Should be called ....alt.mindless.drivel
CHENNO
or ......... alt.Breton.qoutes
or ..........alt.surrealism.wannabe's
or a new one......alt.surrealism.moderated!
no offense, but there are maybe a few topics that even fit this format.
Jwcygirl only made a point that is true! I am not trying to blast anyone, but,
really ! Some of the people in here are very smart and have some great ideas,
but, generally, the group is tainted with stupidity.....
CHENNO ôżô
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
Brandon J. Freels
CHENNO wrote
>but, generally, the group is tainted with stupidity.....
And teen angsters who think everything "stupid," a lack of understanding
what surrealism is, anti-surrealists who have a reppressed fascination with
surrealism, etc.
---BJF
CHENNO
understanding
what surrealism is, anti-surrealists who have a reppressed fascination with
surrealism, etc.
---BJF
Geez,Brandon, You just convinced me,my quote was correct with that silly
comment...lol
CHENNO wrote
>but, generally, the group is tainted with stupidity.....<<<
Yes, your knowledge soars high with that statement.......Teen angsters....lol
<giggle>
uhmmm, ok, get off your soapbox and join in a conversation about surrealism
with others, instead of yourself!
Sometimes when people grow older and cynical , (some people) they become so
routine in their own opinions , they refuse to hear fresh and new opinions.....
Brandon you tend to write your lack of undersatnding alot!! Please then spew
out this superior information with us....I for one cannot wait to hear it......
I will buy you a new life!( Everclear)
don
> CHENNO wrote
> >but, generally, the group is tainted with stupidity.....
>
> And teen angsters who think everything "stupid," a lack of understanding
> what surrealism is, anti-surrealists who have a reppressed fascination with
> surrealism, etc.
> ---BJF
I don't know whether to start at the top of all of these posts or at the
bottom. I do want to address them all so I think I will start with this one
first. since it will be the shortest.
Hi Brandon or Chenno, (im not sure who wrote what's above this)
I am curious about something you refereed to in your post and wanted to know if
you could expand on it a little for me.
If people were "anti surrealists" I think you are meaning that they are
against surrealist practitioners or people who subscribe to the ideas as
expressed by the framers of the movement.
So my question is how does some one act out or express these feelings of
antagonism or hostility towards the surrealists? What kinds of things would
they do as acts ? would it be confined to statements, or rock throwing, or just
feelings of contempt ?
Or is anti surrealist just a phrase to describe some one who disagrees
fundamentally with the law and letter of Kosher Surrealism ? I know it sounds
stupid and maybe I have answered my own question but I'm just looking for some
clarification as to what you feel qualifies as a Surrealist.
thanks
don......
Brandon J. Freels
misinformation about Surrealism
---BJF
elag
> The anti-Surrealists I am speaking of are individuals who spread
> misinformation about Surrealism
Those rascally scoundrels!
(sound of train pulling away from station)
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> The anti-Surrealists I am speaking of are individuals who spread
> misinformation about Surrealism
That's just sad. Why would anyone want to do such a thing? Surrealism is
a fine, upstanding, decent movement.
Salvidore Dali, its formal leader and a Christian -- all surrealists tend
to be very religious -- named and started this movement in an attempt to
better mankind. The movement, loosely based on fascism, actually began in
the 18th Century, when Oscar Wilde went to a party stoned on laundenum.
Armed with a piece of plumbing, he attacked Queen Victoria, clubbing her
rotund head, screaming, "This is not a pipe! This is not a pipe!"
And the movement was born. Soon after that, a young French retard named
Breton appeared on the scene. Because his legs had been gnawed off by
ravenous dogs, Breton crawled around on his belly. Most people didn't
notice him. He lay sprawled on street corners handing out what he called
"manifestings". One day he was hit by a runaway carriage and his innards,
which became caught on the wheels, were looped all over the streets of
Paris.
Alfred E. Neuman saw the resulting carnage and considered it a
masterpiece. Soon Breton was a new deity in the Church of Surrealism.
The surrealists carried Breton's body through the streets, singing,
"Deutchland Uber Alles" for some reason. Some say Hitler was a
surrealist. Maybe that explains it.
Things get too complicated after that to explain to mere lay-people. If
you really want to understand, you'll need a Fine Arts degree from Yale or
Harvard.
Nik
--
"First, the freenet tends to attract alot of loners. Second, this
[newsgroup] attracts extremely out-spoken and often alcoholic
individuals."
--Ian Rooney, ncf.sigs.sex
CHENNO
misinformation about Surrealism
---BJF<<<
Anything I have posted is accurate my friend, If it is not to your belief, it
does not mean it is not correct, If anything, maybe, missinterppeted.
What the hell are you looking at?
barrett john erickson
i'll jump in here, since i think it was my post that declared Dali the
"anti-surrealist" and i see a better opportunity to clarify that and maybe a
couple other things via your post than CHENNO's (so as to avoid having to
wade into the residual sludge of tortured inversion spilled by Nik).
i know some (Clayton, for sure ... hell, even i) often wonder why i bother
to go over the same ground repeatedly, but your posts indicate you are
actually _exploring_ "surrealism" (as opposed to posturing surrealist). and
there are always new people entering alt.surrealism who shouldn't be left
with the impression that the "personalists" speak for (or even about)
"surrealism".
[part of _my_ project is to find and engage prospective allies in the larger
struggle.
at some point, maybe, i'll assemble a text i can just periodically repost in
such circumstances. i _am_ concerned that these foundational discussions
tend to divert energy from more "productive" exchanges -- to say nothing of
personal correspondence.]
Don wrote:
>If people were "anti surrealists" I think you are meaning that they are
>against surrealist practitioners or people who subscribe to the ideas as
>expressed by the framers of the movement.
>So my question is how does some one act out or express these feelings of
>antagonism or hostility towards the surrealists? What kinds of things would
>they do as acts ? would it be confined to statements, or rock throwing, or
just
>feelings of contempt ?
>Or is anti surrealist just a phrase to describe some one who disagrees
>fundamentally with the law and letter of Kosher Surrealism ?
i would explain my usage as follows:
an "anti-surrealist" is (by Dali's perfect example) one who subverts
the surrealist project while claiming to be the very personification of it.
and again:
i think the _surrealist project_ can be described (in general) as seeking
the integration of the liberated imagination into everyday living -- i.e.,
reality enhanced by the imagination ... (sur)reality.
at any given moment, what constitutes "_surrealism_" is the combined
activity of those who understand and are committed to its project. in other
words, because "surrealism" is a process in action, it is only definable as
the current status of that process -- i.e., the surrealist project as it is
being pursued by the surrealists of the time.
this only sounds circular, if it is misunderstood.
and the misunderstandings seem to come in two forms:
the "personalists" ignore the collective aspects and argue that "surrealism"
can be defined on an individual basis -- that "surrealism is what i decide
it is for myself". what they talk about is not a combined activity of
surrealists, but a solitary pursuit -- not the orgy of (sur)reality, but the
masturbation of post-modern alienation.
others seem to think of "surrealism" as something apart from (and more basic
than) surrealists. that is, something that can be joined, or acquired, or
found, or absorbed, or whatever, so as to become a "surrealist". they may
think of "surrealism" as a club, with admission requirements, or a mental
deformity, with identifiable characteristics and attributes. they are
often found decrying what they perceive as the "laws" or "rules" of
"surrealism" as others are attempting to impose them. what they can't
understand is that these "laws" or "rules" are the products of their own
misconceptions.
of course, it _is_ possible to harbor both misconceptions simultaneously if
one has a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
what constitutes a surrealist?
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.
-- barrett
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
CHENNO
hi Don,
i'll jump in here, since i think it was my post that declared Dali the
"anti-surrealist" and i see a better opportunity to clarify that and maybe a
couple other things via your post than CHENNO's (so as to avoid having to
wade into the residual sludge of tortured inversion spilled by Nik).<<<<<
I mean this in the nicest way Barrett, You are really under the belief that
your shit dont stink!
I know why I left the group months ago, due to the same repetive crap you keep
saying, like a record that keeps skipping.....skip...skip
Granted, you at times can be interesting, when your not trying to be king. And
many have humor and comments to say without all the dung!
Do not mean to offend anyone just stating an opinion.
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad"
Salvador Dali
CHENNO ôŋô
Nikolaus Maack
"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> i'll jump in here, since i think it was my post that declared Dali the
> "anti-surrealist" and i see a better opportunity to clarify that and maybe a
> couple other things via your post than CHENNO's (so as to avoid having to
> wade into the residual sludge of tortured inversion spilled by Nik).
I would make the above my sig file, but unfortunately, it's too long.
Barrett, could you trim it a little for me? Emphasize the wading into the
residual sludge of tortured inversion spilled by me, and dump the rest.
I'd appreciate it. I'd prefer if it were three lines or less in length.
I just finished reading "A Beginniner's Guide to POSTMODERNISM" and as
much as it pains me to say this, I think I might be a goddamn pomo. While
Barrett, Brandon, and Dale argue that a surrealist must remain "pure"
(like some kinda intellectual aryan) the pomos move towards a world where
we all blend into a mass of ideas and philosophies all piled up on top of
one another. An example from the text was that nowadays it is quite
possible to be a "Christian Buddhist".
To expect any philosophy to remain pure (and therefore stagnant) is a
fool's errand. There are three fools in this newsgroup working hard at
it. (Brandon, Barrette and Dale, come on down!) Andrea Chen said this in
a few different ways: in order for a philosophy, a perspective of reality,
a school of thought to survive, it has to cross-polinate with the world at
large. B,B, & D seem to actively work AGAINST this, trying to keep
surrealism "pure".
I hung out in alt.postmodernism for a day or two, and they all struck me
as pompous working-on-their-English-degree intellectual assholes. On the
other hand, postmodernism as a concept seems like loads of fun. So I
can't figure out why alt.pomo is so goddamn dry. Oh well.
Hmm. I wasn't going to say anything more but I noticed the following:
> i think the _surrealist project_ can be described (in general) as seeking
> the integration of the liberated imagination into everyday living -- i.e.,
> reality enhanced by the imagination ... (sur)reality.
Okay, fine. But what I want to know is, WHOSE imagination are you talking
about? Mine? Yours? The definition of THE IMAGINATION has to be nailed
down somewhere, doesn't it, in order for a surrealist to know what they
should actually be doing, correct?
Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
elag
Basic English. I will regale you w/ my gift of the ART of translationese:
> "barrett john erickson" writes:
> > i'll jump in here, since i think it was my post that declared Dali the
> > "anti-surrealist" and i see a better opportunity to clarify that and maybe a
> > couple other things via your post than CHENNO's (so as to avoid having to
> > wade into the residual sludge of tortured inversion spilled by Nik).
Trans: you (Neek) stink!
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> I would make the above my sig file, but unfortunately, it's too long.
> Barrett, could you trim it a little for me? Emphasize the wading into the
> residual sludge of tortured inversion spilled by me, and dump the rest.
> I'd appreciate it. I'd prefer if it were three lines or less in length.
TRANS: You are funny. Help Me!
> I just finished reading "A Beginniner's Guide to POSTMODERNISM" and as
> much as it pains me to say this, I think I might be a goddamn pomo. While
> Barrett, Brandon, and Dale argue that a surrealist must remain "pure"
> (like some kinda intellectual aryan) the pomos move towards a world where
> we all blend into a mass of ideas and philosophies all piled up on top of
> one another. An example from the text was that nowadays it is quite
> possible to be a "Christian Buddhist".
TRANS: Post Modernism makes no sense.
> To expect any philosophy to remain pure (and therefore stagnant) is a
> fool's errand. There are three fools in this newsgroup working hard at
> it. (Brandon, Barrette and Dale, come on down!) Andrea Chen said this in
> a few different ways: in order for a philosophy, a perspective of reality,
> a school of thought to survive, it has to cross-polinate with the world at
> large. B,B, & D seem to actively work AGAINST this, trying to keep
> surrealism "pure".
TRANS: None of you are me.
> I hung out in alt.postmodernism for a day or two, and they all struck me
> as pompous working-on-their-English-degree intellectual assholes. On the
> other hand, postmodernism as a concept seems like loads of fun. So I
> can't figure out why alt.pomo is so goddamn dry. Oh well.
TRANS: Post Modernism is useless. Post modernism is NOT about art.
B.J.E.:
> > i think the _surrealist project_ can be described (in general) as seeking
> > the integration of the liberated imagination into everyday living -- i.e.,
> > reality enhanced by the imagination ... (sur)reality.
TRANS: There is no definition of "sur-realISM".
> Okay, fine. But what I want to know is, WHOSE imagination are you talking
> about? Mine? Yours? The definition of THE IMAGINATION has to be nailed
> down somewhere, doesn't it, in order for a surrealist to know what they
> should actually be doing, correct?
TRANS: Are there no rules? There are no rules, are there?
B.J.E.:
> Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
> going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
> liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
TRANS: None of you are me.
> "First, the freenet tends to attract alot of loners. Second, this
> [newsgroup] attracts extremely out-spoken and often alcoholic
> individuals." --Ian Rooney, ncf.sigs.sex
TRANS: Do not take yourself so seriously.
<elag>
Dale Houstman
> >"The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad"
> >Salvador Dali
>
Most mad men are poorer than Dali also. I actually rather like this quote,
but Dali is always pulling one leg or the other two. Still, he is a real quotable
fellow.
DMH
Dale Houstman
> >While Barrett, Brandon, and Dale argue that a surrealist must remain "pure"
> (like some kinda intellectual aryan)
I certainly do not! This seems to be a mis-reading, but you've repeatedly
shown that you don't like sentences of more than a few syllables, so maybe
we shouldn't be surprised?
>the pomos move towards a world where we all blend into a mass of ideas and
>philosophies all piled up on top of one another.
And you accuse me of being "an intellectual aryan" What is this but the worst
sort of de-individualizing and de-humanizing bratwurst! You make it sound even
worse than I imagined it to be. Maybe this is a talent, but it won't get you a job
in the Pomo PR Department.
> >in order for a philosophy, a perspective of reality,
> >a school of thought to survive, it has to cross-polinate with the world at
> >large.
Cross-pollination (as a botanical process) does not involve however a pea
becoming a pumpkin. Essential (and progressive) qualties must and do survive
and thrive. All "ideas" (if they wish to remain even "notions") contain essential
and non-essential mechanisms, and while there is room for a pea to grow into
a pumpkin, at some point it ceases to be a pea.
This is simple.
>I hung out in alt.postmodernism for a day or two, and they all struck me
>as pompous working-on-their-English-degree intellectual assholes.
Right! You like to parade your cogni-phobia as if it were a local war hero.
Sadly it is just a crippled orphan. I have worked in both the realms of
the Academic and the working class, and there are easily as many fools
and vicious morons in the working class as in the Academic class. This sort
of "reverse class snobbery" is just as ugly a manifestation of our time as its
reverse.
I give the workers the compliment of assuming they are equally capable of
venial attitudes and postures as any professor. You're protecting them (and
in turn yourself) from any investigation of the content of your ideas by
pre-assuming any too intelligent an analysis will be ridiculed as merely
"smart."
>So I can't figure out why alt.pomo is so goddamn dry.
They mistook their mass of undifferentiated notions for a snake mating ball
and got bit.
>Okay, fine. But what I want to know is, WHOSE imagination are you talking
>about? Mine? Yours? The definition of THE IMAGINATION has to be nailed
>down somewhere, doesn't it, in order for a surrealist to know what they
>should actually be doing, correct?
This isn't a bad idea; but you start, and we'll see where it goes.
DMH
"The pleasures of the imagination are, as it were, only drawings
and models which are played with by poor people who cannot afford
the real thing."
--G C Lichtenberg
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
don
> Some of the people in here are very smart and have some great ideas,
> but, generally, the group is tainted with stupidity.....
"Out of the mouths of babes and madmen can spew forth the wisdom of the ages. It's
all in how patient you can be in your interpretation and what your needs are."
don wheeler-mings
CHENNO
the ages. It's
all in how patient you can be in your interpretation and what your needs
are."<
Touche.....Don........Touche.........
Bullet proof..i wish i was(radiohead)
CHENNO ôżô
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> Cross-pollination (as a botanical process) does not involve however
> a pea becoming a pumpkin.
Let's not use the term cross-pollination, because that's not precisely
what I mean. Let's say interbreeding of philosophies. In this case, we
might, for some reason, want to make a pumpkin that's as green as a pea.
I have argued extensively in here (my life is being wasted on the
internet) that certain aspects of surrealism appeal to me, and I steal
them for that reason. Just as I examine all philosophies and steal
whatever seems of use to me.
That's a very post-modern concept, it seems. And I think a much healthier
approach to reality. No longer must one take the ENTIRE philosophy or
religion, but only the pieces that suit them. Some would say this is
wrong. You're either IN, or you're OUT. Fuck those people. I'm IN and
OUT in all the pies.
Now let's discuss a specific example of closed mindedness that the purity
police, the nazi surrealists are all too familiar with:
RELIGION and SURREALISM.
(Ack, no! No! Nik, close the box! Do not let all the evils back out
into the world!)
Here we find a perfect example of how Brandon, Barrett and Dale go gaga.
"If the PUMPKIN is green like a PEA, you cannot call it a pumpkin any
more, you evil maggot!"
If SURREALISM is green like CHRISTIANITY, you cannot call it surrealism
any more, you anti-intellectual ranting twit!"
In other words, "Keep surrealism pure!"
Is the above not in fact the case?
>Right! You like to parade your cogni-phobia as if it were a local
>war hero.
I have two Bachelors. One in psychology, one in Creative Writing. I've
told this story before. Pay attention this time. In my final year of
psych, we were forced at gunpoint to translate psych articles back into
English. I find the language of academia to be offensive. More often
than not, the ideas being expressed in the articles can be laid out much
more simply and clearly. The only reason they are written in ultra
verbose language is to make them appear to be more clever than they are.
This is my only gripe with universities. They breed this sort of madness
on purpose.
>I have worked in both the realms of
> the Academic and the working class, and there are easily as many fools
> and vicious morons in the working class as in the Academic class.
Who's arguing with you? There are fools and morons all over the planet.
I said:
>>Okay, fine. But what I want to know is, WHOSE imagination are you talking
>>about? Mine? Yours? The definition of THE IMAGINATION has to be nailed
>>down somewhere, doesn't it, in order for a surrealist to know what they
>>should actually be doing, correct?
Dale:
>This isn't a bad idea; but you start, and we'll see where it goes.
The only imagination I have access to is my own, therefore, the only
imagination I can speak for is my own. I can encourage others to be more
free with their own imaginations, but I cannot speak for the insides of
their own heads. So how can one argue that personalism and surrealism
don't mix?
Nik
--
Perceptor
> The only difference between me and Salvador Dali is that I am a Surrealist
> ---BJF
The only difference between me and Salvador Dali that I can see is that I'm
Don and he's not.
Dale Houstman
> "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
> > The only difference between me and Salvador Dali is that I am a Surrealist
> > ---BJF
>
> Perceptor wrote:
>The only difference between me and Salvador Dali that I can see is that I'm
>Don and he's not.
The only difference between me and and either Brandon or just plain (branless)
don is
that I dye my neu neutopian roots.
DMH
"Life does not agree with philosophy: there is no happiness that is not idlenss,
and only that which is useless is pleasurable."
--Chekhov
Nikolaus Maack
Who can tell in these modern times, when philosophy is merely fashion?
barrett john erickson
>I mean this in the nicest way Barrett, You are really under the belief that
>your shit dont stink!
>I know why I left the group months ago, due to the same repetive crap you
keep
>saying, like a record that keeps skipping.....skip...skip
>Granted, you at times can be interesting, when your not trying to be king.
And
>many have humor and comments to say without all the dung!
>Do not mean to offend anyone just stating an opinion.
i argue from no position of authority real or imagined. i simply attempt to
counter, as i find it, the pervasive misunderstanding so others might not be
as susceptible.
but as for repetitive and boring... i've accepted similar criticism in the
past, i do now, and i will in the future.
truth is, i also find the repetition of these points very tiring (as i tried
to indicate in my post). unfortunately for you and those who share your
opinion (and me, to the extent i waste effort on matters already covered),
the surrealist project is inseparable from my living and i can only tolerate
a certain level of misstatement and deliberate misrepresentation before i
must respond, yet again.
i find this much more constructive, respectful of the diversity of
participants and their intelligence, than simply dropping occasional bombs
of blanket denunciation.
as i've said before, i'm not much interested in who is or is not a
surrealist, or how you or anyone else defines "surrealism" -- its the living
that matters. and i'm willing to face all challenges to the substance of my
posts, but i am obliged to pursue my passion and i won't abandon it to the
mischaracterization of others simply because you find it boring.
elag
> psych, we were forced at gunpoint to translate psych articles back into
> English. I find the language of academia to be offensive. More often
> than not, the ideas being expressed in the articles can be laid out much
> more simply and clearly. The only reason they are written in ultra
> verbose language is to make them appear to be more clever than they are.
Jargon exists in order to justify extracting inflated professional fees
from the uninitiated general public. Big Words = Big Money.
Perceptor
> "Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> > I thought post-modernism was dead?
>
> Who can tell in these modern times, when philosophy is merely fashion?
>
> Nik
The more "MODERN" the times
The more the need to fashion a new philosophy
don
barrett john erickson
>Hmm. I wasn't going to say anything more but I noticed the following:
>
>> the integration of the liberated imagination into everyday living --
i.e.,
>> reality enhanced by the imagination ... (sur)reality.
>
>about? Mine? Yours? The definition of THE IMAGINATION has to be nailed
>down somewhere, doesn't it, in order for a surrealist to know what they
>should actually be doing, correct?
>
>going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
>liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
i'll give this some respect and assume it isn't just another posture.
[ sorry, CHENNO, i'm about to repeat myself again. feel free to avert your
eyes. ]
[as for defining the imagination, i've given my views on this before and you
were unable (or perhaps pretended to be unable) to understand what i said.
it's a very large and subtle subject which i don't think necessary to repeat
in this context.]
the surrealist project is to liberate _all_ imaginations.
where your prior posts indicate you fall away from this project is not just
that you focus _first_ on your own imagination, nothing wrong with that, but
that you focus _only_ on your own imagination, while ignoring and/or
rejecting the social scope and historical context of the surrealist struggle
on behalf of the imagination of others.
you think of "surrealism" as a tool of personal expression rather than a
movement of social revolution.
you then declare that "surrealism" can still be "surrealism" when you
embrace positions which have long reinforced the oppression of the
imagination. and, rather than defend these indefensible positions in the
larger context of the surrealist movement, you simply declare that it is an
acceptable form of "surrealism" (or "flavor of surrealism" as someone once
said) because _you_ decide what "surrealism" is for you.
the poverty of the "personalist" position is that it isolates the individual
in a masquerade of "surrealism", outside of "surrealism" as it already
exists, while adopting attitudes which reinforce the existing social order.
barrett john erickson
>e: I'm a PO-MO BO-HO MO-FO... my hobby is translating Po Mo texts into
>Basic English. I will regale you w/ my gift of the ART of translationese:
>
>B.J.E.:
>> Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
>> going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
>> liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
>
>TRANS: None of you are me.
sorry, you loose your translation liscense with this misattribution.
barrett john erickson
Nik wrote:
>I have argued extensively in here (my life is being wasted on the
>internet) that certain aspects of surrealism appeal to me, and I steal
>them for that reason. Just as I examine all philosophies and steal
>whatever seems of use to me.
>
>That's a very post-modern concept, it seems.
yes, it is. you're much more at home with the po-mos. why do you deny
yourself?
>... No longer must
>one take the ENTIRE philosophy or religion, but only the pieces that
>suit them. Some would say this is wrong. You're either IN, or you're
>OUT. Fuck those people. I'm IN and OUT in all the pies.
now you're much closer to the reality of this situation. you want to claim
"surrealism" for yourself, even as you admit that you only want certain
portions of it. then you insult those of us who deny you the right to
trivialize "surrealism" with the false image of your fragmented theft.
again (yet again), i really don't care how you approach your life. just
don't expect to smother and dismember "surrealism", then attach a few of its
severed pieces to an aging ox and still expect others to let you call it
"surrealism" without objection.
elag
> >> Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
> >> going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
> >> liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
> >
> >TRANS: None of you are me.
>
> sorry, you loose your translation liscense with this misattribution.
> -- barrett
You're right... I used my POMO trans. engine rather than my SURR. trans.
engine (choo-choo)... to whit:
(correct)TRANS: You are alone. I am not. I am laughing inside.
###
CHENNO
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack, who I hope will not respond with his personalist paradox]
The subject in question wrote:
>>>Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
>>>going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
>>>liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
Brandon:
The problem with this personalist case we are now examining is that he is
"selectively" choosing the liberation of the imagination to effect other
people, therefor he really has not liberated the imagination for he is
directing it towards others with hopes of "integrating" all imaginations.
Once you push the imagination in a certain direction, such as the subject
has done, you are no longer giving the imagination freedom, but are treating
it like a horse and buggy. With the subjects intent to direct his
imagination there can be no liberation of the imagination and only slavery,
which contradicts Surrealist ethics.
The subject continued:
>Re-read what I wrote in the above. I liberate my own imagination and hope
>that by doing so it will liberate and integrate the imaginations of
>others. In other words, liberate ALL imaginations.
Brandon:
Here the subject has again, in paradoxical fashion, chosen a selective path
for his imagination. He also sees himself as a sacrifical lamb for other
imaginations. The subject is saying to us "By sacrificing my imagination I
am helping other liberate their imagination." His preoccupation with the
imagination of others has completely obliviated his own imagination and left
him with feelings of impotence and frustration. This impotence and
frustration can help us understand why the subject has turned to eastern
religions. In eastern religions he sees a possibility that there could
something that might bring back his imagination. Unfortunately this
possibility is false for eastern religions do not depend on the imagination.
Within this realm he can feel as if he, with his lack of an imagination
juxtaposed to the eastern religions lack of imagination, is not really
lacking anything.
The subject concludes by stating to Dr. Barrett that:
>I'm ignoring the rest of what you said. I'm trying to speak for me, and
>my reality, and my position in the world. You pretend that you have the
>authority of the entire surrealist movement behind you. While you speak
>for yourself, and your beliefs, and your views, you pretend they are the
>views of many. Thus when you say that you are of the surrealist
>tradition, it is as though you summon an army of imaginary friends to
>stand around you, and back up your position.
Brandon:
The subject's conclusion is just a consequence of the personalist paradox
that he is stuck in. He ignores the words of others due to his narcissistic
and selfish drive which can only lead him to solitude which is exactly what
he does not want for he hopes to integrate all imaginations, which is
impossible for a personalist to do. In the end this subject will just be
stuck in one place, never moving, and never discovering anything "new." He
will continue to be completely void and ignorant of the marvelous.
Surrealism will remain to be an impossibility for him, and he will
eventually parish alone and angry.
Nikolaus Maack
I said:
>>Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
>>going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
>>liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
Barrett said:
> the surrealist project is to liberate _all_ imaginations.
Re-read what I wrote in the above. I liberate my own imagination and hope
that by doing so it will liberate and integrate the imaginations of
others. In other words, liberate ALL imaginations.
> you think of "surrealism" as a tool of personal expression rather than a
> movement of social revolution.
The only way a social revolution can take place is through personal
expression. Is this not so? After all, how else can one human being act,
besides on a personal level?
I'm ignoring the rest of what you said. I'm trying to speak for me, and
my reality, and my position in the world. You pretend that you have the
authority of the entire surrealist movement behind you. While you speak
for yourself, and your beliefs, and your views, you pretend they are the
views of many. Thus when you say that you are of the surrealist
tradition, it is as though you summon an army of imaginary friends to
stand around you, and back up your position.
And yet here we stand. You. Me. Alone.
How does what you do differ from a priest announcing he has the authority
of God and the Pope behind him? I've said it before. You're turning
surrealism into the thing you claim to despise so much. A religion.
Nikolaus Maack
> eventually parish alone and angry.
Seems my accusation that you three are turning surrealism into a religion
struck a chord in your subconscious.
Brandon J. Freels
>Seems my accusation that you three are turning surrealism into a >religion
struck a chord in your subconscious.
Brandon:
That's it? That's all you can say in reply? Nik, I expected more nonsense
from you! What about the perverted rebuttle?
[also, I think that Surrealist values are more ethical than religious, any
ideas by anyone besides Nik?]
Nikolaus Maack
> from you! What about the perverted rebuttle?
Sorry, Brandon, but I'm kind of tired of talking to you. You and the
other fellows keep failing to read what I write. I don't know who you
lads are having conversations with, but it sure as shit ain't me. I
suspect you're all fighting the ghosts of brothers who died in childbirth.
I had this same experience with an ex-girlfriend of mine. I would tell
her something about myself -- like sex isn't the only reason I'm in a
relationship -- and weeks later she'd say, "You want sex and nothing but
sex, just like all the other men in the world!"
"Uh, no, darling. We had this conversation before, remember?"
Eventually she was forced to admit that she was having arguments with her
ex-boyfriend, and not me. Sure, I was in the room, I was the one she was
talking to, but I wasn't the one she was angry with. After having been
with her ex for over four years, she found it difficult to remember that
not all men ARE her ex-boyfriend.
And I see you and Barrett doing this all the time. It looks like you two
are having an argument with me, but over and over I see these weird signs
that you're fighting something or someone else entirely different. I
mean, come on. All I wrote wa that by liberating my own imagination, I
hope it will liberate the imagination of others. That's it.
Barrett immediately accuses me of being utterly self-centred and not
giving a whit about the "social revolution". A real surrealist, he
claims, would want to liberate ALL imaginations. Well, shit, isn't that
what I said?
Then you turn around and tell me I'm OVERLY concerned with the social
revolution, that by having a "goal" -- liberating the imaginations of
others -- while exploring my imagination means that it is directed in a
particular way, and therefore I am doomed to never see the entire scope of
my mind.
Well, reread what I wrote one more goddamn time. I work on liberating my
own imagination and *HOPE* that it will free the imagination of others.
Does that sound like goal-oriented behavior, to you?
You two are just so used to fighting with me that you no longer even make
sense. Whatever opinion I express, you immediately set yourself up as
opposed to it. It's goddamn ridiculous.
> [also, I think that Surrealist values are more ethical than religious, any
> ideas by anyone besides Nik?]
Sometimes I think you're scared of me, Brandon.
CHENNO
Sometimes I think you're scared of me, Brandon.
Nik
hahahahah, I am sorry this is too frickin funny!
ding ding round 2 please:)
Nik you are a funny guy:) Thank god(oops) for some humor in the world of to
tight ties...lol:)You lighten the group with your witt:)
Dale Houstman
> >Who can tell in these modern times, when philosophy is merely fashion?
Damn! I rather like this...
Dale
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack,
Tit fester.
Dale
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> Tit fester.
Presumably this response means you don't want to talk to me anymore.
Everytime I get to the heart of the matter, the core of all our
conversations, you fall back into gibberish. Quite sad. But not
unexpected.
Brandon J. Freels
>Everytime I get to the heart of the matter, the core of all our
>conversations, you fall back into gibberish. Quite sad. But not
>unexpected.
Brandon:
Gibberish? Just because he speaks a different language than you doesn't mean
he doesn't have something to say. You racist pig!
Dale Houstman
It's not that I don't "want" to talk to you anymore, it's that it is
always
such a fruitless exercise. One can only go so many times to an empty
tree for sustenance before they are considered a sap, or a madman.
You have never gotten to the "heart" of any matter as far as I can tell;
your belligerence seems both forced and automatic (strangely), and
a dialogue with you always ends in you claiming some specious
victory over "people with educations." The truly ignorant possibly
are compensated by nature with a certain degree of denial coated
in a oily coat of unearned superiority. You have not once engaged
me in a meaningful dialogue that didn't involve me pretending to be
somewhat more of an idiot than I already am! This is (of course)
condescending to you, and I apologize for not treating you as an adult
would, and ignoring you.
When you get to the heart of some matter I will be there to try (once
more!) to speak with you, but hold out little hope of overcoming your
willful and pompous anti-intellectualism.
Good luck in your ivory mole-hole.
DMH
CHENNO
?don wrote<
Hmmmmmmmm? I wonder?
Perceptor
Well don't keep every one is suspense CHENNO why don't
you post it. After all I sent it to you for you to use .
As with most of my private corespondence I deleted it after I sent it to you
and don't have a copy to share with everyone.
Perceptor
Never mind CHENNO, I found the page and will post it here
===========================================
less time
http://www.kalin.lm.com/breton.html
Less time than it takes to say it, less tears than it takes to die; I've
taken account of everything, there you have it. I've made a
census of the stones, they are as numerous as my fingers and
some others; I've distributed some pamphelts to the plants, but
not all were willing to accpet them. I've kept company with
music for a second only and now I no longer know what to think
of suicide, for if I ever want to part from myself, the exit is on
this side and, I add mischievously, the entrance, the re-entrance
is on the other. You see what you still have to do. Hours, grief, I
don't keep a reasonable account of them; I'm alone, I look out of
the window; there is no passerby, or rather no one passes
(underline passes). You don't know this man? It's Mr. Same.
May I introduce Madam Madam? And their children. Then I turn
back on my steps, my steps turn back too, but I don't know
exactly what they turn back on. I consult a schedule; the names
of the towns have been replaced by the names of people who
have been quite close to me. Shall I go to A, return to B, change
at X? Yes, of course I'll change at X. Provided I don't miss the
connection with boredom! There we are: boredom, beautiful
parallels, ah! how beautiful the parallels are under God's
perpendicular.
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Perceptor
> And just what is being said about god?
> ---BJF
The reference is in the last sentence of the post to
which you have responded to.
As to what is being said, I make no claims of
interpetation.
don
Brandon J. Freels
>The reference is in the last sentence of the post to which you have
>responded to. As to what is being said, I make no claims of
Brandon:
Naturally you take the neutral position, Preceptor. You should change your
name to "Switzerland." The prose poem presented is rather ambiguous, and I
do not think for an instant it winks towards Breton as being pious or a
believer in any god. Everyone knows and is filled with society's false
concept of god. The piece present, being what appears to be an automatic
text, is of course going to be infiltrated by any of society's false
concepts. He uses the word "god" no different then he would use the word
"unicorn."
Perceptor
> Preceptor wrote
> >The reference is in the last sentence of the post to which you have
> >responded to. As to what is being said, I make no claims of
> >interpretation.
>
> Brandon:
> Naturally you take the neutral position, Preceptor.
NATURALLY I do since I am not pompous or arrogant enough to pretend I am an
expert in the things I am not.
> You should change your
> name to "Switzerland."
I like that concept in that I admire a lot about the Swiss. At least the
French speaking parts that I visited.
> The prose poem presented is rather ambiguous,
that's not my fault
> and I
> do not think for an instant it winks towards Breton as being pious or a
> believer in any god.
I never suggested that it did. please refer to my original post
> Everyone knows and is filled with society's false
> concept of god.
This sentence appears to make no sense to me. I for one do not "know" nor am I
"filled" with society's false concept of god.
> The piece present, being what appears to be an automatic
> text, is of course going to be infiltrated by any of society's false
> concepts. He uses the word "god" no different then he would use the word
> "unicorn."
Again, I never claimed that he did.
If you have any other conceptions about my perceptions please feel free to
write.
don.......
Brandon J. Freels
>I for one do not "know" nor am I "filled" with society's false concept of
god.
Brandon:
But you are, otherwise you would be asking "what is a god?" If society never
poisoned you with the concept of god, or for that matter the concept of the
unicorn, you would never have any reason to consider either one. They would
be non-existing concepts in your mind. You couldn't even begin to think
about them. BUT you can, and anyone who is diving into the debate about
"god" has a concept of "god" which has been planted by society and its
delusions. Some people believe this concept, some people don't.
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> You have never gotten to the "heart" of any matter as far as I can tell;
That's because every issue of significance I raise is something you are
desperately ignoring.
1. Is surrealism not about personal revelation of irrationalities?
Wouldn't autobiographical material be of PRIME importance? Shouldn't we
be fighting the desire to hide our personal lives, and instead express
them publically? Would this not encourage others to reveal their inner
workings? Would this not greatly assist in liberating the imagination?
2. How does your approach (and Barrett's approach, and Brandon's
approach) to surrealism differ from the approach of a Christian to
Christianity? "Our way is the way. Our truth is the truth. Anyone who
wanders from these truths is a heretic. There is no room in our church
for those who would bend the doctrines."
I've raised the above issues a number of times, and you consistently avoid
them. Why? Because they're "stoopid"? Or because they make you
uncomfortable?
> your belligerence seems both forced and automatic (strangely), and
> a dialogue with you always ends in you claiming some specious
> victory over "people with educations."
Again, I get that creepy feeling that you're not arguing with me, but
someone else. When did I ever claim "victory over the educated"? You're
not reading what I'm writing. Should I say it again?
3. My only critique with those that choose the ivory tower is their use
of jargon to mask the simplicity of their statements. Complex language is
used to make themselves appear more meaningful and intelligent than they
are.
Do you have an opinion on the above? Because that's the only comment and
critique I have made regarding people in university. Keep in mind that I
have two Bachelors of Arts myself. The statement isn't based on
mythology, but personal experience.
> When you get to the heart of some matter I will be there to try (once
> more!) to speak with you, but hold out little hope of overcoming your
> willful and pompous anti-intellectualism.
Address the three issues above, and I will be gleeful.
Nik
--
"Hillary Clinton is the only female to become sexually aroused
at the sight of my mutilated vagina."
--Cathy O'Brien, author of _Trance Formation of America:
The True Life Story of a CIA Mind Control Slave_
Perceptor
I'm a very patient person so I am going to try this one last time.
First of all I will quote your statement and my response to it.
============================================
Brandon said:
> Everyone knows and is filled with society's false
> concept of god.
Don replied:
This sentence appears to make no sense to me. I for one do not
"know" nor am I
"filled" with society's false concept of god.
============================================
Now my tedious explanation Of why I gave the response I did
and how you misunderstood a simple statement of fact concerning what I thought:
First of all you make a blanket statement that "everyone" "knows" and is filled
with a particular concept about god. which you go on to label as " society's
false concept".
When you say "everyone" I assume you are including me.
In this case you have made the statement that I "know" or
harbor a belief you label as "society's false concept of god",
which for the record I do not nor have ever claimed to hold.
After I went on to explain this in a few simple words, you respond as If you
never heard what I said or that I am telling a lie.
I would beg you to please never to assume or to ascribe to me
any generalized assumptions on your part about what I believe or do not believe
about anything.
When I say I do not believe or subscribe to a particular concept.
I mean exactly what I said, not the opposite, and not what you may assume with
out fact.
For the very last time:
NO means NO
Yes means YES
I don't know how to make my self any clearer using the English
language.
If you have any further questions about my meaning please do not ask me as I am
out of answers, but consult a semanticist or a dictionary.
Perceptor
> angie , I wonder if brandon or barrett know of this Breton refference to god
> ?don wrote<
>
> Hmmmmmmmm? I wonder?
> CHENNO ôżô
>
I guess we can both stop wondering now as we view the results
of my innocently
trolled question in this drivel filled thread.
Brandon J. Freels
>Now my tedious explanation Of why I gave the response I did
>and how you misunderstood a simple statement of fact concerning what I
thought:
Brandon:
If the concept of god did not exist inside of you than this conversation
would be pointless for you would not know what god is. Everyone who conducts
a discussion about god knows of the concept of god just as everyone who
conducts a discussion about unicorns knows of the concept of unicorns. I am
not saying that everyone knows that the concepts of gods or unicorns are
false, nor am I saying that everyone knows that these concepts, like many
other concepts, are the product of society. YOU know of the concept of god
for if you did not we would not be having this conversation. Why doesn't
this make sense to you? To know of something is not to believe in it. I
never said that and you are mutilating my words. I know of the basic concept
of god, as do I of the Christian concept, but I believe neither. I never
said you subscribed to this concept, but you understand it enough to talk
about it. I don't know how to make my self any clearer using the English
language.
.
For the very last time:
"Yes = No"
---PIcabia
Brandon J. Freels
>1. Is surrealism not about personal revelation of irrationalities?
>Wouldn't autobiographical material be of PRIME importance? Shouldn't we
>be fighting the desire to hide our personal lives, and instead express
>them publicly? Would this not encourage others to reveal their inner
>workings? Would this not greatly assist in liberating the imagination?
Brandon:
At least you do understand something about Surrealism. The Marvelous, or
personal revelation, is at the heart of Surrealism. As for the "desire to
hide" I am not hiding anything, but I see no importance in posting mindless
details of my personal life here, nor do I have a "desire" to do so. I put
my thoughts into my "fiction" and other "creations" and do not see them of
any relevance when talking to anyone at this newsgroup. I write what pops
into my mind, and am not interested in forcing myself into therapy.
Ironically, Nik, you are taking a very Breton like stance. All of Breton's
work is highly autobiographical, but other Surrealists, including one of my
favorites Robert Desnos, never told us shit about his "personal life" and
his "revelations" were all found in his autonomous writings and sleeping
fits. Also, Max Ernst found his Surrealist voice in collage, and chance. Not
every Surrealist is like Breton, walking down the street and hoping to bump
into the Marvelous. The Marvelous, or "Convulsive Beauty" can be found not
just in magic-circumstance, but also in the fixed-explosive, or the
veiled-erotic.
>2. How does your approach (and Barrett's approach, and Brandon's
>approach) to surrealism differ from the approach of a Christian to
>Christianity? "Our way is the way. Our truth is the truth. Anyone who
>wanders from these truths is a heretic. There is no room in our church
>for those who would bend the doctrines."
Brandon:
Surrealism is a revolution. It is about freedom. Any concept that goes
against freedom is not Surrealist. "There is no Freedom for the enemies of
Freedom." Barrett, Dale, and myself are subscribing to no god's doctrine,
but are purely stating that what contradicts freedom cannot be Surrealist,
and that includes the "Freedom to repress" which is a sophist's joke. What I
don't understand is why you don't understand this?
>3. My only critique with those that choose the ivory tower is their use
>of jargon to mask the simplicity of their statements. Complex language is
>used to make themselves appear more meaningful and intelligent than they
>are.
Brandon:
I agree. Many people use complex language to make themselves sound
intelligent. But there is a point when someone sounds so dumb I no longer
listen, just as there is a point when someone sounds so complicated I throw
up. I do not believe Barrett, Dale, or myself are complex writers by any
means. There are others who fit into this category much better, but they are
not relevant to this post, and I don't want to mention them for fear of
another boring thread. Also, you should not dismiss someone for their
complexity. Not everyone who is a complex "writer" is a "lying cheat." Okay?
Clayton Francis
Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
nik.....this is quite perceptive....I must agree.......I feel it really is an
error.......but I think Barrett would not call himself a personalist.....if this
is so (hello barrett....care to comment)....the comment may not be applicable to
his ideals.
Clayton Francis
you think of "surrealism" as a tool of personal expression rather than a
movement of social revolution.
Clayton writes.........for me surrealism really is about personal expression and
how this itself integrates with social being............I cannot see surrealism
as a movement of social revolution.....I see it as a personal inner
revolution......for how is it that one can integrate their imagination with that
of others?.....is not the beauty of imagination the fact that it is highly
unique and personal......its inability to dissipate into that of
others......socialism is too idealistic (as is communism).....it can never
work....for we are dealing with humans.......perhaps I am incorrect in assuming
that your 'reasearch program' is flavoured with socialism.........I often find
myself incorrectly assuming things......but I too am human........god help us
all!
Clayton Francis
Re-read what I wrote in the above. I liberate my own imagination and hope
that by doing so it will liberate and integrate the imaginations of
others. In other words, liberate ALL imaginations.
I write: Ah, again I agree......but whether or not the liberation of your
imagination liberates others is irrelevant really........for you seek to
liberate your own........not so you can liberate others.......if your
achievement helps others, then this is most good......but do you really seek
to achieve for yourself as well as others........or is it really just about
yourself?
Clayton Francis
ideas by anyone besides Nik?]
Is not holding to a particular ethical system dogmatic enough to be called
religious redardless of the fact that its not typically classed as 'religious'?
Clayton Francis
giving a whit about the "social revolution". A real surrealist, he
claims, would want to liberate ALL imaginations. Well, shit, isn't that
phhh.....the social revolution.......is that a bullshit phrase for even more
bullshit utopian dreams
Clayton Francis
Also, you should not dismiss someone for their
complexity. Not everyone who is a complex "writer" is a "lying cheat." Okay?
I says..........yes.....people can be complex to make themselves look
smart.......but sometimes the thoughts that move through ones mind are so
complex in terms of being abstract and confused that complexity is necessary to
express the true picture of ones mind........complex writing is not always
bullshit......
Perceptor
I have brought up with you in this thread, but instead seem to insist upon
keeping the conversation going on about other issues
more to your liking , or perhaps I should say the issues as you choose to frame
them.
Since you insist upon doing this even after I tell you I don't wish to have this
kind of conversation with you, I am forced to give in
if for no other reason than to have it over and done with.
In case you wonder why I find this so distasteful it is because you can somehow
find the nerve to make a clear statement in black and white, in your own words,
recorded in a public forum, and then turn right around and claim as a point of
rhetoric that you never said it. It truly amazes me to such a degree that I am
going to play your little game just to observe what happens. Not to entrap you
or cause you to embarrass your self , but just to study first hand how exactly
you manage to pull it off.
=======================================
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
> Brandon:
> If the concept of god did not exist inside of you than this conversation
> would be pointless for you would not know what god is.
It is true that I have formed an opinion concerning the concept of a god. I
have not however formed a concept of god. Nor do I know what a god would or
would not be like.
> Everyone who conducts
> a discussion about god knows of the concept of god just as everyone who
> conducts a discussion about unicorns knows of the concept of unicorns. I am
> not saying that everyone knows that the concepts of gods or unicorns are
> false, nor am I saying that everyone knows that these concepts, like many
> other concepts, are the product of society.
What you say here is in direct conflict with your previous claim. as proof of
your making the previous claim I will now print the direct quote from the post
sent by you to me and published in this news group on sat 16 jan 1999 at
02:01:56. Words number 43 trough 53
"Everyone knows and is filled with society's false concept of god."
I do not know how you can pretend to follow the rules of logic
and make a statement, then follow it with the opposite statement and expect to
have it both ways.
> YOU know of the concept of god
> for if you did not we would not be having this conversation.
I have told you several times now about my feelings as related to what you are
trying to ascribe to me with statements like the one above. But I see you either
do not care the least for my feelings or are just dense.
I will say it again. DO NOT ever presume to know what I may or may not know. If
you choose to embarrass yourself by telling the lie that you do know then that
is your business, but don't expect me to agree with you.
> Why doesn't
> this make sense to you? To know of something is not to believe in it.
Because you Brandon claimed that "everyone" knew and was filled with a
particular concept.
Since I know to some degree what is contained in my body of knowledge and
thereby knew that your statement did not apply to me in this case, I felt it was
necessary then as now to point this out to you.
> I
> never said that and you are mutilating my words.
I have never misquoted you or changed any of the words you have ever written.
Only you have seen fit to do that.
> I know of the basic concept
> of god, as do I of the Christian concept, but I believe neither.
I don't dispute that you do.
> I never
> said you subscribed to this concept,
No not "subscribed", the term you used was "filled with"
> but you understand it enough to talk
> about it.
I understand what concepts you were referring to.
> I don't know how to make my self any clearer using the English
> language.
Is that why you attempt to have one statement have two separate and opposite
meanings ?
>
> .
>
> For the very last time:
I only wish that this were true (at least for this entire idiotic thread)
>
>
> "Yes = No"
> ---PIcabia
I don't know the meaning of PIcabia, but please don't tell me.
Don wheeler- mings
PS
god forbid (figure of speech) that in the future you ever have need to quote me
or respond to anything I write, I request that you give the date or id number or
reproduce my words unedited. with your history I need this.
barrett john erickson
Clayton Francis wrote in message <36A1835E...@ozemail.com.au>...
>nik wrote:
>Seems to me the only error a personalist makes is deciding that they're
>going to liberate their own imagination, and by doing so, hopefully
>liberate and integrate the imaginations of others.
>
>nik.....this is quite perceptive....I must agree.......I feel it really is
an
>error.......but I think Barrett would not call himself a personalist.....if
this
>is so (hello barrett....care to comment)....the comment may not be
applicable to
>his ideals.
certainly i would not. i have no sympathy for the "personalist"
perspective.
but you appear to have misinterpreted nik's comment, which was an attempt to
defend his own "personalist" position with this piece of conceptual
juggling.
the "personalists'" error is in failing to recognize that simply "hoping"
that the liberation of the other's imagination will trickle down -- or
perhaps migrate via some kind of benevolent osmosis -- from an individual's
self-centered focus on his/her own liberation is not even close to making
the liberation of _all_ imaginations your life's project.
[how, for instance, could the "personalist" make any argument (in their
faux-surrealist context) for action against someone who claimed the
liberation of his/her imagination involved slaughtering armenians and
dumping their bodies in a ditch?
yes that's a challenge to the "personalists" out there.]
Clayton Francis wrote in message <36A185D4...@ozemail.com.au>...
>barrett wrote:
>you think of "surrealism" as a tool of personal expression rather than a
>movement of social revolution.
>
>Clayton writes.........for me surrealism really is about personal
expression and
>how this itself integrates with social being............I cannot see
surrealism
>as a movement of social revolution.....I see it as a personal inner
>revolution......for how is it that one can integrate their imagination with
that
>of others?.....is not the beauty of imagination the fact that it is highly
>unique and personal......its inability to dissipate into that of
>others......socialism is too idealistic (as is communism).....it can never
>work....for we are dealing with humans.......perhaps I am incorrect in
assuming
>that your 'research program' is flavored with socialism.........I often
find
>myself incorrectly assuming things......but I too am human........god help
us
>all!
certainly it begins with a struggle for personal liberation.
but i argue that the Creative Dynamic of our living is both personal and
social accumulative and not zero-sum, and that our personal creative
potential is inextricably bound to the creative potential of others. to the
extent their imaginations are liberated, our creative potential is enhanced.
to the extent their imaginations are suppressed, our creative potential is
diminished.
this isn't a matter of integrating your imagination into someone else's, but
rather a recognition that until _all_ imaginations are liberated, you cannot
expect to reach full creative potential in your daily living, and your own
imagination cannot, therefore, be said to be fully liberated.
[and just to clarify, since you ask: i would consider myself more of a
social anarchist than socialist. the only justification, in my opinion, for
social entities of any kind is the expansion of the Creative Dynamic.
further, i am certainly not a pragmatist. my theoretical explorations are
in no way restricted by a consideration for what might "work", but only by
the reality in which i am embedded.]
Clayton Francis wrote in message <36A186FC...@ozemail.com.au>...
indeed, the "personalist" perspective is by its own admission motivationally
unconcerned with others, but merely "hopes" (as nik puts it) that pursuing
their own self-expression will somehow benefit others also.
-- barrett
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
Andrea Chen
> In case you wonder why I find this so distasteful it is because you can somehow
> find the nerve to make a clear statement in black and white, in your own words,
> recorded in a public forum, and then turn right around and claim as a point of
> rhetoric that you never said it. It truly amazes me to such a degree that I am
> going to play your little game just to observe what happens. Not to entrap you
> or cause you to embarrass your self , but just to study first hand how exactly
> you manage to pull it off.
>
Don:
This type of event was one of the things which fascinated the neu
neutopian movement in our attempt to make the net more aware. The goal
being that people study the patterns of symbol and watch how they flowed
(eg. simplistically in this group against anything by Nik.)
Brandon is probably unaware of his behavior, will deny it if challenged
and even proven (as I demonstrated several times with Dale.) Caught up
in their own rhetoric, pushed by their own buttons they are automations
driven be emotional egotistical goals (as are we all.) The difference
between them and people of your type is that there can be no admission,
no examination, no self acceptance of contradiction or anything less
than nobility. Thus examination of such behavior becomes "obvious" or
"boring" or "irrelevant" or "wrong"
You will find these views are (usually) held with COMPLETE SINCERITY; a
clear illustration of UNCONSCIOUS drives controlling percieved reality.
This is why I have argued that this aspect of the neu neutopian approach
is relevant to surrealism which does argue for the "liberation" of the
unconscious which must include making it conscious or visible.
Brandon J. Freels
> Brandon is probably unaware of his behavior
Brandon:
This is all rather pathetic. Preceptor posts a quote of Breton's in which
Breton uses the word "God." I show why this does not prove that Breton is
pious. Preceptor accuses me of trying to show that he believes in god. I try
and clarify my position. He mutilates my words more by taking them out of
context. Andrea Chen, who is already biased against me, takes Preceptor's
side by saying I'm pushing my own buttons. What they failed to realize is
that I pushed Preceptor's buttons at the beginning with my comment about him
being "Switzerland." This comment produced the only negative response I have
every received from Preceptor. I pushed his button.
Brandon J. Freels
The only problem is that you are quoting my first response and not my
attempted re-clarification of my point. I understand that my original
comment was incorrect for I am sure that somewhere someone has never even
heard the word "god" or even thought about the "concept" of god, or been
poisoned by it. So, for me to say that everyone is filled with the concept
of god is incorrect for it was not really what I was trying to say and that
is why I tried to explain my position further. What I was trying to say is
that it is very hard to live in this culture without, at some point, running
into an understanding of the basic concept of god. Breton obviously knows
the concept of god for he is opposed to it ("I have always bet against God
... Somebody intended of late to describe God as 'a tree' and again I saw
the caterpillar and didn't see the tree." Breton in The Autobiography of
Surrealism, ed. Marcel Jean p. 200). Like Breton I know of "the concept of
god" but am opposed to it. Your belief, or disbelief, or neutral position,
matters little about what I was trying to say. Lets stop playing sophists. I
am tired of word games.
---BJF
Perceptor
>
>
> Don:
>
> This type of event was one of the things which fascinated the neu
> neutopian movement in our attempt to make the net more aware. The goal
> being that people study the patterns of symbol and watch how they flowed
> (eg. simplistically in this group against anything by Nik.)
>
> Brandon is probably unaware of his behavior, will deny it if challenged
> and even proven (as I demonstrated several times with Dale.) Caught up
> in their own rhetoric, pushed by their own buttons they are automations
> driven be emotional egotistical goals (as are we all.) The difference
> between them and people of your type is that there can be no admission,
> no examination, no self acceptance of contradiction or anything less
> than nobility. Thus examination of such behavior becomes "obvious" or
> "boring" or "irrelevant" or "wrong"
>
> You will find these views are (usually) held with COMPLETE SINCERITY; a
> clear illustration of UNCONSCIOUS drives controlling percieved reality.
> This is why I have argued that this aspect of the neu neutopian approach
> is relevant to surrealism which does argue for the "liberation" of the
> unconscious which must include making it conscious or visible.
Andrea I understand what you are saying on several levels but before I resopnd with
my own observation I must say how uncomfortable I am having my self constrasted to
others as you do by saying "The difference between them and people of your type is
that----" I am just as ego bound as the next guy and make no claims to special
knowledge or enlightenment. I consider alot of my views unique but not necessarily
better.
Now to my response----------
But this "liberation" in my humble opinion requires the ability to throw ones deepest
held convictions out the window (at least momentarily) in order to see objectively.
To be truly free enough for a break trough vision one must be willing to see what
ever is there, no matter what it might be. Few have the stomach to risk seeing a
monster and spend their entire lives in fear and denial rather than risk the chance
of the unknown. There are others however who thrive on the danger and actively seek
this kind of revelation as a way of continually testing themselves against the
fetters of their imaginations. To annihilate over and over that self that calls
itself sane and to embrace as ones own that which remains is the real test of love.
Faith in ones humanity provides the strength necessary for such an initial sacrifice.
Perceptor
Yes Brandon you pushed a button with the label of Switzerland.
Yes it upset me to be called neutral. But the other button you pushed in my was
a much bigger one. One that required a non neutral response. One that even
required me to be critical of someone else. A thing I hold as distasteful, yet a
thing that had to be done nonetheless.
The button was not about someone expressing an opinion about my belief systems.
The button was someone making the claim in a blanket statement about "everyone"
holding a particular belief which you claimed as fact.
Again I will quote you here in this post with the complete sentence in your own
words--
"Everyone knows and is filled with society's false concept of
god."
This was your statement . I did not make it up. I did not wish to debate the
concept of god with you or anyone else. I only wanted to point out the absurdity
of making such a sweeping generalization about what "everyone knows".
And for the record I acused you of pretending to know what was in my mind, not
as you say that you were trying to show that I believe in god.
I find it laughable that again you acuse me of "mutilating" your words and
takeing them out of context. This is a thing that I have not done. When I have
quoted you I have quoted complete sentenices and complete words.
You are the one who has attemped to "mutilate" your words and thoughts by
denying that you have said them and then re writing the statements in followup
posts claiming falsely that is what you said in the original posts. Have you no
shame at all or any ethics as a writer to admit when you have done something
like this. It was never my intention to bring you embarassment.
I see know that even if I had wanted to do that , that would have been an
impossible task.
You are probaly going to respond (I guess) to this post with more denial or a
demand that I prove what I am saying. I will not answer that post if it does
come, but instead invite you to read the un altered posts in this thread as the
evidence of my claims. Or better yet have someone who is netrual read them and
give you thier oppinion.
===========================================
Or would you perfer it If I were to say "You are right Brandon in every thing
you have said in this thread". " I could be completely mistaken and if I am then
I offer my sincere apology
to you"
If you need this kind of a statement from me I don't see why I could not give it
to you. In fact I will give it to you. Right here, right now. Go ahead and take
it if you want it, no strings attached. Just reply to this post and say only "no
hard feelings" (but nothing else)
and I will never bring up the matter again. Thats all you have to do now.
I was wrong and you were right
No hard feelings ,
don
C. Francis
Barret wrote.....
>[how, for instance, could the "personalist" make any argument (in their
>faux-surrealist context) for action against someone who claimed the
>liberation of his/her imagination involved slaughtering armenians and
>dumping their bodies in a ditch?
Well, my answer to this is simply and unfortunately a little to
radical.....I am a self confessed 'personalist' ......... find it not
within my rights to judge the actions of others....yes....naturally I
do judge what others do do.....but I feel the central problems
relating to human existence is the opinions and views others place on
others......maybe his is too nihilistic.......who am I to impose my
values and ethical systems on others.....even when their behaviour is
seemingly inappropriate at best...........but.....the question itself
barrett has little to do with surrealism in my opinion.........it is
for moral philosophy and legal systems....and even art to a certain
degree if that is the aim of such art....however.....is this the
central aim of the surrealist program......I say no.
C. Francis
Barret wrote.....
>[how, for instance, could the "personalist" make any argument (in their
>faux-surrealist context) for action against someone who claimed the
>liberation of his/her imagination involved slaughtering armenians and
>dumping their bodies in a ditch?
Well, my answer to this is simply and unfortunately a little to
C. Endicott
Ugh. No like big words. No like academics. Me prefer being
psuedo-intellectual on the internet.
barrett john erickson
>
>
>Barret wrote.....
>>[how, for instance, could the "personalist" make any argument (in their
>>faux-surrealist context) for action against someone who claimed the
>>liberation of his/her imagination involved slaughtering armenians and
>>dumping their bodies in a ditch?
>
>radical.....I am a self confessed 'personalist' .........
this may or may not be the case, i leave that for you to decide. i have no
real interest in developing a roster of "personalists", but use this term as
a shorthand grouping (much as one would use the word "surrealists"):
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.
adopting this position, it seems obvious to me, renders that person's
opinion on matters of "surrealism" as irrelevant to surrealists as their
opinions are to the "personalist". of course, it doesn't render all their
opinions irrelevant, just those about "surrealism" or shared reality.
>find it not
>within my rights to judge the actions of others....yes....naturally I
>do judge what others do do.....
i think you are correct here and my text confused my intent.
[i should've said something closer to "argument ... for action against
someone's claim that ... " i didn't mean to imply the judgement of the
"person" (or artificial grouping of people) as opposed to that person's
actions or arguments.]
we can judge only actions. but such judgement is unavoidable, due to the
complicities we acquire simply by being deeply embedded in, and an active
agent in the social systems around us.
apathy or neglect is an acceptance of "the way things are" -- and we all do
this in many ways every day. rather than judging others, i'm saying we need
to recognize our opportunities and intervene to lessen our complicity in a
status quo we condemn.
>but I feel the central problems
>relating to human existence is the opinions and views others place on
>others......
i feel the central problems of human interaction are the result of actions
taken from an unexamined foundation of uncritical belief and/or unexamined
values accepted from others (e.g., religious teaching, nationalism, the
pervasive "marketplace" metaphor, etc.) in combination with the inaction of
those who should intervene.
>maybe his is too nihilistic.......who am I to impose my
>values and ethical systems on others.....even when their behaviour is
>seemingly inappropriate at best...........but.....the question itself
>barrett has little to do with surrealism in my opinion.........
it has everything to do with "surrealism" if one understands the surrealist
project in its social context. in my opinion, there is no
action/argument/theoretical position which isn't relevant to "surrealism" --
either as friend or foe or something yet to be explored with implications
unknown.
this isn't a matter of imposing values -- certainly not "surrealist
values" -- only a project which is, in part, to challenge and depose adopted
values and beliefs.
>it is
>for moral philosophy and legal systems....and even art to a certain
>degree if that is the aim of such art....however.....is this the
>central aim of the surrealist program......I say no.
we obviously disagree here.
as i said in my previous post:
"i argue that the Creative Dynamic of our living is both personal and
social, accumulative and not zero-sum, and that our personal creative
potential is inextricably bound to the creative potential of others. to the
extent their imaginations are liberated, our creative potential is enhanced.
to the extent their imaginations are suppressed, our creative potential is
diminished."
this makes "moral philosophy and legal systems" and "art" and everything
else, in my opinion, critically important arenas for surrealist
intervention.
Richard Martin
"C. Endicott" wrote:
> Ugh. No like big words. No like academics. Me prefer being
> psuedo-intellectual on the internet.
What mean "psuedo"?
New kind blue shoe?
What mean "ugh"?
"Not like"? or "How"?
Leo Sgouros
--
The King has note of all they intend
By interception which they dream not of
-William Shakespeare
C. Endicott wrote in message ...
Bill Cleere
>
> "C. Endicott" wrote:
>
> > Ugh. No like big words. No like academics. Me prefer being
> > psuedo-intellectual on the internet.
>
> New kind blue shoe?
> What mean "ugh"?
> "Not like"? or "How"?
"How", in the sense of this old joke, which I dearly hope
no one will find offensive:
A Native American was standing on a street corner. A man
waiting for a bus was idly watching him and noticed that
he would say "Chance" to every pretty girl who passed by.
Overcome by curiosity, the man approached the Native
American and asked him why he was saying "Chance" to every
nice-looking girl he saw. "I thought you Indians always
say 'How'," the man said.
The Native American replied, "Me know how. Me want chance."
-- Bill Cleere
Leo Sgouros
--
The King has note of all they intend
By interception which they dream not of
-William Shakespeare
Bill Cleere wrote in message <36A549...@best.com>...
Whats the difference between an epileptic oyster shucker and a prostitute
with diarrhea?
An epileptic oyster shucks between fits.
WWWOOOOOHHHHHOOOOOOOO
C. Endicott
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Leo Sgouros wrote:
> and yer point is........
>
Everyone's got one.