"Surreal Lives" by Ruth Brandon
Nik Maack
Has anyone read "Surreal Lives" by Ruth Brandon? I just picked it up
from the Ottawa Public Library. Published in 1999 by Grove Press, it
looks like a meaty read.
A chunk lifted from the preface:
"The nature of charisma is always elusive, and in Breton's case
particularly so. His charm was legendary. Even those who deeply
disagreed with him hesitated to risk exclusion from his company. Yet
his qualities, on the face of it, were not particularly attractive: he
was rigid, bullying, humourless and unforgiving. Perhaps the attraction
lay in his irresistible urge to shape and frame. The creation of a
revolutionary movement demands an unusual capacity to take the
historical view and impose a form on events. The charismatic embraces
us within this life view; so comforting and consoling is the fact of
that embrace that we accept it, even with reservations. Within lies
certainty; outside, all is chaos.
"Such, in politics, is the stuff of totalitarianism: the subordination
of life to dogma. Breton, so passionate about freedom, both personal
and artistic, was totalitarian in his impulses, a dictator in the age of
dictators. Can these two impulses - to freedom and to total control -
possibly be reconciled? This is the clash at the heart of the
Surrealists' story.
"Anglophones generally tend to pragmatism: when the demands of life
conflict with those of dogma, life wins and dogma is rearranged to fit.
_Surreal Lives_ examines the opposite extreme, the shoehorning of life
into an almost impossible theoretical framework. In the end the trick
proved too hard: the erstwhile Surrealists spun off in their different
orbits leaving Breton in the brooding isolation of his uncompromised
integrity. But by then surrealism had given us a new way of looking at
the world."
Any comments on that? The above sort of makes historical surrealism
sound like a personality cult, with Breton as the charismatic leader.
Nik
john adams
I've read that one. It's fairly decent in combining some of the history
of surrealism up to around the 40's, but I seemed to disagree with a
lot of the biased assumptions she's arrived at, much through hearsay
and her own extrapolatings as a distant academic (with no doubt
only a minor grasp on the theoretical framework and surrealism 'in
life').
Though it's tough to disagree that Breton was often strict
and uncompromisable and all that, I would much sooner place
confidence in the comments of those people who were actually
involved with him on a personal level: surrealists, friends that knew him,
and so forth. I don't believe he was a "monster" by any accounts. Those that
believe this are usually oblivious as to his poetic, adventurous side,
or enamoured flirtings with the exotic, mysterious, strange, and romantic.
He did, of course, court his own share of human issues (with trust, etc.) that tended to
collide with female partners and associates. I felt Brandon simply didn't like the guy very
much - her sympathies were greater with Aragon in the interworkings of their friendship,
for instance, and she obviously took more faith in the institution of literature
and business of art, for one.
So again I felt she was a little biased, but a lot of the historical accounts
and minor details seem to be there, as much perhaps that could be fit
into the book, from Dada into the (less concentrated on) 40's.
But expect it to be somewhat more devoid of the critical commentary present in
say something actually put out by a surrealist, someone directly involved, or that
which isn't reserved as being a light historical accumulation of events.
"Revolution of the Mind", by Mark Polizzotti is a much better read, and thicker
(I still haven't finished that one).
Dale Houstman
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BF6B2F2...@sympatico.ca...
I have the book, and I find her viewpoints to be "front-loaded"
psychological bullshit for the most part. What she says above about Breton
is nothing I'd go out of my way to disagree with in particular, although it
is perhaps not as true as you'd obviously like it to be. Breton was - as
anyone will admit - autocratic and cold, but he showed much forbearance at
times, and - while he did need to be liked, he also allowed for wide detours
on the part of others: his history with Dali is an example. Many others
(myself for instance) would have given him up as a narcississtic monstrosity
of self-promotion and morbid hysteria years before Breton did. whatever his
reasons. Almost all the group members speak - at some point - of Breton's
charm and angers, but to speak of him in the same phrase used to describe
Stalin is to miss some rather essential aspects of his life, and to miss his
contributions. Breton is nobody's idea of a "regular fella" but he's no
dictator either. He's certainly obsessed, and probably "a-sexual" in some
squeamish manner, and no great shakes at small talk. These are all things
most surrealist can and do admit. But the ratio between the effects of these
attributes and the size of his contribution to a worldview, and to the
individual lives of those he met and worked with is the most telling thing
about him. "Surreal Lives" isn't so much a lie but more - like so many
biographies - a sin of omission, and - in thar regard - is little
different - except in its academic phraseology - from other such botch jobs.
Most people don't look good in certain light and at certain distances.
Breton's life rather speaks for itself. Since no one is expected to accept
him as a figure of divine adoration, the fact that he is not an icon of
human warmth doesn't surprise us.
dmh
Brandon Freels
> I have the book
[snip]
You bought that thing?
Nik Maack
Dale Houstman wrote:
> What she says above about Breton
> is nothing I'd go out of my way to disagree with in particular, although it
> is perhaps not as true as you'd obviously like it to be.
Sounds to me like she both praises and condemns Breton, at least in the
preface. Is she far more cruel in the book itself?
> Almost all the group members speak - at some point - of Breton's
> charm and angers, but to speak of him in the same phrase used to describe
> Stalin is to miss some rather essential aspects of his life, and to miss his
> contributions.
I don't know about that, Dale. While Breton was a genius, every book I
have read about surrealism agrees that he set himself up as the grand
dictator of the surrealist movement. He was constantly judging the
members, determining whether they got to stay or were forced out on to
the street. He went so far with this that eventually he was the only
original member of the group left. It was him, and a whole new crowd,
with everyone else having left in disgust or been kicked off the team.
> "Surreal Lives" isn't so much a lie but more - like so many
> biographies - a sin of omission, and - in thar regard - is little
> different - except in its academic phraseology - from other such botch jobs.
What does it omit?
> Most people don't look good in certain light and at certain distances.
To rephrase, everyone has their warts. Are you upset because Ruth
Brandon looks at the warts too much for your tastes, when she could be
looking at Breton's wonderful head of hair?
(He really does have very cool hair.)
Many Freudians get really pissed when you talk about Freud's warts.
Randroids freak when you mention what a hypocritical slut their leader
could be. Are people doomed to spend their lives trying to hide their
warts and the warts of the people they love?
Nik
PS.
My girlfriend, Michelle, has a wart on the index finger of her right
hand, but has been diligently putting a wart-eating ointment on it every night.
PPS.
I am fat.
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7wGJ7.190960$W8.70...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Oh hell no! I have a friend who scours the catalogs and buys me anything
even remotely connected to surrealism and French literature and fantastic
literature. For the most part I have a pretty nice surrealist library, so
creeping things like this don't much bother me. I would say this about that
book and a recent Breton biography: they appear to be written by people who
know how to do historical research (so they're informative in material
details), but who - in the whole - don't appear to comprehend precisely what
surrealism is. In fact they seem to make the same mistake most people make,
and think surrealism is a literary or aesthetic movement. The Breton book is
much better, since it contains less academic/psychological bullshit, but he
treats Breton as a literary figure only. For instance, again and again early
"provocations" by the Paris surrealists are depicted as "failures" simply
because they alienate the audience and don't bring in more business. And so
on: it makes complete sense that Nik would like the "Surreal Lives" book,
because it fits his pre-judgment of Breton to a tee. He just cannot seem to
grasp the fact (explained to him countless times) that nobody involved with
Surrealism thinks of Breton as a "decent chap" without personality snags,
and so no one is shocked by "selected tales" of his aloofness, authority,
etc. It's no different from Goldman's "Lennon": yeah, John was a momma's boy
with anger issues, and an overall naive politics, and a primitive approach
to musical technique. But it's the songs, the voice. When one is looking too
hard for supporting details, one easily misses the obvious. In the case of
Breton, it should be obvious that he forged several life-long ties, was
friends with many people all over the world, changed individuals and the
world for - I think it is plain - the better, and helped to prompt an
explosion of the imagination on several continents and across time. There's
the truer measure of the man.
dmh
>
>
Nik Maack
Dale Houstman wrote:
> it makes complete sense that Nik would like the "Surreal Lives" book,
> because it fits his pre-judgment of Breton to a tee.
Excuse me? I haven't read the book yet, having checked it out of the
library yesterday. I don't know if I like it or not. I was wondering
if others had read it and liked it, and that's why I asked about it in
the first place.
Every time this subject comes up -- Breton the dictator -- I'm a little
surprised at how defensive you get. Why does this bother you? You seem
more than willing to admit that, yes, Breton could be a dickhead. And
yet, at the same time, you insist that this isn't important, and people
who focus on this are misleading. How so? This strikes me as bizarre
double-think, and I just don't get it.
"Yes, the car is red. But why focus on that? The inside is blue.
Focus on the blue. That you continually insist on looking at the
outside of the car is misleading."
No it's not. The outside is, in fact, red.
> He just cannot seem to
> grasp the fact (explained to him countless times) that nobody involved with
> Surrealism thinks of Breton as a "decent chap" without personality snags,
> and so no one is shocked by "selected tales" of his aloofness, authority,
> etc.
I don't expect anyone to be shocked. It would be nice if they could
admit that, "Yep, Breton could be a butthole," without adding, "But
you're a dink for pointing it out."
What's more bizarre is that some surrealists not only are willing to
overlook Breton's "authority fixation", but take on the personality
traits for themselves. That is, some surrealists whine in the same way
Breton did. You, Dale, have that in common with Breton.
"I know what Real surrealism is all about. You're just a poseur, you
just don't get it. You have no real comprehension of surrealism. I do."
Setting yourself up as a petty dictator.
Must one be an authoritarian asshole to be considered a real surrealist?
And let me ask the question I asked previously: were the historical
surrealists engaged in a personality cult, with Breton as the leader?
The same argument could be made for Freud, by the way. Freud tried to
keep his fellow shrinks in line, setting himself up as the father figure
they were all meant to worship. When Jung took off -- "Screw you,
daddy-o!" -- others soon followed, and Freud was left in much the same
position as Breton was.
(Dali and Breton can be seen as a replica of Jung and Freud.)
This pattern of things fascinates me. People fall in with a charismatic
leader and buy into his philosophy and spread it to the world.
Disagreements are seen as acts of war, and people are purged from the
group. Eventually, the group dissolves, as the leader is unable to keep
everyone under his control.
Andy Warhol was like this too, come to think of it.
Nik
Black Barrel-25
Death, sunrises
beatific the winter's
rise. Blanch light
on rivers see unseen
Born CRYSTAL FLESH
FISH I N A CLOUD
LIGHT LIFE
In mathematics there are rules that contradict other axioms
in a different set of mathematics. We are all limited as to
what we precieve as truth. Is surrealism about truth? who
we are. Our place in the universe. I belive that surrealism
is part of a process that one does not have to totally embrace.
I would go on to say, as I have said before, that one can have
many different, conflicting, contradictory states of mind going
on within simultaneously and perhaps exist on as many dimensions
without being aware of it. No one will ever precieve themselves
as they truly are.
Nik Maack wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
DAVID COCHRANE
Nik Maack wrote:
As like all great movements, a central figure has , more or less, dominated
the intellectual and philosophical directions of the group. Spurring on
ideas which the others take up then move on, good or bad, into their own
milieus. History, you will find, is rife with such examples within all its
fields.
Dale Houstman
"Black Barrel-25" <::::^^^::::@666.net> wrote in message
news:3BF809BC...@666.net...
> CHRIST
>
> Death, sunrises
> beatific the winter's
> rise. Blanch light
> on rivers see unseen
> Born CRYSTAL FLESH
> FISH I N A CLOUD
> LIGHT LIFE
>
> In mathematics there are rules that contradict other axioms
> in a different set of mathematics. We are all limited as to
> what we precieve as truth. Is surrealism about truth? who
> we are. Our place in the universe. I belive that surrealism
> is part of a process that one does not have to totally embrace.
> I would go on to say, as I have said before, that one can have
> many different, conflicting, contradictory states of mind going
> on within simultaneously and perhaps exist on as many dimensions
> without being aware of it. No one will ever precieve themselves
> as they truly are.
>
"What, Me Worry?" Your "statement" is just an awkwardly worded version of
the usual navel gazing tripe (an excuse for not having to think about
anything, and to wash your hands of any complicity in the dirty run of
things.) Since one cannot "perceive themselves as they truly are" how then
can YOU tell someone ISN'T perceiving themselves as they truly are? What
standard do you hold by that allows you the privileged position of realizing
how short of any "truth" anyone may fall, if no one can know that measure?
You're a living contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction: but pretty
much all hot bullshit from the looks of it.
dmh
Black Barrel-25
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> And fish are ostriches. You certainly take a lot of words to basically say
> "What, Me Worry?" Your "statement" is just an awkwardly worded version of
> the usual navel gazing tripe (an excuse for not having to think about
> anything, and to wash your hands of any complicity in the dirty run of
> things.) Since one cannot "perceive themselves as they truly are" how then
> can YOU tell someone ISN'T perceiving themselves as they truly are? What
> standard do you hold by that allows you the privileged position of realizing
> how short of any "truth" anyone may fall, if no one can know that measure?
> You're a living contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction: but pretty
> much all hot bullshit from the looks of it.
>
> dmh
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Blanche Light
That no one will ever precieve themselves as they truly are is a statement in
fact. No
one in this group has to buy it. It is my perception and I stand by it.
Perhaps one has to look very deep into these matters to understand
the statement made. I also take Wittgensteins position that all our
philosophy is 'language games' and the position of PostModernism
that Amid the collapse of old ways of belief and unbelief we don't
always have to simply believe this and not believe that. The
multidimensional nature of our personalities... I'm relating all the
above to some of the psychology of wanting to belong to a
group such as Surrealism. Something that is very much in the
realm of language games and needs postmodern critique.(in my opinion)
Actually I really love alot about surrealism, collect books etc.
I am not trying to mudsling anybody in this group, I ' m just a working
guy that likes to discuss things of the above and my statements
are very fluid and dialetical. I see no cop out here or any excuse
for coping out of social responsibilities. Mudsling is a cop -out
Dale Houstman wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Nik Maack
Blanche Light wrote:
> That no one will ever precieve themselves as they truly are is a statement
> in fact.
My dog Moxie is tough. She likes to leap up and nip the faces of
rotweilers in order to get them to chase her around the dog park. When
we play tug-of-war, she growls merrily, announcing her fierceness.
The other day, Michelle tape-recorded Moxie growling while I played tug
of war with her. We then played the tape back at Moxie. The sound of
the growling dog on the tape scared the hell out of her. Moxie cowered
in fear on the couch, trying to get as far away from the tape-recorder
as possible. Michelle and I felt intense guilt, and stopped the tape immediately.
No one will ever perceive themselves as they truly are. When we get
close to doing so, it scares and confuses us. It is difficult to even
begin to recognize that the "thing" we are perceiving is ourselves. It
must be some kind of monster, or a bad dream.
>Mudsling[ing] is a cop -out
But the mud feels so cool on my burning fingers...
Nik
Dale Houstman
"Blanche Light" <X...@X.net> wrote in message news:3BF99161...@X.net...
> The Poem was a written by a well known surrealist.
>
> That no one will ever precieve themselves as they truly are is a
statement in
> fact. No
> one in this group has to buy it. It is my perception and I stand by it.
I believe you, but even a personal belief has to stand up internally: if no
one can perceive themselves as they "truly" are, how is it possible for you
to say how far one falls from perceiving themselves as they "truly" are,
unless you are professing a unique power for yourself?
For myself, I think everyone perceives themselves exactly as they truly are,
especially since perception is not divisible (for all intents) from the
actual. You are claiming - without any attending proof or even an attempt at
such - that all humans have a storehouse of permanently hidden attributes.
How can you - then - know this to be true, since they are hidden? I assume
you are merely taking this axiom "on faith" which is your right, but it
doesn't constitute an argument for your position, which is internally at war
with its own precepts.
> Perhaps one has to look very deep into these matters to understand
> the statement made.
But your claim is that much of what constiututes the human is permanently
unperceivable: how then can one "look deep" into it?
> also take Wittgensteins position that all our
> philosophy is 'language games'
And language is perceptible, if ambiguous at times.
>and the position of PostModernism
Gag...
> that Amid the collapse of old ways of belief and unbelief we don't
> always have to simply believe this and not believe that.
But you ARE simply believing that this invisible warehouse of "truth" is
permanently inaccessible.
>The multidimensional nature of our personalities...
Do you know our personalities to be "multi-dimensional"? If so, you are gain
claiming a position for yourself that your statements deny as a possibility.
> I'm relating all the
> above to some of the psychology of wanting to belong to a
> group such as Surrealism. Something that is very much in the
> realm of language games and needs postmodern critique.(in my opinion)
Gag...
Actually surrealism has been picked over quite a bit by post-modern
criticism. This isn't a new idea, but - in my opinion - it's a bad one.
dmh
Blanche Light
No, I'm not no authority here. I was also thinking about experiences
like Kundalini or the thoughts put out by Micheal Talbot in his 'mysticism
and the new physics'. Or Jane Roberts 'Seth' material (although realizing
that that stuff goes into areas that are not 'materialistic' in the sense of
dialectical materialism) Past lives etc. Thanks - Paul
Dale Houstman wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Morpheal
> Good thoughts!! on your part since its making me rethink my own.
No, I'm not no authority here. I was also thinking about experiences
like Kundalini or the thoughts put out by Micheal Talbot in his
'mysticism and the new physics'. Or Jane Roberts 'Seth' material
(although realizing that that stuff goes into areas that are not
'materialistic' in the sense of dialectical materialism) Past lives etc.
Thanks - Paul
I am not impressed with any of that. Least of all the "Seth" material.
It is all mostly a parlour game. A mere trick. A simple diversion.
It tends to occult the reality that many mediums tend to be merely
mediocre intelligences, easily tricked.
M.
john adams
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:9tc7q...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Blanche Light" <X...@X.net> wrote in message news:3BF99161...@X.net...
> > The Poem was a written by a well known surrealist.
> >
> > That no one will ever precieve themselves as they truly are is a
> statement in
> > fact. No
> > one in this group has to buy it. It is my perception and I stand by it.
>
> I believe you, but even a personal belief has to stand up internally: if no
> one can perceive themselves as they "truly" are, how is it possible for you
> to say how far one falls from perceiving themselves as they "truly" are,
> unless you are professing a unique power for yourself?
>
> For myself, I think everyone perceives themselves exactly as they truly are,
> especially since perception is not divisible (for all intents) from the
> actual. You are claiming - without any attending proof or even an attempt at
> such - that all humans have a storehouse of permanently hidden attributes.
> How can you - then - know this to be true, since they are hidden? I assume
> you are merely taking this axiom "on faith" which is your right, but it
> doesn't constitute an argument for your position, which is internally at war
> with its own precepts.
It's pretty easy actually to make an argument that, intellectually, it is
impossible to truely know (everything) about oneself. As a plain example, can
you count the number of particles floating in and out of your skull as
you read these words? Can you intellectually compute the several thousand
years worth of evolutionary events which took place in order for us to be able to blink
every so many seconds? As a part of nature we are simply restricted
from the knowledge of the whole, and therefore our place in it, and our
past in it. This isn't to say we can't be intimate with our deepest nature.
But that no one is the final expert on what they, humanly, are. There are, and this
is all obvious, too many unknowns. In the case of perception, we are limited to
but a piece of the spectrum of em radiation we've evolved for, the rest of which we
only translate through our senses. Memory is also a constantly present factor, and
as we know, isn't perfect either.
One doesn't have to know everything to be able to posit that there
are factors which prevent one from knowing everything. The same is
true for speaking about ourselves. In everday terms though common
sense dictates that we are really aware of the I and for the most part
we are, in so far as our being "needs" to I suppose, but such knowledge
to be the "complete" picture actually requires an infinite capacity at any
given moment, and in fact super powers, as you say. To understand this clearly
doesn't make one more foolish; perhaps less. And is still a reconcilliation
with us vs. nature/ us part of nature.
My passing thoughts anyway.
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_RkK7.54055$S4.51...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
No, but it isn't the same thing, since one's "personality" or humanness is
precisely what one is in the process of being and knowing. I am not saying
one can keep track of all of one's atoms and molecules: the physical stuff
that adds up to an "I," but it is the awareness in process thatr constitutes
"being." As for your example otherwise: although it is impossible (or let's
say difficult) to count all those particles, my awareness "in the moment" of
all those particles constitutes the entirety of my comprehension, including
(maybe) the comprehension that they are beyond my ability to enumerate. That
is being in process.
In other words: I disagree. I am the expert on how I feel and perceive. Or
rather: I am aware in totality of everything that is possible for me (or
anyone else) to be aware of, given the limits of perception. But this
awareness is what makes up the entirety of what is human, and so I am
totally aware of what constitutes my personality. The perception moves as
the personality moves and vice versa.
dmh
john adams
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:9tdca...@enews1.newsguy.com...
But here again we have to say we are not entirely capabale of perceiving
the whole I. Yes, in terms of being the most expert on personalities,
there can be none closer than that of I, but then consciously even we can not be aware
of all the psychological, social, and evolutionary factors that constitute the
I. It's not as if we can take everything that makes us who we are and lay it on
a platter to know in absolute terms. The (total) awareness you speak of can not
be the entirety of what makes us human. I say that because there are other
developmental factors at work, which occur from birth, in dreams, at the
unconcious level from moment to moment. Conscious awareness does not
equate to the sum total of personality.
barrett john erickson
"Blanche Light" <X...@X.net> wrote in message news:3BF9AF6B...@X.net...
> Good thoughts!! on your part since its making me rethink my own.
> No, I'm not no authority here. I was also thinking about experiences
> like Kundalini or the thoughts put out by Micheal Talbot in his 'mysticism
> and the new physics'. Or Jane Roberts 'Seth' material (although realizing
> that that stuff goes into areas that are not 'materialistic' in the sense
of
> dialectical materialism) Past lives etc. Thanks - Paul
>
as you seem to be a reasonable sort and assuming you really are
reconsidering the subject, i'll offer a couple sources that you may find
interesting:
Sadie Plant, _The Most Radical Gesture: The Situationist International In A
Postmodern Age_, from Routledge 1992.
has it's faults, but this was very valuable to me as an introduction to the
SI and of great help in understanding the diverting paths taken by the SI
and various PM theorists (who began in very similar places and reached very
different conclusions with very different philosophical and practical
consequences). the SI emerged from surrealist splinters in the 50's and
there is very little difference between the Situationist perspectives (in
regard to social critique and the nature of our daily reality) put forward
in this book and those of today's surrealists.
Francisco Varela, et. al., _The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human
Experience_, from MIT Press, 1996.
a relatively new accounting of cognition and reality as emergent properties.
fascinating if your into this stuff. totally inverted my concept of what
reality is and how we interact with it, simply by doing a better job of
putting the scientific pieces together than any other theory has. and it is
fully consistent with surrealist perspectives on the subject.
philosophically speaking, Varela goes a long way toward pulling it all
together.
the key to understanding a surrealist's contempt for postmodernism is
understanding the difference between the surrealist/SI concept of an
infinitely rich reality that has been neglected and even falsified, but
remains tangible (and therefore the desired object of perpetual pursuit) vs.
the PM concept of reality as an illusion that cannot be penetrated (one
illusion is as valid as any other, there's no point trying to differentiate
between the real and the falsified).
the surrealist/SI path has desire at its core, giving us Rene Magritte,
Louis Bunuel's "The Exterminating Angel", and "take your dreams for
reality".
PM is ultimately hollow at its core, giving us Jeff Koons, Mike Leigh's
"Naked", and "whatever".
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
(we may even finish #4 one of these days)
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
barrett john erickson
much of the work...
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:9tdca...@enews1.newsguy.com...
i think there is a problem of scale hidden in your comments, John.
granted, "knowing everything" (latent reality) isn't even within the realm
of possibility, if for no other reason than Heisenberg uncertainty. in many
ways our cognitive activity _is_ a continuous process of Heisenberg
measurement and our evolution has produced "tools" that determine the
attributes of _our_ experience at the expense of other possible experience
(consider for example, the human visual spectrum vs. a bee's visible
spectrum).
knowing ourselves and our reality-as-experienced is something quite
different, however.
our cognitive action is limited by our (physical) structure, but our "self",
our knowledge, and all of our very reality-as-experienced is a meta-process
that emerges from the totality of our cognitive action (including
imagination and memory and all the stuff that is monitored by processes less
complex than "consciousness").
in the end, we are nothing more than the reality-as-experienced that is
given form by our specific structural coupling with latent reality (the same
latent reality everyone else is coupling with via their specific structure)
and the various cognitive processes that give form to that experience. and
everything that is us and what we interact with is knowable _only_ in this
context.
which is to say that we _are_, each of us, the final expert on who we are.
but we're like websites on the internet, complete with an auto-webmaster
spontaneously and continuously coding our html (codifying our experiences,
dreams, desires, etc.) and an auto-browser spontneously and continuously
decoding that html and any other html it comes across. the capabilities of
our html coder limits our self-awareness and our presentation to others.
our browser can be directed to a great extent, but limits what we can
determine about our web environment, as does the capabilities of the other's
coder. both the html and the browser are evolutionary "givens" still
evolving (and some websites make full use of the latest revisions, while
others may content themselves with more primative versions). all of this
determines the richness of our experience.
and we don't know how we got on-line, or what might be going on off-line,
but we know there is an infrastructure on which it all depends.
Nikolaus Maack
bored. Like many biographical books, it feels like a list of events,
without much flavour.
"Then he did this, then he did that, this this guy did this, and then he
did that, and then, and then... And we're not sure why he did this, but
he did it, and there's some doubt, but, yeah. And then they went to a
play and he did this and...."
It's like, in an attempt to be objective, the author forgets to write
compelling prose. And I find myself skimming. Get to the good stuff
already, Ruth.
I'll keep reading, for now.
Nik
--
Currently Reading:
"The Complete Stories" by Franz Kafka
"Surreal Lives" by Ruth Brandon
Parry
[snip]
On the whole, this would have to be the case, but there are situations
where aspects of a person may be obvious to others but not the
individual. For instance, a friend married a woman who is the carbon
copy of his mother. Everyone except him seemed to see this. Or: I was
likely the last person to know I had developed a monkish bald spot at
the back of my head. Or a hypothetical extreme case: given a mental
incompetent in a clinical setting, the roots of his behaviour may be
intelligible and his actions predictable to observers, but not to
himself. Similarly, there have been times when I belatedly understood
the reasons for my actions, though they were probably already apparent
to others. It may be a case of a person employing a mask that fools only
himself. I don’t know if these things are what the original poster had
in mind in saying “one cannot wholly know oneself” (or however it went),
but I think there’s enough evidence that impaired self-awareness is
commonplace.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dale Houstman
"Blanche Light" <X...@X.net> wrote in message news:3BF9AF6B...@X.net...
> Good thoughts!! on your part since its making me rethink my own.
> No, I'm not no authority here. I was also thinking about experiences
> like Kundalini or the thoughts put out by Micheal Talbot in his 'mysticism
> and the new physics'. Or Jane Roberts 'Seth' material (although realizing
> that that stuff goes into areas that are not 'materialistic' in the sense
of
> dialectical materialism) Past lives etc. Thanks - Paul
>
Past lives is a sick little belief system. I have considered asking Shirley
MacLaine to give me total financial support in this life, and in return I
will support her in the inifinity of others. Seems to me this is a good
deal.
dmh
john adams
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3bfaaa8d$0$79560$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
Exactly, or the sonar of a bat, hearing of the dog, and so on. Suppose we
were able to sense x-rays through the visual. Raynor Johnson pointed out
that "...we would have an altogether different impression of the material world.
A razor edge would look like a saw, "and much that we describe as opaque
would be transparent, or porous" All appearance is relative" ( Marilyn Ferguson,
Brain Revolution).
> knowing ourselves and our reality-as-experienced is something quite
> different, however.
>
> our cognitive action is limited by our (physical) structure, but our "self",
> our knowledge, and all of our very reality-as-experienced is a meta-process
> that emerges from the totality of our cognitive action (including
> imagination and memory and all the stuff that is monitored by processes less
> complex than "consciousness").
Not to mention, perhaps, more complex than "consciousness": that which
resides in the subliminal. We have also to take into consideration dreams
- also along this same line - and realize much of our development does
occur here, and continues to, where in my opinion imaginatory thought
is most free (from conscious thought processes, rigors).
> in the end, we are nothing more than the reality-as-experienced that is
> given form by our specific structural coupling with latent reality (the same
> latent reality everyone else is coupling with via their specific structure)
> and the various cognitive processes that give form to that experience. and
> everything that is us and what we interact with is knowable _only_ in this
> context.
>
> which is to say that we _are_, each of us, the final expert on who we are.
I can only agree - we are the final experts. But, perhaps how I shoudl have
phrased this instead of final is that we are not the absolute experts. The self
knowledge we are referring to is the component of a larger whole, on the one
hand, and secondly because of how we are suited we must generalize what is
the infinite in life, and function heavily on the unconscious level in collaboration
with our conscious loco-directive (my new term).
As our friend William Blake says, "If the doors of perception were cleansed,
everything would appear to us as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself
up till he sees all through narrow chinks of his cavern." I suppose out of
necessity.
> but we're like websites on the internet, complete with an auto-webmaster
> spontaneously and continuously coding our html (codifying our experiences,
> dreams, desires, etc.) and an auto-browser spontneously and continuously
> decoding that html and any other html it comes across. the capabilities of
> our html coder limits our self-awareness and our presentation to others.
> our browser can be directed to a great extent, but limits what we can
> determine about our web environment, as does the capabilities of the other's
> coder. both the html and the browser are evolutionary "givens" still
> evolving (and some websites make full use of the latest revisions, while
> others may content themselves with more primative versions). all of this
> determines the richness of our experience.
>
> and we don't know how we got on-line, or what might be going on off-line,
> but we know there is an infrastructure on which it all depends.
Thanks for the illustration. I think it supports much of what I was saying as well,
unless I am missing something.
barrett john erickson
"Parry" <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BFACD...@perfectOMITmail.com...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> [snip]
> > which is to say that we _are_, each of us, the final expert on who we
are.
>
> On the whole, this would have to be the case, but there are situations
> where aspects of a person may be obvious to others but not the
> individual. For instance, a friend married a woman who is the carbon
> copy of his mother. Everyone except him seemed to see this. Or: I was
> likely the last person to know I had developed a monkish bald spot at
> the back of my head. Or a hypothetical extreme case: given a mental
> incompetent in a clinical setting, the roots of his behaviour may be
> intelligible and his actions predictable to observers, but not to
> himself. Similarly, there have been times when I belatedly understood
> the reasons for my actions, though they were probably already apparent
> to others. It may be a case of a person employing a mask that fools only
> himself. I don't know if these things are what the original poster had
> in mind in saying "one cannot wholly know oneself" (or however it went),
> but I think there's enough evidence that impaired self-awareness is
> commonplace.
well, in the case of discovering reasons for an action after the fact, i'd
say that's the way our cognitive processes work (always). the "self"
emerges from our actions (all cognitive action) as an awareness of a
continuing identity. that sense grows and solidifies with each action we
take. most of us are driven to integrate our most recent action into that
sense of "self" and this process is most apparent when an action doesn't
quite fit -- even the most extreme cognitive dissonance is then resolved
with some kind of rationalization (as demonstrated by the work of Michael
Gazzaniga). but most of our actions are recurring -- habitual even -- and
no longer require that kind of special effort to be integrated into our
sense of continuing identity.
not surprisingly, the rest of your examples reveal an important distinction
of scale that needs to be made (i've been rediscovering the importance of
scaling everywhere these days):
while personal reality (and consequently the "self") emerges entirely from
the cognitive action of the individual, where there is no standard but that
personal experience, aspects of our shared reality can be, and are, held to
a standard because it emerges from the common experience of the individuals
of a species that share functionally identical cognitive processes by virtue
of their evolutionary history.
much as someone's personal definition of "surrealism" can be said to conform
to reality or not, because the reality of "surrealism" emerges from the
shared experience of surrealists. [and i think this is where the group
dynamic that you refer to elsewhere comes in.]
so the most we can say about someone who insists that little men in paper
hats (a great song from Dale, by the way:
http://www.tcinternet.net/users/barrett/music/littlemen.m3u ) are crawling
all over her front lawn, where no one else can see them, is that she's not
sharing the same reality as the rest of her species. but we can't know if
she really sees them. she remains the only expert on that.
[and as a side note: this kind of direct conflict between personal reality
and shared reality is the only basis on which i would allow for the
assessment of conditions most identify with "mental illness". but i would
argue that that assessment be must de-medicalized in practice and
terminology, so long as it is an observation of, and "diagnosis" based on,
observed behavior and not clinical tissue studies. and of course, whether
or not anything needs to be done about it is a contestable social decision,
not a medical decision.]
kuku
effect that the point of surrealism is to change everything. Beyond further
still. And even so. Who cares what he had said. Surrealism is a word. Beyond
that. A notion. A sense of something inside yourself. Who has the dream. You
never quite know. Everyday. Better take your temp. Bookburning is a great
thing. Harpo was right. If there ever has been any living surrealists it
would have to be the Marx brothers, and A. Breton agreed. He said something
like, These guys are living in their films the way we want to be, they are
the true embodiment of surrealism. And all of you, Major get me my coat. The
ten dollars wont stand up by itself. Throw the cat out, find a chair. Woman
as a chair. My favorite furniture. Shit in her...
-j.
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BF6B2F2...@sympatico.ca...
>
barrett john erickson
"kuku" <hiai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RFnL7.4012$oF.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> What a fucking bore. Personality cults? Breton? Andre said something to
> effect that the point of surrealism is to change everything. Beyond
further
> still. And even so. Who cares what he had said. Surrealism is a word.
Beyond
> that. A notion. A sense of something inside yourself. Who has the dream.
You
> never quite know. Everyday. Better take your temp. Bookburning is a great
> thing.
well, this book probably deserves no better.
but beyond yet further still:
i see 38 posts from you this morning and a quick scan reveals nothing but
limp spears of left-over linguine aimlessly flung in the direction of
anything that moves -- including your own pale shadow.
you play at dada well enough to provoke deja vu, but surrealism appears
beyond your game.
do you understand the difference?
Brandon Freels
> i see 38 posts from you this morning and a quick scan reveals nothing but
> limp spears of left-over linguine aimlessly flung in the direction of
> anything that moves -- including your own pale shadow.
Perhaps my killfile of kuku after her first post was prophetic? I wouldn't
call it convulsively beautiful, but watching the number of post at
alt.surrealism dwindle from the 50's down to around twelve was at least
worth more than actually reading kuku's posts. Combined with my killfile of
that other irrelevant, Morpheal, this group has been pretty dead as of
late -- or maybe just undead, but definitely not alive.
Morpheal
> you play at dada well enough to provoke deja vu,...
It _is_ all reduced to deja-vu.
You need not expect anything more or less, except the eternal recurrence
of the very same. As mentionned, the only differences are digital
manipulation of the original pattern, and its presentation of image.
M.
kuku
my pinky then this one in its whole life. Too bad I m better than you. Envy.
And books deserve nothing anyways. Only within the past thirty or so years
have books truly taken on their granduer. Before no one cared about their
books, or keeping them nice. One read or would just the same toss the book
to the floor. Throw it away. Back then guys would fight if one called
another out. Kick their ass. Otherwise youre a fucking sissy. Pansy, as they
would say. Make you go sit with the other cunts. Not like we want to hang
around guys anyways. SPIT. FISH HEAD CANCER. IF EVERYBODY HAD AN OCEAN.
OVMUJYO flow over the way. TAke your breath away, horse head burning. On the
sea, nelfiz. Tearing and screaming, not so slowly. Eat AWAY. Everybody go
surfing. In the way.
-cancermanj
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3bfe7518$0$79561$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
kuku
like all the rest.
-j
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:0_vL7.194161$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
kuku
-j.
"Morpheal" <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BFEA65B...@sympatico.ca...
barrett john erickson
when asked if he knew the difference between surrealism and dada, or if
surrealism was beyond his game, kuku answered:
> Ah yes another cunt. No abiltiy for any creativity. I have more ability in
> my pinky then this one in its whole life. Too bad I m better than you.
Envy.
> And books deserve nothing anyways. Only within the past thirty or so years
> have books truly taken on their granduer. Before no one cared about their
> books, or keeping them nice. One read or would just the same toss the book
> to the floor. Throw it away. Back then guys would fight if one called
> another out. Kick their ass. Otherwise youre a fucking sissy. Pansy, as
they
> would say. Make you go sit with the other cunts. Not like we want to hang
> around guys anyways. SPIT. FISH HEAD CANCER. IF EVERYBODY HAD AN OCEAN.
> OVMUJYO flow over the way. TAke your breath away, horse head burning. On
the
> sea, nelfiz. Tearing and screaming, not so slowly. Eat AWAY. Everybody go
> surfing. In the way.
ah... yeah... that's what i thought. you just like pretending from behind
your psuedo.
[by the way, i've seen your act done better by others.]
kuku
of surrealism. Of dada. And other DEAD "movements". The only specific
between the two boring artforms you have cited are that to this day
surrealism has more assholes in it than dada ever did.
And besides Du Champ, Marcel, Da CHAMP(!) was the only one who spoke of
dada in any relevent way. And he didnt even have to speak of it.
The last act of dada was the lemon with DADA written over it in magic marker
that Boyd Rice put in the middle of Lemon Cove, CA. Its still there in the
middle of the little town and the migrant Asians have painted murals around
it. True story.
And even though Im a published writer and illustrator of childrens books and
novels and short fiction, and even though Ive release a number of cds and
have done art exhibits and concerts and many live readings: I implore you.
Come on and poke me. I like to see you try and be a little creative. I know
its tough, but you can make it. Fatboy. Squeeze your antlers through the
door. Tell me how horrible I am, I love to hear it. Its so great to hear
your opinions. Like so many reviews of those WHITEHOUSE cds. Like so many
molested nanies talking on Sally Jessie and whatever else those wonderful
showcases for folks who need tell are. Tell me what it means to molest you,
while I watch you dance.
-j.
---
>
barrett john erickson
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:0_vL7.194161$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
yes, you can save yourself some real time that way.
i'm getting close, but i don't really like killfiles. i'd prefer to know
when they're there, mark them read and then "refresh" to make them
disappear.
Morpheal
> Yes a nice watcher behind the curtains. I wipe my ass with your defintions of surrealism. Of dada. And other DEAD "movements".
I once attempted to begin a live, new, movement.
That is why someone killed it. It was alive. They could not stand
for that. They wanted only dead movements: total paralysis.
M.
Morpheal
> Expecting a child, on her way out of the womb. Nurses and neptunes.
The mother of my child has left me, before it was properly conceived.
Even as the seminal idea of all that could have been, that is a tragedy.
Whether as to the art of it, the spirit of it, or as to the flesh.
M.
john adams
two sincere questions posed with:
"but beyond yet further still:
i see 38 posts from you this morning and a quick scan reveals nothing but
limp spears of left-over linguine aimlessly flung in the direction of
anything that moves -- including your own pale shadow.
you play at dada well enough to provoke deja vu, but surrealism appears
beyond your game.
do you understand the difference?"
with Brandon shortly following suit afterwards with his own embracing remarks.
So I suppose Kuku's point is affirmed that we are more interested in codifying
ourselves with the air of serious than having fun and sharing in the poetic (which I think Kuku
possess as much as anyone here). How should she respond? I think we need to get it out of
our minds that on usenet we're going to force everyone to conform to an 'acceptable behaviour
suitable enough for surrealism', if you will. Instead we here ought to be more open to the different
walks of life that are going to tromp through everyday and see it more as an open staging ground,
or place to learn and create in a fun environment. I don't ever recall that happening often here, but
I never had real high expectations anyway (like you). The only foreseeable alternative appears to be
an attitude of opposition that will never succede in doing anything but opposing, in a format that could
serve as atleast something more intriguing between daily participants.
Finally, I don't appreciate you talking about my girlfriend that way!
-john
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3bfed66e$0$79561$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
john adams
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:0_vL7.194161$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
SOPH IKOS
kuku wrote:
> >For such an eminent and published writer, it amazes me just how bad your
> grammer, spelling and use of the language in many of your posts is.
Brandon Freels
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q0CL7.1098$Kc2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Morpheal
> Perhaps, but your response also sounded more the inquisition than a set of sincere questions...
What makes you think the inquisition lacked sincerity ? They were
always sincere. That was one of their trademarks, sincerity.
That and fear and surprise.
M.
kuku
In response to your comments(cit.1): first, "is" belongs before "in", this
is [modern]English not German[cf. German use of verbs). Second, when
replying within a stated context wherin one makes references to material
outside of that letter(or email as it might be), it is expected that you
quote in part or full the cited information or atleast provide information
on where the reader can locate it for their own perusual(cf. below).
[note: text appearing in brackets[] are my comments, and not from the
original text]
This is what you wrote:
"For such an eminent[thank you for you kind assumptions] and
published[redundent] writer["... as yourself"], it amazes me just how bad
your grammer, spelling and use of the language[which one: American,
Australian, or British English, assuming you are refering to English, or
shall I 'allow' you to be colloquial(cf. your comments in cit.1)?] in
many[cf. my comments above] of your posts is[cf. above]."
It was in reply to what I had written, note my colloquial tone, and syntax,
throughout:
"Yes a nice watcher behind the curtains. I wipe my ass with your defintions
of surrealism. Of dada. And other DEAD "movements". The only specific
between the two boring artforms you have cited are that to this day
surrealism has more assholes in it than dada ever did.
And besides Du Champ, Marcel, Da CHAMP[sic](!) was the only one who spoke
of
dada in any relevent way. And he didnt even have to speak of it.
The last act of dada was the lemon with DADA[""] written over it in magic
marker
that Boyd Rice[cit.2] put in the middle of Lemon Cove, CA. Its still there
in the
middle of the little town and the migrant Asians have painted murals around
it. True story.
And even though Im a published writer and illustrator of childrens books and
novels and short fiction, and even though Ive release[sic] a number of cds
and
have done art exhibits and concerts and many live readings: I implore
you[really I do].
Come on and poke me[come on]. I like to see you try and be a little
creative. I know
its tough, but you can make it. Fatboy[perhaps this was too much]. Squeeze
your antlers through the
door[Buddhist analogy]. Tell me how horrible I am, I love to hear it. Its so
great to hear
your opinions. Like so many reviews of those WHITEHOUSE[cit.3] cds. Like so
many
molested nanies talking on Sally Jessie and whatever else those wonderful
showcases for folks who need tell are. Tell me what it means to molest you,
while I watch you dance."
The above was in reply to the following, written by "barrett":
"when asked if he knew the difference between surrealism and dada, or if
surrealism was beyond his game, kuku answered:
[text extracted, see below]
ah... yeah... that's what i thought. you just like pretending from behind
your psuedo.
by the way, i've seen your act done better by others."
Which was in reply to what I had written:
"Ah yes another cunt. No abiltiy for any creativity. I have more ability in
my pinky then this one in its whole life. Too bad I m better than you. Envy.
And books deserve nothing anyways. Only within the past thirty or so years
have books truly taken on their granduer. Before no one cared about their
books, or keeping them nice. One read or would just the same toss the book
to the floor. Throw it away. Back then guys would fight if one called
another out. Kick their ass. Otherwise youre a fucking sissy. Pansy, as they
would say. Make you go sit with the other cunts. Not like we want to hang
around guys anyways. SPIT. FISH HEAD CANCER. IF EVERYBODY HAD AN OCEAN.
OVMUJYO flow over the way. TAke your breath away, horse head burning. On the
sea, nelfiz. Tearing and screaming, not so slowly. Eat AWAY. Everybody go
surfing. In the way."
In reply to "barrett"'s intitial comments:
"well, this book probably deserves no better.
but beyond yet further still:
i see 38 posts[cf. examples below, see also cit.4] from you this morning and
a quick scan reveals nothing but
limp spears of left-over linguine aimlessly flung in the direction of
anything that moves -- including your own pale shadow.
you play at dada well enough to provoke deja vu, but surrealism appears
beyond your game.
[carriage returns removed]
do you understand the difference?"
Which was in regards to my initial comments:
"What a fucking bore. Personality cults? Breton? Andre said something to
effect that the point of surrealism is to change everything. Beyond further
still. And even so. Who cares what he had said. Surrealism is a word. Beyond
that. A notion. A sense of something inside yourself. Who has the dream. You
never quite know. Everyday. Better take your temp. Bookburning is a great
thing. Harpo was right. If there ever has been any living surrealists it
would have to be the Marx brothers, and A. Breton agreed. He said something
like, These guys are living in their films the way we want to be, they are
the true embodiment of surrealism. And all of you, Major get me my coat. The
ten dollars wont stand up by itself. Throw the cat out, find a chair. Woman
as a chair. My favorite furniture. Shit in her..."
Which were made in response to "Nik Maack"'s original post:
The following are five of the "38" posts "barrett" refers[cf. above] [for
compleat citation, of what I can only guess are the "38" posts "barrett"
refers to, see cit 4]:
"scratch, dark scratch. winsome makelife. so that no one may shudder, we.
beholding all eyes. drifting down a never ending females voice. ohhhhh.
corridors open wide, let the walls fall. down down down. downdowndown, drift
another blockortwo. cold dark river, plucking away the memories, of what was
to be one day. the sad feeling, this time quite sure."
"And how could a little girl ever be perfect. She knew she had trouble. She
couldn't even read and write. Hopefully no one would look in her notebook,
she carried it so close to her heart. And what if they had? The wolves!
Walking all alone, nobody seems to care. I send them the bomb. Cunt walking
crooked. Can't fucking stand it. It's getting late, time is running. Riffled
through her drawers. Wasn't that suspicious, but you know these things they
happen. Oh, father. Kissed her clean as a wastecan. What you want to call
me. How do you like my dress. The color pink, suits the sky the mind. Her
head was all alight, bouncing in the rain. What was her name anyway? Maybe
it was blood, I don't know. Light my ciggarette, take a good look. The cold
grey world. Fish head, take me to old age. I was only, anyway... Where did I
leave my matches. By the way, do you have some cash on you, theres someone
crying in the kitchen. But not here. I'm looking for a good man to... You
know how it is, it must be like that for you, not that I liked the weather,
felt bad lit my ciggarette made a point of being a live. Killed a Jew,
carved a swastika in her cervix. Never understood why. That neck like
opening."
"Feed my baby, oh feed my baby... oh, I dont know... Who feeds my baby,
oh... I ...dont... know... Feed my baby, oh I.... I dont.... Please...
Please feed, my baby, oh... I don't know...No, I don't... know....please
take my weakness.... oh... I.... God... Please... feed my baby... no, I
dont... know.... oh, please ...feed my baby... no I don't know..."
"Wishing the windows of the world. Open holes all around. Slowly."
"No, not for long. The cars drive off and out of the woods. Not enough shops
in there. Sure Yosimite is a theme park, but the eastern states have big
backyards."
It would do you well SOPH IKOS, as well as "Barrett" and "john adams"(and
any other decent human being who may chance upon this advice), to not assume
so much about another person and their words, or to try and get off on them
by way of those assumptions. As this is a public forum I am not at all
surprised by your comments. But, seeing that I consider this, to some
extant, a poetic forum, I wish you would leave your stuffy headed
seriousness for the high school, college and university classrooms, where it
can truly be nurtured.
respectfully,
-j
---
Citations.
1. "For such an eminent and published writer, it amazes me just how bad your
grammer, spelling and use of the language in many of your posts is."
2. Rice, Boyd. An American iconoclast. Cf. works as: NON, Boyd Rice, Boyd
Rice & Friends, Boyd Rice Experience, Spell, The Tards, Wolfpact, Scorpion
Wind[music. 1975-2001. labels var. cf. Mute Records, World Serpant
Distribution, New European Records, Tesco Distribution, Solielmoon, etc.;
available var.: cf.. Mute Records (UK). Middle Pillar Distribution;
Solielmoon Recordings (USA).]. Black Sun[film. dir. Boyd Rice.] Also see:
Many Moods Of Boyd Rice[documentar(film). 2001. Predatory Instinct
Productions(ed. K. I. Slaughter). available var. cf. above.]; Apocalypse
Culture I & II[book. ed. Adam Parfrey. Feral House. 1987; 2001,
respectively. widely available] see articles "LONG LIVE DEATH"(Apocalypse
Culture I), "Dystopia"(Apocalypse Culture II); Dagoberts Revenge[periodical.
ed Tracy Twyman. widely available] contributing writer, cf. Vol. 2. #1, 2,
Vol.3. #1,2 Vol.4. #1,2.; See also, Rollerderby[periodical. ed. Lisa
Carver.] all issues, esp. #18: interview, "On Doing Things to Women". ;
Answer Me![periodical. ed. Jim Goad, Debbie Goad. out of print.] see esp. #3
(the RAPE issue); EXIT Magazine[periodical. ed. George Petros. also
available in coll. form as, "EXIT COLLECTION" ed. G. Petros. widely
available] contributions var. ; Re/Search[periodical, ed. var. widely
available] esp. issues "Incredibly Strange Films vol.1" ed. Boyd Rice,
"Industrial Culture Handbook" & "Pranks" cf. interview w/ B. Rice;
Seconds[periodical, widely availiable, var. issues]; The Black
Flame[periodical. Hell's Kitchen Press. ed. Peter Gilmore. widely availible]
Vol. 6, Numbers 3 &4, "Remembering LaVey"; Partridge Family
Temple[organization]; Church Of Satan[organization]; Abraxas
Foundation[orginization].
3. Whitehouse. Power-electronics musical group, considered the main
inpiration(re. provocation) for the genre(ie "power-electronics). Cf.
"Whitehouse specialise in extreme electronic music, a genre they pioneered
in 1980, which in the late 80s greatly influenced, if not spawned, a wave of
(in particular Japanese) 'noise' groups in addition to many other musicians
in different fields. Trademark sounds are layers of white and pink noise,
subsonic bass sounds and ferocious electronic effects. Singer William
Bennett also has an idiosyncratic vocal style which, combined with feedback
sounds, often creates a very violent sound." extract from their press
release. Official discography: Singles: Thank Your Lucky Stars b/w Sadist
(1988), Still Going Strong b/w Ankles And Wrists (1991), Cruise (Force The
Truth) (2001) Albums: Birthdeath Experience (1980), Total Sex (1980),
Erector (1981), Dedicated To Peter Kurten (1981), Buchenwald (1981), New
Britain (1982), Psychopathia Sexualis (1982), Right To Kill (1983), Great
White Death (1984), Thank Your Lucky Stars (1990), Twice Is Not Enough
(1991), Never Forget Death (1992), Halogen (1994), Quality Time. (1995) -
Mummy And Daddy (1998) - Cruise (2001). Japanese Fanatics Club: Dictator II
(3" CD single - 1994), Tokyo Halogen (live CD album - 1995), Just Like A
Cunt (WB Vocal Version) (3" CD single - 1996). Compilation appearances: The
Second Coming (1981), Hoisting The Black Flag (1981), Für Ilse Koch (1982).
[Susan Lawly & var. ot. src. widely availble.].
4.[The "38" posts, I have inluded 40.]
1."Boy, I am sure glad I dont AND never will work a day job. Good thing I'm
an
artist. Thanks Meme. It would be nice if they started reprinting Calvin AND
Hobbes. The daily comics are such crap these days."
2. Mother came in and started to sulk. Her only child was out the window.
She watched as he flew away like a balloon. A red one, fluttering up to the
sky. Choking. She sat down to flee. Writting in a notebook. Not looking up.
She had fallen in love."
3. "The joy of patience. God flew down from the clouds to partake. However
we must agree, all children who start praying, will...."
4. "Wonderful!! Too bad everybody watches so much TV and reads so many damn
BOOKS. Better to spend time outside at parks and playgrounds. Or out on a
stroll. Good thing clear thinking came round once in this thread."
5. "Oh, well that makes a lot more sense. I had wondered if perhaps he had
read the article wrong. I shall tell him, that indeed he had. Perhaps it was
the electrics company that was releasing the battery operated drug."
6."Indeed they are. Well said Kuku."
7.""They've double crossed me! They're going by land and sea!"
..."So it's war! So it's war!" ..."
8. "Oh the universe, what a bore. My little room, what a joy.
Mobs practicing magic, think they're so slick. I think its a fucking
hip-gip, fucking skip it.
Penitent lives. Slips of the tounge. Penile dreams, dreams of come.
Film boy wonder, living on the otherside. The film is in your head.
My ongoing dream. Sleepwalkers, or gentiles, or low lives, or other words.
What a lark to call people names. A little jump at the abuse boards. Nice
afterhours. Soft like clay.
Your next two paragraphs are so well written, nods all around. The artists
all fall to the sky and never do clap. Decay, decay, decay. Way to go Nico.
Waiting for the whiping certainly is a pain. And then afterthefact, what
does one do? Nothing seems to matter. Nothing else as exciting. All kinds of
whippings.
Self hatred is the world religion for some. I am sure of that. Too many, I
just don't know. Only sad glances.
Chiming in. There she went, that is to say Him. Not quite sure about that
certain feeling one gets when one has overassumed. The position. Stating
your face, way to wonder. Not quite sure.
Switching now and then."
9.""Why don't we do it in the road?
why don't we do it in the road?
why don't we do it in the road?
why don't we do it in the road?
why don't we do it in the road?
why don't we do it in the road?
why don't we do it in the road?
why don't we do it in the road?
No one will be watching us,
why don't we do it in the road?""
10.
""(Mrs. Teesdale)
For our information, just for illustration,
Tell us how you intend to run the Nation.
(Firefly)
These are the laws of my administration.
No one's allowed to smoke,
Or tell a dirty joke,
And whistling is forbidden.
(All)
You're not allowed to tell a dirty joke.
Hail, Hail Freedonia.
(Firefly)
If chewing gum is chewed,
The chewer is pursued,
And in the hoosegow hidden.
(All)
If he chews the chewer will be pursued.
(Firefly)
If any form of pleasure is exhibited,
Report to me and it will be prohibited.
I'll put my foot down, so shall it be,
This is the land of the free.
The last man nearly ruined this place,
He didn't know what to do with it.
If you think this country's bad off now,
Just wait 'till I get through with it.
(Firefly dances)
The country's taxes must be fixed,
And I know what to do with it.
If you think you're paying too much now,
Just wait 'till I get through with it.
(Firefly dances)
I will not stand for anything that's crooked or unfair,
I'm strictly on the 'up and up' so everyone beware.
If anyone's caught taking graft - - -
And I don't get my share,
We stand 'em up against the wall
And 'Pop Goes the Weasel'
(All)
So everyone beware,
Who's crooked or unfair.
No one should take a piece of graft
Unless he gets his share.
(Firefly)
If any man should come between a husband and his bride,
We find out which one she prefers, by letting her decide.
If she prefers the other man the husband steps outside,
We stand 'em up against the wall
And 'Pop Goes the Weasel'
(All)
The husband stands outside,
Relinquishes his bride.
We stand him up against the wall
And take him for a ride.
(Mrs. Teesdale)
You have an appointment at the House of Representatives.
Good Heavens! You can't go with your trousers up.
(Firefly)
I can't, eh?
Well, they'll never catch me any other way!""
11."AND I QUOTE FROM MY HEART, BREAKTHROUGH IN GREYROOM. PILOT K-9.
HOUSEBOYS
OPEN FIRE. ASSASSINS IN GREYROOM, OVER AIRWAVES BEAM THE KNIFE. YOU ARE SHUT
OFF. WOUNDED GALAXIES TIP AT MAYDAY. MAYDAY MAYDAY GOING - OUT - CUT OUT -
LOOK FOR THE K9 PAN BEAMS, PAN PIPES, ARTISANS OF ALL NATIONS, CALLING
ARTISANS OF ALL NATIONS, ASSASSINS, BURN BUILDING TEAR DOWN WALLS MURDER IT
DESTROY SMASH IT FUCK IT KILL IT, TOWERS OPEN FIRE!"
12."Music and Lyrics by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby."
13."This is how we do it."
14."And how could a little girl ever be perfect. She knew she had trouble.
She
couldn't even read and write. Hopefully no one would look in her notebook,
she carried it so close to her heart. And what if they had? The wolves!
Walking all alone, nobody seems to care. I send them the bomb. Cunt walking
crooked. Can't fucking stand it. It's getting late, time is running. Riffled
through her drawers. Wasn't that suspicious, but you know these things they
happen. Oh, father. Kissed her clean as a wastecan. What you want to call
me. How do you like my dress. The color pink, suits the sky the mind. Her
head was all alight, bouncing in the rain. What was her name anyway? Maybe
it was blood, I don't know. Light my ciggarette, take a good look. The cold
grey world. Fish head, take me to old age. I was only, anyway... Where did I
leave my matches. By the way, do you have some cash on you, theres someone
crying in the kitchen. But not here. I'm looking for a good man to... You
know how it is, it must be like that for you, not that I liked the weather,
felt bad lit my ciggarette made a point of being a live. Killed a Jew,
carved a swastika in her cervix. Never understood why. That neck like
opening."
15."Making funny noises."
16."scratch, dark scratch. winsome makelife. so that no one may shudder, we.
beholding all eyes. drifting down a never ending females voice. ohhhhh.
corridors open wide, let the walls fall. down down down. downdowndown, drift
another blockortwo. cold dark river, plucking away the memories, of what was
to be one day. the sad feeling, this time quite sure."
17."No, not for long. The cars drive off and out of the woods. Not enough
shops
in there. Sure Yosimite is a theme park, but the eastern states have big
backyards."
18."Wishing the windows of the world. Open holes all around. Slowly."
19."Feed my baby, oh feed my baby... oh, I dont know... Who feeds my baby,
oh... I ...dont... know... Feed my baby, oh I.... I dont.... Please...
Please feed, my baby, oh... I don't know...No, I don't... know....please
take my weakness.... oh... I.... God... Please... feed my baby... no, I
dont... know.... oh, please ...feed my baby... no I don't know..."
20."Brilliant!"
21."Well I'd never join a club that would have me as member.
tough luck,"
22."Way to tell them Kuku, BRAVO!"
23."Well I sure have been hit by a club. I myself once had my own club. I
called
it Club Fun, it was a live in place. I never actually made it, the idea
thawed out before I got to it. Had to do with hello kitties, and pink
sunshine. A sickness to be sure. Yellow fever with a dash of despair. Oh the
youth of that summer. Walking through hallways in sickness and in hell."
24."The tears of stranger are only water.
A croatian proverb.
Akin to,
Take care and control.
Also a croatian proverb.
Beauty reaps the blood of solitude.
Another proverb, sans croatia.
And all three of them,
Album Titles.
Go figure."
25."Thats why I like California. Poet laureates."
26."Heloo. Cunt. Cock. Blue. Red. Goodbyee. Juming beans allover the place
andifyou think thats stragnetosay allaway aturneing overtotheside to her
side, justlook around and say justsay and if you want to
becauseascauaslityies ofourlittlewar maybewecan go overheadwehope wehopeto
wehopeif whathopeis
wheioopppehopeingodfralaeredownfrommmourskiesallbefuddledfallingoberoverrand
ober
buterwecantthopegoethe said No. resting yourhopes an nothing no thinnng just
being another day going bybygoign by to save the day to savetheday he hoped
to save it andmakeit kid.
Fuck your questions. Fuck because. Fuck your reasons. Fuck your missions.
Fuck your crusades. Fuck your open season holidaze.
we all know you fucking hate them all anyways.
fucker."
27."Oh what a bunch of bullshit.
black flowers please,"
28."very clever hows the tether, holding tight around the wing. hows your
neck,
broken back, just enough to gleam. we all make ryhmes, whats your time some
conjuction fold the walls, cant make it when you want to. kill the brute,
his arts the best, anyhow thats how we do.
the brute his art is the best,
burn the schools
burn the church
walk out on fire
dont get help
dont get help"
29."Aw, the envy. Wonder how I feel."
30."The chance to come, all at once. He hadnt had the idea. Only his mother,
she
had always known. Written in some girls heart was that name, all in gold.
The purity of something is always lacking. Cannot taste the silver, how many
times he asks. Where on our soil do we end up, where on our soil do we fall.
He could not say he could not laugh. He could not dream another word. She
came out of the dirt."
31."Well goodthing I aint no one."
32."interesting pointless shit gold too many places go
-cancercunt"
33.":::... .....:::.:.. :::.....: .... ..: ::.... ..:..:: ::..::::::
::........ ... .....::
::. .. ::: ....... ::..::... :::..::..:. :...::..:: ::...: ...::.. :...::::
...:: ..: ::: ..
::: ....... ::::::::::.. .......::::: :: ...
.. :: :"
34."Pumpkin Pie."
35."AMEN TO THAT. TOO BAD FOR ALL OF US."
36."ACHTUNG BABY!!
would make sense to those that know Sergi.
best of cryllic,
in your eye,
looking better,
than you did last spring,
not quite beutiful,
just so,"
37."To sail a ship around the world, or to sit at home. Drone on and on,
forever
is a long time. Cannot stand the taste, never stand still for it. Wishing
your head wasn't so clogged. Hoping for another day."
38."Sucking off the volcanic orifices. What a loverly image before the
dance.
What a nice climax, oh if only my cock was a vocano, what rapture. Peace on
earth. And the rapture descends. Christs walks along the cliffs."
39."Negro."
40."What a fucking bore. Personality cults? Breton? Andre said something to
effect that the point of surrealism is to change everything. Beyond further
still. And even so. Who cares what he had said. Surrealism is a word. Beyond
that. A notion. A sense of something inside yourself. Who has the dream. You
never quite know. Everyday. Better take your temp. Bookburning is a great
thing. Harpo was right. If there ever has been any living surrealists it
would have to be the Marx brothers, and A. Breton agreed. He said something
like, These guys are living in their films the way we want to be, they are
the true embodiment of surrealism. And all of you, Major get me my coat. The
ten dollars wont stand up by itself. Throw the cat out, find a chair. Woman
as a chair. My favorite furniture. Shit in her..."
---
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:0_vL7.194161$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
You can barely hear it breathing bloody bubbles into a paper sack inside a
granite burnoose at fifty yards, but it's our little blue baby!
dmh
Dale Houstman
It's a point, but - as "they" say - life is short, and there are some
discernments to be made. Also, if we are to be open to "the different walks
of life" why shouldn't it work the other way, and these "different walks" be
subjected to our thorny paths as they are? Personally, as much as I often
enjoy your posts and feel they represent something of value, your endless
play with such as kuku doesn't really add to as much as I think you think it
does. And though you are correct in stating we will not be able to enforce a
"correction" of surrealism on anyone (if we were really out to do that
rather than stating opinions on a subject that profoundly matters to us), I
see no great progress in not doing do and just pretending - for the sake of
tending dead end pathways - to be gamboling lambs in a field more-or-less
known as "surrealism." And furthermore, about being "open": this is
suspiciously near to the whining plea of those who are least capable of
thinking on any subject - "why can't you have an open mind?" which always
means "stop thinking." Surrealism isn't JUST about play, as much as certain
stalled adolescents would have it be, and indulging in it as if it were
makes it - frankly - less interesting to many of us. So why shouldn't we -
in this new "openness" - also have our desires catered to? If anyone goes
on a physics newsgroup and constantly yammers on about the culinary usages
of pigeon livers - while this might be amusing for a short time - in the
long haul it would be odd beyond odd if the other participants - those who
possibly did not have an "open mind" about physics but actually knew
something about it instead - did not first start wondering aloud why this
was happening, and secondly telling the odious poster to desist or prepare
in some way to be "boarded." I see no reason that surrealism should be
considered as anything one wants it to be considered as, despite the obvious
pleas for total liberation. I would hope that when the day comes (never)
that such a system exists, it isn't of the sort that allows such daily
liberties as any word meaning any other word, and any concept being the same
as any other concept. This represents - perhaps - a sort of Ur-psychology:
the untrammelled and undistinguished pre-Big Bang stasis - but it would be
the death of human imagination which - comfortably or not - yearns to make
discernments and measures. Freedom - for the caged - means to break from
their confinement and into a field of action which demands more of them than
obediance, but it doesn't mean to burst the walls only to turn into a
non-cohesive mass of "uber-acceptance" without spine or thought. At least I
don't think that was what Steve McQueen was driving for.
dmh
>
Morpheal
> How does writing this type of post accord with your professed
abhorrence of power? Or does that only apply when you and your friends
don't have any.
Power is likenable to magick. It is a given, not a self made thing.
Those who most often claim it as their own, or think they have it,
are the biggest fools of all. That does sometimes lead to the total
abhorence of power, and in some the abhorence of magick. However, the
latter, in their abhorence of power and magick, could never truly be
surrealists. They are only a theoretical question and answer session.
Robert Morpheal
Dale Houstman
time) produce the most useless verbosity. In fact, verbosity is a classic
high-school disguise for a lack of content. The length of a reply is no
proof of its validity or worth.
John Adams is willing to meet you on the field that you have created -
thinking he is being "open" - but I know that when one opens a door to
nothing but hot air, what one has is a face full of hot air and nothing
more.
The simple point appears to be: you know nothing and make a great display to
that effect.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Power isn't given, it's taken. And - with the powerful - it's not really a
matter if they are fools or not, but only that they are fools with power. A
powerless fool is a matter of amusement or maybe pity or disdain, but a
powerful one is a matter of murder. A big difference I think. We could speak
of a natural power in life, but the real question of power is in how a small
group of individuals manage to gather so much of it, and others so little.
So it might be (taking your paradigm) that it isn't power that is the enemy,
but the stealing of others' power so as to concentrate a dangerous amount of
it in a relatively small number of hands. But - at this point - it is merely
semantic: we term those who have stolen too much influence over others'
lives as being "powerful" and this power is taken. As for likening power to
magic there is one critical difference: power has easily discernible effects
in the real world on a daily basis, and magic is a delusion of power rather
than the real thing. All the access in the world to "magic crystals" and
wands and amulets doesn't amount to much against one man's control of a
missile-bearing submarine. Magical ritual may give great comfort to those
who are essentially without control over the basic matter of their lives,
but it represents a dangerous withdrawal from real action in a world where
bombs are dropped like confetti.
dmh
Morpheal
> Even the purest idiot can (with the aid of reference books and unlimited time) produce the most useless verbosity. In fact, verbosity is a classic high-school disguise for a lack of content. The length of a reply is no proof of its validity or worth.
That sounds like you are referring to the average college or university
level essay.
M.
Morpheal
> I think it can be a self-found thang as well.
Yes, but the power, as with the magick, is not sufficient in itself. It
is then necessary, but not sufficient as condition for effect.
Magick is most often about attempting to invoke or evoke a sufficient
number of conditions to achieve a specific effect. It is that difference
between invoke and evoke that I was referring to. There are always those
two elements in any significant work. What is above and what is below.
> What is "magick", as you are using the term?
Magick. Simply that. The synchronous, seemingly a-causal connections
achieved between events such that an action on one level and in a
partiuclar place can have an effect on another level in a different
place without normative causality being discernable. Very traditional
magick, in that sense. It's more commonplace than you think.
> As for the Blue Feathers, is it a bowling team of 2 members, with barrett settin em up for Dale to knock down. Or (also could be *and*) is barrett in fact going to post a poem, and let us see a little bit of who he might really be behind the exterior.
I don't know about bowling... Maybe they are only skittles. The both of
them, merely skittles. They are dipping and diving, and rolling, and
eventually they topple despite their complex gyrations to the contrary.
M.
Morpheal
> Power isn't given, it's taken.
You have a lot to learn. Go back to the beginning and "Introduction to
Power 101" a basic course in the fundamentals introducing the novice to
this complex subject and required for any further study or discussion.
You failed the entry exam.
M.
john adams
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:9to36...@enews2.newsguy.com...
I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this correctly, but if so you mean if we are
to be "more open" (or your definition of my something more interesting than
'endlessly waging the opposition' - or the fight in the streets to save alt.surrealism),
at the same time they ought to be more open to OUR qualms.
While I can't say I disagree - 'they' ought to be - I also feel it is beyond my reach
to demand such from 'them others'.
As an illustration I would draw upon this example, fitting for better or worse to our
discussion. Suppose the X Surrealist group took to setting up a booth on the
streets. Now, among every passer by that hung around, smoked cigarettes, drank beer, spit,
read pamphlettes and passed along, some came back to visit while others moved
on never to return. Does it seem fitting that the X Surrealists wait patiently to poke every
lack lustre knob-sucker in the eye whose street behaviour wasn't quite palpable enough to the group,
or instead perhaps carry on about their business - searching amidst the realm of the marvelous
- not le malheureux - or sharing, answering questions or certainly DISAGREEING with others if that
were to be the case. I was going on the "assumption" Kuku was indeed here more to have
fun, and by this definition i include humor, imagination, poetics (if fun isn't specific
enough to use), and that her pokes and prys were her own way of disagreeing, and less than harmfully.
WE WILL BE THE JUDGE OF HER DEAD CORPSE, but later.
>Personally, as much as I often
> enjoy your posts and feel they represent something of value,
Likewise
>your endless
I might only dream!
> play with such as kuku doesn't really add to as much as I think you think it
> does.
Add to as much what? Kuku is only looking for a one nightstand (or a nightstand
in the shape of a 1).
>And though you are correct in stating we will not be able to enforce a
> "correction" of surrealism on anyone (if we were really out to do that
> rather than stating opinions on a subject that profoundly matters to us), I
> see no great progress in not doing do and just pretending - for the sake of
> tending dead end pathways - to be gamboling lambs in a field more-or-less
> known as "surrealism." And furthermore, about being "open": this is
> suspiciously near to the whining plea of those who are least capable of
> thinking on any subject -
Why thank you...
>"why can't you have an open mind?" which always
> means "stop thinking." Surrealism isn't JUST about play, as much as certain
> stalled adolescents would have it be
Yes but I realize that.
>and indulging in it as if it were
> makes it - frankly - less interesting to many of us. So why shouldn't we -
> in this new "openness" - also have our desires catered to? If anyone goes
> on a physics newsgroup and constantly yammers on about the culinary usages
> of pigeon livers - while this might be amusing for a short time - in the
> long haul it would be odd beyond odd if the other participants - those who
> possibly did not have an "open mind" about physics but actually knew
> something about it instead - did not first start wondering aloud why this
> was happening, and secondly telling the odious poster to desist or prepare
> in some way to be "boarded."
I might consider them stupid, seeing as one couldn't "board" another out
of an open newsgroup.
>I see no reason that surrealism should be
> considered as anything one wants it to be considered as, despite the obvious
> pleas for total liberation.
I agree...
>I would hope that when the day comes (never)
> that such a system exists, it isn't of the sort that allows such daily
> liberties as any word meaning any other word, and any concept being the same
> as any other concept.
>This represents - perhaps - a sort of Ur-psychology:
> the untrammelled and undistinguished pre-Big Bang stasis -
Ah just another theory!
>but it would be
> the death of human imagination which - comfortably or not - yearns to make
> discernments and measures. Freedom - for the caged - means to break from
> their confinement and into a field of action which demands more of them than
> obediance, but it doesn't mean to burst the walls only to turn into a
> non-cohesive mass of "uber-acceptance" without spine or thought. At least I
> don't think that was what Steve McQueen was driving for.
I don't think my comments boil down to this idea of "uber-acceptance" though -
which I figured upon being labeled so my way - unless some uncanny solvents were
being used.
Anyway, here we are agreeing, disagreeing...
john adams
"Morpheal" <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3BFF492B...@sympatico.ca...
That sounds very serious. No dis to Barrett though, but I meant that his post wasn't comprised of
*just* two sincere questions posed to kuku, but also a bit of a personal jab.
john adams
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:M1HL7.126838$WW.78...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
john adams
"SOPH IKOS" <S...@SURCENTRAL.VAN> wrote in message
> >
> > ---
> > >For such an eminent and published writer, it amazes me just how bad your
> > grammer, spelling and use of the language in many of your posts is.
>
But good spelling never won any creative prizes either.
john adams
SOPH IKOS wrote in message news:o3ML7.18693. Whitehouse. Power-electronics musical group, considered the main
barrett john erickson
> > > Perhaps, but your response also sounded more the inquisition than a
set of
> > > two sincere questions posed with:
because it was. i'd grown tired of kuku's pose. and i hate "the holidays".
> [...]
> I was going on the "assumption" Kuku was indeed here more to have
> fun, and by this definition i include humor, imagination, poetics (if fun
isn't specific
> enough to use), and that her pokes and prys were her own way of
disagreeing,
> and less than harmfully.
well, my post was provoked by the frustration of several days worth of
assuming nothing while winding my way through a obstacle course (of mostly
kuku/morpheal posts) from which i could gather no sense of where kuku was
coming from.
when kuku began patting his own posts on the back side i gave up.
then came (1st among 37 other posts that i didn't read) what seemed to me as
a fairly straight forward transcription of a dada chant seen many times here
before, followed then by an answer to my post that seemed to confirm my
worst suspicion (and yes it was presented as an accusation).
if in fact kuku is not a trojan hobby horse i stand ready to be corrected.
but to do that he (you think he's a she? something i missed? i'm ready to
be corrected on this too.) will have to communicate in a manner that can be
cleanly received.
surrealists _do_ communicate with each other in agreement and otherwise.
it's part of the group dynamic.
barrett john erickson
don't disagree with any of that.
but we're off track here because cythera has apparently never quite
understood my use of the term POWER (all caps), by which i refer to the
evolutionary extension of what the SI referred to as "The Spectacle" (for
those interested, see:
http://www.magneticfields.org/enACTion/poverty/poverty.html ).
she repeatedly confuses this with power (lower case) on a personal scale and
then further confuses the concept by considering any challenge made by one
person to another as some kind of assault -- which she then labels power.
Brandon Freels
"cythera" wrote
> As for the Blue Feathers, is it a bowling team of 2 members, with barrett
> settin em up for Dale to knock down. Or (also could be *and*) is
> barrett in fact going to post a poem, and let us see a little bit of who
> he might really be behind the exterior.
You think too highly of poems.
kuku
Even though you wrote this as a reply to my original post you make no
comments upon the information I initially set forth there. Your so-called
critical posturing, and inference that what I had written was redundent(cf.
your post cit. below) lacks any examples whatsoever. From my position, I
wrote my post("In reply to SOPH...") with full consideration of my syntax,
as I do in with all my posts. I also tailored it in a manner that would be
undrestandable for those who have no apparent sense of the poetic, so that
you and your "friends" might understand my position. From you response(cf.
below) I have come to the conclusion, regardless of my assumptions therein,
that you are not worth associating with.
For my final comments, see my text in brackets[] throughout your quoted
reply(below),
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
Even the purest idiot [is this to be considered poetic, I have not a clue
what you are getting at here aside from some cartoon-like image] can (with
the aid of reference books and unlimited time) [so this is an idiot who can
read, write, and not only that but 'he' can also understand, emulate and
compose 'his' own thoughts?] produce the most useless [compared to, and in
context of what?] verbosity[what is this in reference to?]. In fact,
verbosity[cf redundant] is a classic high-school disguise for a lack of
content[also to be found in all areas of life, for example here in your
posts wherein you use alot of words in poorly put together paragraphs, that
are neither colloquial nor formal but come off alot more like rants of
maladjusted young man]. The length of a reply is no proof of its
validity[assuming something can be valid within your hypothetical context,
which I doubt considering your reactions thus far] or worth[once again you
make statements without citing what you are refering to, I assume you are
just ranting again].
John Adams is willing to meet you on the field[what does this refer to?]
that you have created[examples please] -
thinking he is being "open"[to what exactly?] - but I know that when one
opens a door to
nothing but hot air, what one has is a face full of hot air and nothing
more[I assume you are refering to yourself here(yet again), big boy].
The simple point[of which you have yet to illustrate for us]appears to be:
you know nothing[this is a classic example of something _else_ from High
school] and make a great[thank you] display to
that effect[once again more self reference, all of your posts are classic
examples of what is commonly known as: projection. my suggestion to you is,
read less, fuck more, dance more, forget about "art" for a while, call your
mother[or similiar thereof], go out to eat, cf. Watterson's "Calvin and
Hobbes", Jung's "Undiscovered Self", Reich's "Charactre Ananlysis". if you
however are already doing all the above, then there is no hope for you, mind
as well give it all up, at least for awhile.].
dmh
[-j]
kuku
examples take a look at anyone who seems to be truly powerful and you will
notice someone, most likely a man, who is at the compleat mercy of the
happenings around him[cf. bussiness man of all flavors]. Magick and power
are similiar birds in that neither can ever be actually discussed.
-j.
"Morpheal" <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BFFB18A...@sympatico.ca...
kuku
actually be in the lives of other people, perhaps even children". People
such as "dale" and those like him are the scourge of all societies. If only
eugenics applied exclusively to academics and their failures.
-j.
--
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01112...@posting.google.com...
> Dail, wail, whatever --
> You don't get a vote on what someone besides yourself writes here, so
might
> as well concentrate on your own s.
>
> And it's not that you have an opinion, it's the way that you state it
> that makes you so creepy.
>
> cythera.
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:<9to36...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
kuku
-j
"Morpheal" <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C002861...@sympatico.ca...
kuku
-j.
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Pb_L7.4087$Kc2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
kuku
-j.
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Pb_L7.4087$Kc2.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Morpheal
> Spinning and laughing, down on their knees.
It was then that they were racked. The mechanical device grabbing them,
dragging them off, and re-setting them. All we heard were the screams
and groans, as they were rattled about in a heap and rearranged.
M.
Morpheal
> Okay, we cool
We shall have the coroner check that out. The coroner will determine
what the cause of cool really was. Morgues are cool places. Very cool.
Remember that. Next time you wish for cool.
> > > > that other irrelevant, Morpheal, this group has been pretty dead as of late -- or maybe just undead, but definitely not alive.
I know, I know, I am not mainstream enough for alt.surrealism.
I stand corrected. I have failed to normalize.
M.
Morpheal
> You think too highly of poems.
Now, now, now, Officer Freels, what have we here ?
A poem.
Let me see now, what does it say in the statutory regulations.
Let's see. Poets. Poems. Poetry. Ah, here it is...
Assault with a deadly poem.
Poetizing in public.
Oh, now here it is, Section III, paragraph 4. Any poet found poetizing
without a valid poetic license shall have all poetry and poetic
paraphenilia confiscated, to be destroyed by the state. The poet shall
be held in prosaic custody, pending a long period of short declarative
sentence re-education. Should that prove ineffective see Section IV,
paragraphs 1 to 3, on the handling of thought crimes, specifically
poetic thought crimes.
Yes, Officer Freels, you have a big job don't you ?
Attacking all the poets of the world.
Say, do you work for Osama bin Laden ? He would agree with you.
M.
Morpheal
> That sounds very serious. No dis to Barrett though, but I meant that his post wasn't comprised of *just* two sincere questions posed to kuku, but also a bit of a personal jab.
The Inquisition were always serious. You would be executed slowly
and painfully for any jocularity, or smiling when questioned. After all,
it was a serious matter. That of saving your soul.
Oh, save your sole. Something in that about talking to yourself.
The very nature of prayer, as compared to seditions.
M.
Morpheal
> Morpheal makes another valid point here. Power is a trick devil, for further examples take a look at anyone who seems to be truly powerful and you will notice someone, most likely a man, who is at the compleat mercy of the happenings around him[cf. bussiness man of all flavors]. Magick and power are similiar birds in that neither can ever be actually discussed.
The biggest lie of all is the "self made" man or woman. All they do
is live their lie and completely believe in it. They are the worst
because they completely fail to understand their real interdependence,
and the influences that have had and continue to have effect on them.
There is no such thing as a self made man or woman. They do not really
exist in this, or any, society. Yet we are forced to use that phrase
and bow to their self designation, and to the media's designating some
of them as what they cannot be and decisively are not anything of.
You are right though that magick and power cannot actually be openly and
fully discussed. They can be eluded to, and that entails a different
rank in the hierarchical arrangement. Those who can elude most freely,
without suffering mortal penalty... such as Aleister Crowley did...
being Ipsismus, and Exemptus, or something similarly extreme.
Even then his obscurantism and obfuscation, including perverse sense of
humour, are also equally extreme.
M.
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3c00752c$0$79559$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
Yes, but I don't think we're "off track" (choo choo), because that is
precisely the split (between "power" and "POWER") that I was attempting to
define by my idea that the problem isn't "power" per se (as in personal
power) but in the stealing of others' personal power, which is your POWER.
Every individual (to borrow a political phrase) has a "sphere of influence."
Each individuals' sphere SHOULD be larger and some people's SHOULD be much
smaller (in the case of such monsters as Allbright/Bush/Rumsfeldt they might
be eliminated altogether without my shedding a tear). We might then call
POWER "stolen power" and because - like natural resources - there are only
so many spheres of influence to go around - any power stolen is power
refused, and the many suffer while the few rise to prominence and - almost
always - murder.
A side note - and a comment on the uses of such stolen power by a government
that people such as cythera love without critical thought - I saw Ramsey
Clark (former US Attorney General) speak at a local Minneapolis church (on
TV): he spoke of america's foreign policy since WWII and of the literally
apcalyptic horror it has wrought. One or two facts that might show how the
world could hate us enough to bomb our buildings - a "small" fact: before we
invaded Granada they had total employment and no crime, but now (and
possibly forever) there is 60% unemployment and entire areas where it is
dangerous to set foot. A "bigger" fact: over a million and a half people
have died as a result of our "necessary" action in Iraq, either through
bombing (the lesser of the two evils) or through sanctions. Most of these
deaths are among children under 5 years old.
Love it or leave it. Hell! They're lucky I don't burn it down and make them
eat the ashes. The toll of America's foreign policies since WWII reaches
into body counts that rival those of Hitler, and still cythera and others
don't comprehend the price of stolen power. They are still living in the
bubble universe of "Mom's Apple Pie" and "freckle-faced kids dreaming of
being president one day." The only problem there is that freckle-faced kid
will - very likely - turn out to be a war criminal and mass murderer, albeit
one with high "polling numbers." america is living in a mass hallucination
of its actual role in the world, but now even the gas fumes of our dream are
running on low, and the car is coming to a stop. There are very few people
left to steal energy and resources from, very few places left we might bomb
with impunity, and we still are unable to use our own armies in any conflict
because - truly - denizens of Rome don't want to die for ideals they don't
even believe in anymore.
dmh
Dale Houstman
far as I can tell, this isn't a crime YET. I am a poet, but even I am tired
of the atrocities posted as such and am attempting to keep poems out of the
magazine unless something startling comes along. Barrett "reveals" himself
at length in this newsgroup, but cythera doesn't see that because she is
waiting for him to reveal himself AS HE IS NOT. I can tell you (from
personal experience) that Barrett is precisely what he reveals himself to be
in his posts: a person who finds pleasure in thinking about the world and
its processes, and finds enjoyment in explorations of human cognition.
Anyway, why is cythera complaining that Barrett and I are friends? She has
Nik and Morpheal and (possibly) kuku to do a circle jerk with. I don't
begrudge her a little coven of nonsense spewers.
dmh
Nik Maack
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Barrett is precisely what he reveals himself to be
> in his posts: a person who finds pleasure in thinking about the world and
> its processes, and finds enjoyment in explorations of human cognition.
Barrett is a robot that Dale and Brandon constructed in their backyard,
in their spare time, using various "found objects". So far, all Barrett
can do is "think". Recently Brandon found a carton of sour milk to add
to Barrett's construction, so there's some hope he soon might be able to "feel".
I look forward to the day when they give Barrett a face of some kind.
Call me old fashioned, but it takes a face to give a machine a "human" quality.
Nik
Brandon Freels
> I look forward to the day when they give Barrett a face of some kind.
> Call me old fashioned, but it takes a face to give a machine a "human"
quality.
The same can be said about plants.
Nik Maack
Brandon Freels wrote:
>
> "Nik Maack" wrote
> > Call me old fashioned, but it takes a face to give a machine a "human"
> quality.
>
> The same can be said about plants.
Brandon, are you calling Barrett a plant? I assume you mean the
botanical kind, and not, say, the political or law enforcement variety.
Is Barrett a NARC? Is that what you're saying? Is he a non-surrealist
here merely to take notes on us? SPEAK UP, MAN!
Nik
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Or (also could be *and*) is
> barrett in fact going to post a poem, and let us see a little bit of who
> he might really be behind the exterior.
what the hell makes you think i would have any interest in posting a poem
(or even writing one, for that matter)?
anyway, there's enough of my "pigshit" out there for those who want to look
for it.
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Yes, but I don't think we're "off track" (choo choo), because that is
> precisely the split (between "power" and "POWER") that I was attempting to
> define by my idea that the problem isn't "power" per se (as in personal
> power) but in the stealing of others' personal power, which is your POWER.
almost. but POWER is a bit more pervasive and nebulous than that implies.
> Every individual (to borrow a political phrase) has a "sphere of
influence."
> Each individuals' sphere SHOULD be larger and some people's SHOULD be much
> smaller (in the case of such monsters as Allbright/Bush/Rumsfeldt they
might
> be eliminated altogether without my shedding a tear). We might then call
> POWER "stolen power" and because - like natural resources - there are only
> so many spheres of influence to go around - any power stolen is power
> refused, and the many suffer while the few rise to prominence and - almost
> always - murder.
the problem with thinking of POWER as power stolen, is that we restrict
ourselves to the scales on which individuals act -- alone or together.
whereas POWER, as i've used the term, functions on a different scale as a
hybrid of social mythology and falsified life purpose, subverting desire and
saturating our daily lives on all scales.
retaking personal power is where we need to begin, but that alone won't have
much effect on POWER. rebellion (individual and collective) now functions
as another regulatory feedback mechanism, as essential as cops and armies,
for ensuring the stability of the existing order.
personal power needs to be reclaimed _and_ put to the purpose of fucking up
that regulatory mechanism.
and we've seen brief moments of how that can work: N30 in Seattle, or the
Hwy 55 protests here, where the regulatory processes (cops) themselves were
provoked (by those who refused the traditional role of "demonstrator" that
was written for them) into destabilizing the existing order and
simultaneously revealing the hypocrisies inherent in it to anyone who was
paying attention.
[that company meeting of yours was another good example i think.]
> A side note - and a comment on the uses of such stolen power by a
government
> that people such as cythera love without critical thought - I saw Ramsey
> Clark (former US Attorney General) speak at a local Minneapolis church (on
> TV): he spoke of america's foreign policy since WWII and of the literally
> apcalyptic horror it has wrought. One or two facts that might show how the
> world could hate us enough to bomb our buildings - a "small" fact: before
we
> invaded Granada they had total employment and no crime, but now (and
> possibly forever) there is 60% unemployment and entire areas where it is
> dangerous to set foot. A "bigger" fact: over a million and a half people
> have died as a result of our "necessary" action in Iraq, either through
> bombing (the lesser of the two evils) or through sanctions. Most of these
> deaths are among children under 5 years old.
[that deserves repeating as often as possible]
barrett john erickson
"kuku" <hiai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uR0M7.4280$Kc2.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Morpheal makes another valid point here. Power is a trick devil, for
further
> examples take a look at anyone who seems to be truly powerful and you will
> notice someone, most likely a man, who is at the compleat mercy of the
> happenings around him[cf. bussiness man of all flavors]. Magick and power
> are similiar birds in that neither can ever be actually discussed.
>
POWER (and power) obviously _can_ be discussed as witnessed elsewhere in
this forum (and by your own comment above).
but they are complex subjects requiring complex analysis.
when you say:
"Power is a trick devil, for further examples take a look at anyone who
seems to be truly powerful and you will notice someone, most likely a man,
who is at the compleat mercy of the happenings around him[cf. bussiness man
of all flavors]..."
you may have a decent beginning, but it needs more thorough thought.
for example, i repost our tract "PLEASURE'S TUMOR" --
full layout version available online at:
http://www.magneticfields.org/blue/1.1/index.html
>>>
Pleasure's Tumor
From the first emergence of sub-atomic potential, from the enactive birth of
an electron, to the distant dissipation of the universe, beyond all
unknowable boundaries on the darkside of our sensual activity, all "things"
are embedded processes in continuous, inescapable interaction.
The origin of our reality was not a "big bang" in nothingness (or the even
more abysmal concept of divine creation) but a point of bifurcation, the
stabilizing of chaotic potential around a strange attractor, an order from
chaos.
Desire is life's strange attractor.
Living is a creative exploration of desire, expanding spontaneously, with
ever more complexity, into its latent potential, the thresholds of which are
determined only by the gravity of its attractor.
The true "limits" to the realization of our potential are not the
circumstances of birth and death, but the degree to which we act freely and
creatively. These limits emerge dynamically as an illusion of separation
from all the processes with which we interact and from which we cannot be
separated.
The profound alienation found in so many of the walking dead is
self-inflicted -- the result of personal autonomy surrendered to the
existing order.
It is POWER, not as a physical concept, but as a unifying mythology -- a
mass hypnosis, a collective hallucination -- that provides the structural
support for the existing order. Formed by and perpetuated through the
mediations and manipulations intrinsic to "the society of the spectacle", it
has become "the way things are" -- a veneer of falsified expectations and
desires that alienate us from socio-economic reality on a human scale.
POWER is the inspiration and sole purpose of all hierarchical
relationships - social, political, or economic. Although it may appear to
be the possession of individuals, it operates beyond their control. POWER
may coerce or seduce, but it tolerates only slaves who temporarily fill its
personnel requirements.
POWER today is primarily economic, accumulated, concentrated and exercised
in the ubiquitous "global marketplace" (of things and ideas) by the
production and manipulation of "consumers" and "commodities", "politicians"
and "treaties". This is POWER's digestive track where it is intuitive,
autonomous HUMAN desire that is consumed -- chewed to a bland pulp, drained
of its vital passion and transformed into the shit of common greed.
POWER is the killer of authentic passion. POWER is pleasure's tumor.
But POWER is our creation, our illusion, our suicide, born of our voluntary
commitment to play by its rules and nourished by the blood we willingly
surrender. It thrives on our seriousness of purpose. The only way to fight
it is to grant it no shelter from ridicule, refuse its dominion, expose its
absurdity and accept our responsibility to live creatively beyond its grasp.
It is the lustful embrace of enhanced reality, the carnal union of a fully
liberated imagination with everyday living that we must demand from and for
ourselves.
When we do this _every act_ has revolutionary potential.
[BlueFeathers #1.1]
kuku
you started with me is foolish. You too are out my loop. Goodbye.
-j.
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3c0129b3$0$79562$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
barrett john erickson
> To think you can sneak back into my coversations without finishing the one
> you started with me is foolish. You too are out my loop. Goodbye.
>
as much as you'd like to think you are the center of everyone's universe,
this wasn't an effort to "sneak back into [your] conversations". it was a
significant post of material relevant to more than a couple of current
threads. i chose to place it where i did because it not only extended the
theoretical reach of a specific comment you made, but also allowed me to
test my previous conclusion (that test prompted by John's post).
as i said before, surrealists _do_ communicate with each other in
disagreement as well as agreement. i would have been quite pleased to
discover i'd misjudged you.
but i did not.
Dale Houstman
I see that. Actually, I don't know anyone (except that lily with a headache)
who regularly misunderstands what power means at any rate. I suppose I was
just attempting to clarify it for the "special" children. Instead, I should
have been requesting that someone change their Pampers.
>
> whereas POWER, as i've used the term, functions on a different scale as a
> hybrid of social mythology and falsified life purpose, subverting desire
and
> saturating our daily lives on all scales.
>
> retaking personal power is where we need to begin, but that alone won't
have
> much effect on POWER. rebellion (individual and collective) now functions
> as another regulatory feedback mechanism, as essential as cops and armies,
> for ensuring the stability of the existing order.
Yes. I wasn't really thinking in the realm of "personal power" as it is
thought of in therapeutic circle, but in a different (and - obviously -
vaguely defined as of yet) sphere that somehow sees POWER as a function of
stolen resources and influences. So: as each American has slowly abandoned
their civil rights, the effective power of their vote, the control over
their own labor, etc. this has added to POWER. There is SOME connection, I
think, although the powers-that-be are solidly in place and no amount of
"retaining" personal control will have much effect: but the process that led
us to this stinking point lies in a slow giving up of autonomy, and it is
this maybe early function that might be investigated also, so as to
understand how much and how we have abandoned for "security" "comfort" and
so on.
>
> personal power needs to be reclaimed _and_ put to the purpose of fucking
up
> that regulatory mechanism.
Yep.
>
> and we've seen brief moments of how that can work: N30 in Seattle, or the
> Hwy 55 protests here, where the regulatory processes (cops) themselves
were
> provoked (by those who refused the traditional role of "demonstrator" that
> was written for them) into destabilizing the existing order and
> simultaneously revealing the hypocrisies inherent in it to anyone who was
> paying attention.
>
> [that company meeting of yours was another good example i think.]
Yes: that was fantastic! I am not under any delusion as to its effect on any
eventual outcome corporate-wide, but the room was rather heated, and you
could see the feeling of control (regained control) in the workers eyes. It
would take ALL the workers nation-wide doing similar things to effect even a
small part of the overall, and it won't occur. But we must be happy with the
little steps.
>
>
> > A side note - and a comment on the uses of such stolen power by a
> government
> > that people such as cythera love without critical thought - I saw Ramsey
> > Clark (former US Attorney General) speak at a local Minneapolis church
(on
> > TV): he spoke of america's foreign policy since WWII and of the
literally
> > apcalyptic horror it has wrought. One or two facts that might show how
the
> > world could hate us enough to bomb our buildings - a "small" fact:
before
> we
> > invaded Granada they had total employment and no crime, but now (and
> > possibly forever) there is 60% unemployment and entire areas where it is
> > dangerous to set foot. A "bigger" fact: over a million and a half people
> > have died as a result of our "necessary" action in Iraq, either through
> > bombing (the lesser of the two evils) or through sanctions. Most of
these
> > deaths are among children under 5 years old.
>
> [that deserves repeating as often as possible]
Well, all I have to say is "love it or leave it."
dmh
Morpheal
> > The same can be said about plants.
> Brandon, are you calling Barrett a plant? I assume you mean the
botanical kind, and not, say, the political or law enforcement variety.
Is Barrett a NARC? Is that what you're saying? Is he a non-surrealist
here merely to take notes on us? SPEAK UP, MAN!
I suppose Officer Freels of the alt.surrealism gestapo, meant that
Barrett is suspected of working undercover for RAM. (Realist America
Movement). An aweful thought. An accusation of that kind, if believed,
could get Barrett not only ousted, but tarred, feathered, and run out of
alt.surrealism on a rail !
M.
Dale Houstman
Ah! The old tactic of choice for early American small-thinkers and religious
hyprocrites. How appropriate of you to think of it. Surrealism - by the by -
is not in a war with realism, despite your usual wrongheadedness on the
subject of either, but is an extenuation of and and amendment to realism.
One can be both a realist and a surrealist - in fact, I think it's almost an
axiom that one is. You seem to be neither. How sad for your nonsensical
drivelhorde. But no matter how hard you try (with your limp tools) to mine
mere nonsense from surrealism - equating it with an adolescent type of
"fooling about" - you will always come up empty-handed. It's a certainty.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Surrealism - by the by -
> is not in a war with realism, despite your usual wrongheadedness on the
> subject of either, but is an extenuation of and and amendment to realism.
While I would normally agree with you - by the by - surrealism is being
forced into the position of being a war on realism. Why? Because certain
overly rational objective thinkers are taking what they call "logic" and
"science" to false extremes. There is a belief amongst some
that "science" can cure all that ails us, even if what ails us was
originally created by science in the first place.
(Ayn Rand, step forward so that we may shoot your corpse in the butt.)
I'm certain (old bean) that you have run into the crustacean minded
"rationalist" who insists that if only we could all be "objective" and
"rational", all our problems would evaporate like so much dew off the
lilly. What they mean by "rational" is (sadly, old salt) that others
adopt whatever bias the rationalist has decided is "objective reality".
So really, we are talking about false "rationalism" and false "realism" -
assuming there is such a thing as "real realism" (an idea I doubt very
much).
And so what you wind up with (my dear elipse) is some cretinous crumb
insisting that the latest social myth - whatever it may be - is clearly
objective reality and fact. Why can't we all accept it? Coke really is
*it*. The war is good. Oz is over the rainbow.
So in a sense (my fuzzy wuzzy) you are right - surrealism is on top of
realism. It's about getting realists to recognize that their reality
isn't rational. Rationalisty is based on more than just "objective
thinking" - in fact (my young guppie of chocolate mousse) so-called
objective thinking is biased intuitive wish noodling, as all thinking is
want to be.
Sadly, getting a rationalist to see their own skewed logic is much akin to
getting a goldfish to walk on its fins up to the casino doors and join in
a game of blackjack. The difficulty is in showing a realist that "illogic"
is often as logical if not MORE logical, than logic itself. And that, (in
fact) logic rests atop a pile of irrationality.
After all, all logic and rationality starts with supposition. IF X = Y...
We have to assume that. We have to assume something. The sky is blue.
My dog has fleas. The world is real. Otherwise logic has nothing to chew
on, nothing to process.
To use an example I read in "Beyond Good and Evil"... "I think". Most
rationalists would assume this is an unquestionable statement. However,
it can be questioned on dozens of levels. Who is this "I"? How can we be
certain that this subject actually goes about doing the verb? Isn't it
possible that the verb (think) creates the subject (I)? What is "think"?
What is "not think"? What do these words mean? While it seems
straight-forward enough, we don't even know (for certain) what "thinking"
is.
And sometimes we don't "think" a thought. The thought comes to us,
uninvited. At such times, it seems, "I" do not think - my thoughts are
beyond my control. I don't push them around like abacus beads. They push
me around.
So what does all of this mean?
I would posit (my lovely fluffy butter) that rationality, at this time,
has become institutionalized. It is doctrine and dogma. People actually
believe (unfools that they are) that it is possible to be "rational" and
"objective" and "unbiased". They are full of poo.
As surrealists, we have to demonstrate the values of surrationality and
surbjectivity and surbias.
In other words, surrealism may very well be at war with rationalism,
whether we like it or not. The rationalists have dug trenches and set up
machine gun nests. I don't know that we can negotiate our way into their
midst by carefully explaining we're on their side.
> One can be both a realist and a surrealist - in fact, I think it's almost an
> axiom that one is.
"The difference between myself and a mad man is that I am not mad," says
Dali. The real implication here, I think, is that we are all mad men.
There is no difference between sane and insane. The lunatics run the
asylum. We are all mad. We are all sane too. There's no real difference
between rational and irrational. Unfortunately, it's this idea that is so
difficult to get across to so called "rational" people.
"I'm sane, and he's crazy. She's sane, and he's crazy."
They make these decisions with such certainty, damn them.
All of the above, presumably, is what you're saying too. Correct me if I
am wrong, old sock puppet of moisture.
> But no matter how hard you try (with your limp tools) to mine
> mere nonsense from surrealism - equating it with an adolescent type of
> "fooling about" - you will always come up empty-handed. It's a certainty.
Alternatively, you're being overly rational, and not seeing the genius in
drivel.
I remember fondly a lesson that was taught to me, when a friend (of sorts)
took the writings of a demented local and chopped it into poetry sized
bits. By doing so, he converted the drivel into something of note. The
text became meaningful, and, in fact, enjoyable. What was once painful
drek I hated became enjoyable and meaningful writing.
Even the most pathetic cretin flinging poo becomes a thing of beauty if
you look closely at what he (or she) is doing and consider it
symbolically. The difficulty (I believe) is in finding the time to examine
poo flinging cretins with that kind of intensity in mind. 1) It's
draining, hard work. 2) It takes more time that we might like to devote.
These are some thoughts I quickly pounded out instead of doing work at
work. Apologies in advance if their disfragmented nature unappeals to
you.
Nik
--
Currently Reading:
"The Complete Stories" by Franz Kafka
"Surreal Lives" by Ruth Brandon
john adams
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message news:3c00708d$0$79559
[snipped]
>
> well, my post was provoked by the frustration of several days worth of
> assuming nothing while winding my way through a obstacle course (of mostly
> kuku/morpheal posts) from which i could gather no sense of where kuku was
> coming from.
>
> when kuku began patting his own posts on the back side i gave up.
>
> then came (1st among 37 other posts that i didn't read) what seemed to me as
> a fairly straight forward transcription of a dada chant seen many times here
> before, followed then by an answer to my post that seemed to confirm my
> worst suspicion (and yes it was presented as an accusation).
>
> if in fact kuku is not a trojan hobby horse i stand ready to be corrected.
> but to do that he (you think he's a she? something i missed? i'm ready to
> be corrected on this too.)
I'm not assuming anything, but what was it I missed about Kuku (who I'll
call Kato from now on)?
>will have to communicate in a manner that can be
> cleanly received.
She's a secret squid who speaks in rubberband sentences - occasionally
indescernibly - if only because she is shy - a saltwater dwelling dwarf
with the head of Kato Kailin.
> surrealists _do_ communicate with each other in agreement and otherwise.
> it's part of the group dynamic.
john adams
> of
> us come to our computers to escape the restrictions and manipulations
> and judgments, not find them in some other form.
I usually come here looking for some form of shaken dream, or article of
forgotten desire, perhaps some shitstupid whom I'll borrow a cigarette
from and light my own socks afire, glowing green. And it's not as if it's the last
time.
barrett john erickson
>
> "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> news:3c0128f2$0$79553$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
> > [...]
> > [that company meeting of yours was another good example i think.]
>
> Yes: that was fantastic! I am not under any delusion as to its effect on
any
> eventual outcome corporate-wide, but the room was rather heated, and you
> could see the feeling of control (regained control) in the workers eyes.
It
> would take ALL the workers nation-wide doing similar things to effect even
a
> small part of the overall, and it won't occur. But we must be happy with
the
> little steps.
ah...
but taking the SI's concept of "reversible coherence" (i.e., the almost
unshakeable stability of an existing order that can actually strengthen
itself by absorbing distrubances, yet can be suddenly inverted completely
through the catalytic effect of some minor event) and supplementing that
with a lesson from modern physics -- as presented by Ilya Prigogine and
Isabelle Stengers in _Order From Chaos_:
"In spite of its simplicity, our model succeeds in showing some properties
of the evolution of complex systems, and in particular, the difficulty of
'governing' a development determined by multiple interacting elements. Each
individual action or each local intervention has a collective aspect that
can result in quite unanticipated global changes...
"From a physicist's point of view, this involves a distinction between
states of the system in which all individual initiative is doomed to
insignificance on the one hand, and on the other, bifurcation regions in
which an individual, an idea, or a new behavior can upset the global state.
Even in those regions, amplification obviously does not occur with just any
individual, idea or behavior, but only with those that are "dangerous" --
that is, those that can exploit to their advantage the nonlinear relations
guaranteeing the stability of the preceding regime."
and i would argue that it is precisely the kind of action you participated
in that has the _most_ potential to prod a hierarchy into a bifurcation
region.
the real problem, from a utilitarian perspective, is that there is no way to
predict which minor actions might effect such major results. but, of
course, this presents no problem for a surrealist because the goal matters
less than the action and the action itself is the point.
Morpheal
> Ah! The old tactic of choice for early American small-thinkers and religious hyprocrites. How appropriate of you to think of it. Surrealism - by the by - is not in a war with realism, despite your usual wrongheadedness on the subject of either, but is an extenuation of and and amendment to realism. One can be both a realist and a surrealist - in fact, I think it's almost an axiom that one is. You seem to be neither. How sad for your nonsensical drivelhorde. But no matter how hard you try (with your limp tools) to mine mere nonsense from surrealism - equating it with an adolescent type of "fooling about" - you will always come up empty-handed. It's a certainty.
You missed my joke about realist warfare against surrealism, completely.
You must be a machine, not a human. It's the only explanation left.
Most humans would have recognized the humour in what I said
and not taken it so extremely literally.
M.
Morpheal
> but taking the SI's concept of "reversible coherence" (i.e., the almost unshakeable stability of an existing order that can actually strengthen itself by absorbing distrubances, yet can be suddenly inverted completely through the catalytic effect of some minor event) and supplementing that with a lesson from modern physics -- as presented by Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers in _Order From Chaos_:
Catalytic is a good choice of words in this instance.
M.
Morpheal
> You are on to something here.
Even surrealism can become atrophied.
M.
kuku
to my computer to take care of certain matters, mostly sending emails with
folks Im trading projects with ect around the world. Alt.surrealism is one
of my playgrounds whilst I widdle certain moments. But those who come
somewhere with chains on them, will always have those chain on them. Or say
they say. So, we've seen.
-j.
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01112...@posting.google.com...
> Morpheal <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<3C00F134...@sympatico.ca>...
>
> > > Brandon wrote to john adams:
> > > ... that other irrelevant, Morpheal, this group has been pretty
> > > dead as of late -- or maybe just undead, but definitely not alive.
> >
>
> > I know, I know, I am not mainstream enough for alt.surrealism.
>
> You are on to something here.
>
> Some people -- and isn't it obvious who -- seem to require that one
> project certain values and attitudes whilst posting to "their" great
> alt.surrealism newsgroup. What values and attitudes, you might ask?
> Why, their very own, of course.
>
> It is too bad they can't kiss themselves.
>
>
> > I stand corrected. I have failed to normalize.
>
> So have we all, to one degree or another. Why Doil (and a few
> others?)
> have to try to pound every square peg into some round hole of their
> own
> desire, who knows?! I will borrow the phrase "falsified desire" for
> that
> activity. Or say, "it is a symptom of an inauthentic existence."
>
> And doesn't it also indicate a constriction, rather than an opening,
> of
> imagination?
>
>
> People get very tired of having rules shoved on them, especially when
> those rules are arbitrary and _self-serving_. I think at least some
> of
> us come to our computers to escape the restrictions and manipulations
> and judgments, not find them in some other form.
>
> cythera.
>
> > M.
>