so damn intelligent. and so you
think the question 'what is surrealism' dumb? not much of a thinker are u.
> Even your fake name bores me.
>
the only thing fake in here is you lot.
zambianboy
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
>
>
> I politely asked you a question in my last post and you never responded. It
> appears as if you didn't really want to chit chat afterall.
i apologize...i may have missed it amongst all this hostility i've been
receiving. i wanted a little discussion but perhaps i came to the wrong
place.
Leo Sgouros
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826E83D...@a.com...
>
>
> dale houstman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh look - a high school cliché...
>
> you are the cliches my dear friends...your revolt is the cliche
>
Whose revolt, brainiac?
> > You never asked a decent intelligent question.
>
> didn't I? well then if my questions were so dumb why all the replies to
itthe
> last few days. so maybe the question was dumb (by your judgement),
> but why did u bother with it if you were so damn intelligent. and so you
> think the question 'what is surrealism' dumb? not much of a thinker are u.
>
> > Even your fake name bores me.
> >
>
> the only thing fake in here is you lot.
>
>
Lot turned away from the destruction.
>
> >
> > Your "point of view" isn't a differing one, it is merely inept. You
flatter
> > yourself immensely to believe you ever once engaged anyone beyond the
level
> > of disgust and tedium.
> >
> > Sod off, mackerel brains!!
> > DMH
>
>
>
Go away, or get a clue, chimp.
Leo Sgouros
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826E8F0...@a.com...
You came to the wrong place, liar.
zambianboy
Kristina wrote:
> Have you read the posts that Nik has been posting? Do you agree
> wholeheartedly with what he says? What are you foing here, if you don't
> have any opinions of ideas, other than just asking why people are
> communicating, which is what you are in essence saying. I'll put this as
> simply as I can...I don't particularly like the thought of mindlessly going
> about life without questioning anything. I do not subscribe to the theory
> that "everything is everything". That is such a farce, and banal.
>
> I like the communication, see you and I are doing it now, I say something
> you disagree and we discuss it, what is the difference between the Nik
> situation and this here? Absolutely nothing. And please excuse but me what
> is this crap about "judge lest not you be judged yourself?"
> Do you just take everything in? What is the point of communication if you
> are just going to agree with everything...that is not a possibility to me.
> No one can tell me they AGREE with everything, that is an impossibility.
>
> Kristina.
> >
i agree, but along with the questioning of others comes the questioningof ones
own self...which is the point i have been trying to get across.
question it all. including yourself and your own beliefs and justifications.
as far as nik goes i havent really read any of his posts - but i've read yu
guys flaming him. the stuff that you guys say - wow - does anyone
deserve that fate? and i really truly believe he is entitled to share
his opinion regardless of how fucked up it may sound to you or me
zambianboy
Kristina wrote:
> zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:382341B0...@a.com...
> >
> >
>
> > well shit! so much for discussion - i guess you bunch of sods are so
> narrow
> > minded that when you come across differing points of view you have to
> lunge
> > out them to protect your own insecurities. kindly get a fucking life.
>
> Oh is this your mode of communication? LOL ...Nik goes on with mindless
> drivel and you go on with mindless defensive behaviour. I have a life, and
> you're quite right, I like fucking too. (That's one thing you got right so
> far). However, you appear to me a little soggy biscuit, left out in the
> rain of your own ludicrous thoughts.....buy an umbrella and poke yourself in
> the eye with it,, then you and Nik can unite in completeness.
> >
>
>
i turned to this form of communication because of the way all of youwere
responding to my posts - did u actually read the shit they were
saying. i intended no maliciousness when i started but somehow
almost all the feedback save for a few, were degenerate attempts at
insulting someones point of view. seriously go read some of the shit
that was written - check dale h's posts (i think) for an example. after
that then you come talk to me about my modes of communication. even
your posts haven't been the epitome of polite discussion either u know?
> >
> >
> >
Leo Sgouros
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826EA67...@a.com...
Please point out the post that told Nik he doesnt have the right to his
opinion.
zambianboy
barrett john erickson wrote:
> > Yep. What's funny is you said, "I admit that I might be wrong," to
> > which Barrett responded, "You are wrong," quite clearly missing the
> > point.
>
> i missed no point here.
>
> [and the record will show i am almost never this blunt in dismissing
> another's perspective.]
>
> but to suggest that it is even remotely possible that "Alan Greenspan, Rudy
> Gulianni and Tipper Gore might still be surrealists, but Breton was
> definitely not", is simply and plainly wrong to the point that it is silly
> to do anything but dismiss it, and anyone who could make the statement.
>
> there is no ambiguity here for an surrealist.
there is always ambiguity
zambianboy
Leo Sgouros wrote:
> zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826EA67...@a.com...
> >
> >
>
>
> Please point out the post that told Nik he doesnt have the right to his
> opinion.
c'mon are you kidding me? do actually read the stuff you guys actually
write?sometimes things do not need to be stated explicitly. i mean in the very
last
post you just called me a liar and told me i was in the wrong place. how
should i take that...
zambianboy
Leo Sgouros wrote:
so am i liar now am i? in what way?and i think the place is right but some of
the people are just
all wrong
Leo Sgouros
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826EECE...@a.com...
you are a liar if you pretend to "not get it"
nobody said Nik has no right to his opinions-
what people have tried to get accross is that surrealism resists being
pegged as a method or an end result-
zambianboy
Leo Sgouros wrote:
> >
> >
>
> you are a liar if you pretend to "not get it"
what is this "it" that i'm pretending not to get. please clarify coz i'mnot as
intelligent as u lot.
> nobody said Nik has no right to his opinions-
> what people have tried to get accross is that surrealism resists being
> pegged as a method or an end result-
no you're wrong...i have been saying that surrealism resists this.
i am the one who kept saying that we cannot define this thing.
by defining it as so many in this group has vehemently done,
they have pegged it...they have made it an end result. By saying
what it can and cannot be you are doing the very same thing.
maybe i'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but if u're saying
what i think, then this is exactly what my entire point is. that
my saying someone falls within the 'parameter' of surrealism,
you are pegging it as method with and end result. i thought it
was more open ended than that.
Leo Sgouros
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826EF92...@a.com...
You should take that any way you please, as you have done already.
Why do I even have to point out that anytime someone says"you guys" and
tries to build a boat to put everyone in, they are either
misunderstanding(and I do this purposely from time to time) or ignorant.
Leo Sgouros
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826F906...@a.com...
I have lost interest in this.
Keep reading.
Bye now.
zambianboy
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> zambianboy wrote
> > there is always ambiguity
>
> Are you from Ottawa?
toronto;
Brandon J. Freels
barrett john erickson
there is no more ambiguity here than there is in saying a brick is not filet
mignon.
which is to say that your insistence that there _is_ ambiguity is either a
gamesman's pose, a faulty epistemological conclusion, or because you fail to
understand "surrealism" and/or have insufficient knowledge of who Alan
Greenspan, Rudy Gulianni, Tipper Gore and Breton are/were and what they have
done.
simple ignorance, of course, is correctable if you truly are willing to
admit you might be wrong.
zambianboy
barrett john erickson wrote:
> "zambianboy" <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826EC8C...@a.com...
> >
> >
> > barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > > > Yep. What's funny is you said, "I admit that I might be wrong," to
> > > > which Barrett responded, "You are wrong," quite clearly missing the
> > > > point.
> > >
> > > i missed no point here.
> > >
> > > [and the record will show i am almost never this blunt in dismissing
> > > another's perspective.]
> > >
> > > but to suggest that it is even remotely possible that "Alan Greenspan,
> Rudy
> > > Gulianni and Tipper Gore might still be surrealists, but Breton was
> > > definitely not", is simply and plainly wrong to the point that it is
> silly
> > > to do anything but dismiss it, and anyone who could make the statement.
> > >
> > > there is no ambiguity here for an surrealist.
> >
> > there is always ambiguity
>
> there is no more ambiguity here than there is in saying a brick is not filet
> mignon.
>
> which is to say that your insistence that there _is_ ambiguity is either a
> gamesman's pose, a faulty epistemological conclusion, or because you fail to
> understand "surrealism" and/or have insufficient knowledge of who Alan
> Greenspan, Rudy Gulianni, Tipper Gore and Breton are/were and what they have
> done.
>
there is always ambiguity when it comes to ideas and ideologies. bricks and
steaks are not ideas, they are things. a brick is a brick, no matter how you
percieve (well we could argue this one too, but lets stick to one thing at a
time);
ideas will always be in dispute. there will always be differing points of view.
therefore ambiguity will always exist. it will only be non-existent for
fanatical,
unobjective, inflexible people who choose not to see it any other way but their
own.
zambianboy
Kristina wrote:
> zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826EA67...@a.com...
> >
> Don't shovel the barrow load, okay, I said I've had enough of this. You
> admit to not reading Nik's posts, and you also say "question everything".
> Yet, you have no problem about looking at the one sided nature of the
> communication between everyone and Nik. You think (we all.....whoever the
> fuck you are refering to) are rude to Nik, well he is rather capable of
> doing the same. And it is not without reason that his ideas have been
> questioned, and alot of people have tried to "communicate" with Nik. I've
> stopped.
> What you just said here is so hypocritical, I can't even begin to go into
> why, but I think I've covered some of it.
> Perhaps you should take your own advice and start looking at the wider
> screen here......
> Kristina.
> >
> >
as a matter of fact i have started reading his posts. hey see people adapt
(wellsome of us anyway). and you know what, he's a pretty intelligent chap,
which
is a completely different picture than the ones you paint. you guys make it out
like he doesn't know what he's talking about. after reading a few of his posts
it seems like he does. i may not agree with all of it, but hey, his differences
are my potential pathway to knowledge and information. as are yours and so
on.
anyway enough with this argument already...as u have stated...so fini!!
barrett john erickson
what you say is true enough. but not where i see our problem.
all i'm trying to get you to acknowledge (for now) is that "surrealism" has
determinable limits -- which is to say nothing more than _it can be
identified as something distinct_ (even if only for purposes of discussion)
and doesn't just blend in with everything else in some kind of morass of
confusion.
just the fact that we're talking about "it" should make that point.
if you're unwilling to agree that "surrealism" can be talked about and that
we both have some idea of what we're talking about when we do so (a position
Nik has refused to accept in the past) then it's useless for us to pursue it
any further.
understand that we're not talking about specific ideas within or without
those limits. [and we're certainly not talking about an "ideology".]
you might think of "surrealism's" limits as an unbounded finite: the
defined "set" may be infinite, its specifics undetermined and open (since it
is an open process), but is nevertheless definable by what it includes and
what it excludes by definition and by example.
surrealism has a large body of theory, an 80 year history, and it has a
present, all of which serve to define those limits.
Kristina
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:3826EB9B...@a.com...
I think it was you who initially told everyone to "kindly get a fucking
life". Now that was based on you thinking we don't understand what you are
saying, and that we are picking on Nik, and why the hell can't everyone just
say what they want, it's all surreal right?........and on and on.
Everything is everything, and on an on........whatever.
I'm growing rather bored with the flaccidness of this...if you want to play
the victim, I suggest you try another avenue.
I know I have not been very polite, (I never said I was pretending to be
polite) but I can be...Do I have to tell you again why I responded to your
post the way I did. Enough said.
Kristina.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
Kristina
Don't shovel the barrow load, okay, I said I've had enough of this. You
Kristina
zambianboy <a...@a.com> wrote in message news:38274749...@a.com...
> > admit to not reading Nik's posts, and you also say "question
everything".
> > Yet, you have no problem about looking at the one sided nature of the
> > communication between everyone and Nik. You think (we all.....whoever
the
> > fuck you are refering to) are rude to Nik, well he is rather capable of
> > doing the same. And it is not without reason that his ideas have been
> > questioned, and alot of people have tried to "communicate" with Nik.
I've
> > stopped.
> > What you just said here is so hypocritical, I can't even begin to go
into
> > why, but I think I've covered some of it.
> > Perhaps you should take your own advice and start looking at the wider
> > screen here......
> > Kristina.
> > >
> as a matter of fact i have started reading his posts. hey see people adapt
> (wellsome of us anyway). and you know what, he's a pretty intelligent
chap,
> which
> is a completely different picture than the ones you paint. you guys make
it out
>
> like he doesn't know what he's talking about. after reading a few of his
posts
> it seems like he does. i may not agree with all of it, but hey, his
differences
> are my potential pathway to knowledge and information. as are yours and so
> on.
>
> anyway enough with this argument already...as u have stated...so fini!!
I'm happy for you...let's move on now shall we...
Kristina.
>
zambianboy
barrett john erickson wrote:
> what you say is true enough. but not where i see our problem.
> all i'm trying to get you to acknowledge (for now) is that "surrealism" has
> determinable limits -- which is to say nothing more than _it can be
> identified as something distinct_ (even if only for purposes of discussion)
> and doesn't just blend in with everything else in some kind of morass of
> confusion.
>
> just the fact that we're talking about "it" should make that point.
>
> if you're unwilling to agree that "surrealism" can be talked about and that
> we both have some idea of what we're talking about when we do so (a position
> Nik has refused to accept in the past) then it's useless for us to pursue it
> any further.
>
look i know that we're talking about it. and yes you're totally right thatin
that sense we are defining it. but thats what i feel the problem is -
and i am just as much a part of it as anyone else coz i am very much a
part of this 'defining.'
where i go off is where the rest of the people here state that the process
of defining and living the definition of surrealism will make you a
surrealist. i on the other hand feel that this we all (and i mean all of us
including nik and the like), have gone against the spirit of surrealism
by putting so many parameters on it. i mean shit, even in this very
last statement that i made i put parameters on it.
i guess my point is this: i know we're still gonna come to this
group and discuss and define it and so on. there is not much we
can do about that. what we can do though is realise that there
may exist more to surrealism outside of the boundaries and
limits that we have set for it. after all it is beyond normality
is it not? to be within the boundary is to be normal is it not?
so why not accept that the boundaries that you and i set may
be quite irrelevant to the entire "process"; what do you think?