Surrealism recognizes the death of "God" ?
Morpheal
This might be an interesting subject to explore here. The death of "God"
being the as yet only partially realized and accepted fact that what was
attributed to "God", in terms of cuasality, were 1). physical effects
whose actual specific physical non-human causes and their mechanisms of
action were unknown, and 2). effects whose human causes were unknown,
and effects where the decision maker or makers were unknown to those
effected by those decisions. The death of "God" meaning that there are
in fact no events that effect human beings excluded by 1) and 2).
My contention is that the idea of "God", defined as that involved and
interested anthropomorphic (resembling humans) otherworldly being,
existing somewhere in the sky, in the heavens, or in heaven, is the
sickest idea that human beings have ever imagined and utilized as
explanation for what they could not comprehend, and for when they could
not actually see ultimate cause result in its effects. The invisibility
of potent causalities, such as political systems having extreme effects
on individuals and groups, being a prime motivator for the human
imagination to imagine a superhuman agent at work upon human lives. The
fact that a powerful person or persons has effects, can manipulate, can
cause changes to, the lives of individuals and groups of individuals
becomes the cause of a cognitive error. That cognitive error is the
creation, by human beings lacking understanding of causality, of "God".
We need to contend that whatever happens to human beings that is
attributed to some divine supernatural being's actions is in fact
invariably the result of human actions towards other human beings, and
not at all the result of any superhuman being. It is simply the effects
of human actions upon human beings. No supernatural entity involved.
That is the most important statement of all.
The fact that the cause of the action is not visible to the effected by
the action does not alter that fact of purely human causality. Of course
there are non human events having effects on humans, natural effects
from the natural world of which humans are a part, in addition to the
effects of human actions, but in all those natural effects a scientific
cause and effect chain, not ever requiring any divine superhuman
supernatural causality can be discerned if the human mind is open to
discerning that empirical causal chain. Everything that is not of that
kind, involving human intelligence, human actions, directed by chance or
design against other human beings, where the human mind is involved, has
an added "invisible" component, which contributes in large part to the
error of believing in a superhuman agency at work. The world of mind
split off as if a divine world, in accord with Plato's error of a world
of "ideal forms".
That there are causes of effects that are invisible or as yet poorly
understood by science (when it is non human) does not make any argument
for their being a superhuman divine being causing such effects.
Similarly the human cause being unknown, uncertain, invisible, does not
make any argument for there being a superhuman divine being causing the
effect.
To discuss a well known example derivative from British kingship, which
is itself derivative from earlier ideas of "divine kingship" where the
king as cause, due to seeming to share in omnipotent powers to cause
effects upon other human beings, we can turn to a famous phrase on the
American coin, which says "in God we trust".
Based on our previous argument we might easily say that "in God we
trust" refers purely to the essentially invisible machinery of the
American political system, and not at all to any invisible divine being,
causing effects upon everyperson in America and beyond its borders. The
invisibility of the cause of the effects, when it is the political
machinations of a nation are no valid argument whatever for there being
a superhuman divine agency causing the effects.
I would contend that all instances of actions as causality of effects
that have a volitional component, involving cognitive choices (conscious
or subconsciously motivated), whether such are considered "sane" or
"insane" are all purely human cause effect actions. Humans cause effects
upon humans. There is no "God" involved in any of it. Even when we
cannot see the specifics and whole of the cause effect web of
interactions, the chains of causality, that bind events together into
their visible patterns, "it is all too human", all something purely
human and not anything divine, nothing superhuman, nothing of a "God"
involved in any way in the lives of everyperson.
Humanity truly recognizes itself only when each human being can honestly
say "God is dead", we are all there is, and we are all doing whatever we
do to each other, as causes and effects upon each other, with no "God"
to blame for any of it.
--
Bob Ezergailis morp...@bserv.com Canada
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dale houstman
Morpheal <morp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7v9uoi$3ao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I wonder if surrealism truly recognizes the death of "God"?
This is Existential of course.
For Surrealists (as for some legal agencies) there can be no death without a
body. Bring me the head of God!
If (as I suspect) we are instead talking about the death of the "idea" of
God. I must say that the idea seems as evident as always, though it doesn't
wield the same weapons as it did in say 1500. But surely someone is buying
all those Bibles? But there are other reasons for that I suppose...
But most of the points you make while valid are not striking; to have an
argument about "God" at this point in this venue seems irrelevant.
I am not interested beyond what I have said...
DMH
Leo Sgouros
dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7vai5h$suf$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> For Surrealists (as for some legal agencies) there can be no death without
a
> body. Bring me the head of God!
>
> If (as I suspect) we are instead talking about the death of the "idea" of
> God. I must say that the idea seems as evident as always, though it
doesn't
> wield the same weapons as it did in say 1500. But surely someone is buying
> all those Bibles? But there are other reasons for that I suppose...
>
> But most of the points you make while valid are not striking; to have an
> argument about "God" at this point in this venue seems irrelevant.
>
> I am not interested beyond what I have said...
>
> DMH
>
>
>
Hi Dale-
I wasnt going to make any more comments but I want to add one thing to this-
I have noticed that atheists seem to want to convince others of the
non-existence of God far more than any believers try to convince people that
there is one.
What interesting behavior!
Also, speaking of memes, atheism, if it were truly the dominant meme, would
have already replaced all the worlds religions, as the "truth" obviously is
that religion has caused all the wars in the name of some god.
Servant of Lucifer
dale houstman
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sb4S3.95$Q82...@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7vai5h$suf$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Morpheal <morp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:7v9uoi$3ao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Hi Dale-
> I wasnt going to make any more comments but I want to >add one thing to
this- I have noticed that atheists seem to >want to convince others of the
non-existence of God far >more than any believers try to convince people
that
> there is one.
I simply don't find this to be true in the least: every medium is naturally
besotted with evangelism; for every thirty or forty letters in the papers
(and due to my job I read some fifty a week) that proclaim some nonsense
about God, there is maybe one (or none) pushing atheism. God is casually
mentioned or assumed in most media, much to the point that an obviously
atheistic (or even vaguely blasphemic) presentation is instantly noted;
meanwhile TV has hundreds upon hundres of money-hungry religious buffoons,
and (precisely) how many well-funded atheistic performers begging for your
lunch money? Atheists for the most part have no particular urge to convert,
and I find those who most that way to be strangely damaged: it seems no
different to me than a man who must brag of his sexual prowess. I have been
stuck in a room with religious and non-religious "flamers" and find both
unbearable, although not because of their "themes" (I have rather an
interest in religious myths as another branch of human imagination, though I
think a heavily sublimated and exploited one) but because of their
unbearable attitude of non-permeability, as far as communication goes.
> Also, speaking of memes, atheism, if it were truly the >dominant meme,
would have already replaced all the worlds >religions, as the "truth"
obviously is that religion has caused >all the wars in the name of some god.
Who spoke of memes: I never do! I don't quite see your logic here, but at
any rate I don't (for one) buy the second part: though I am as anxious as
the next punk to pin endless crimes on religion (and it certainly has red
hands) I really think most wars occur over property and that God is merely
an opportunity or excuse. But how many times is atheism used as an excuse or
opportunity for war? The fact is "there is no God!" is not a rallying cry
except for a very few discontents and weak-tea minds; "Onward, Soldiers of
No God!" Unlikely... I suspect, given that religion disappeared from the
wounded face of Earth tonight we would awaken to just another day of war
tomorrow. In some ways the ideas of deity spring from the same deep pools
that the impulses for terror and ravage do: a defensive posture that
includes "offense as the best defense."
But war is such a complicated affair: didn't the Greeks go to war with the
Trojans over love? doesn't that seem doubtful? Was Helen another emblem of
property? Etc.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
I refer to several attempted flame wars from alt.atheism
I do not see these same efforts to convert people to believe in Jesus or
something-
Imagine the outrage if christian groups started that stuff!
I would be the first to flame them back!
> > Also, speaking of memes, atheism, if it were truly the >dominant meme,
> would have already replaced all the worlds >religions, as the "truth"
> obviously is that religion has caused >all the wars in the name of some
god.
>
> Who spoke of memes: I never do! I don't quite see your logic here,
Well I believe memes are like genes-
the strongest ones push out the weaker ones
but at
> any rate I don't (for one) buy the second part: though I am as anxious as
> the next punk to pin endless crimes on religion (and it certainly has red
> hands) I really think most wars occur over property and that God is merely
> an opportunity or excuse. But how many times is atheism used as an excuse
or
> opportunity for war?
Godless Communistas!
The fact is "there is no God!" is not a rallying cry
> except for a very few discontents and weak-tea minds; "Onward, Soldiers of
> No God!" Unlikely... I suspect, given that religion disappeared from the
> wounded face of Earth tonight we would awaken to just another day of war
> tomorrow. In some ways the ideas of deity spring from the same deep pools
> that the impulses for terror and ravage do: a defensive posture that
> includes "offense as the best defense."
>
> But war is such a complicated affair: didn't the Greeks go to war with the
> Trojans over love? doesn't that seem doubtful? Was Helen another emblem of
> property? Etc.
>
> DMH
>
>
Yes, as a matter of fact, property and identity.
Sad as it may be.
Regards
L
Brandon J. Freels
the Existentialists he replied something like this: "How can God be dead, he
never existed in the first place."
Basically, I think atheism is all that Surrealism and Existentialism have in
common. Breton's reaction was probably due to the conflicts between the
Surrealists and the Existentialism at the time of the interview.
Morpheal <morp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7v9uoi$3ao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
dale houstman
>
>
> I refer to several attempted flame wars from alt.atheism
> I do not see these same efforts to convert people to believe >in Jesus or
something-
surely you're kidding? I cannot even begin to imagine the world in which
this is a valid perception. There isn't a day that goes by that religious
propaganda doesn't intrude upon quite unrelated subjects. I believe we don't
notice it as such because religiosity is part of the general background
noise of culture, but I have had this same discussion before, and frankly
the notion that atheism is more muscular in its seductions escapes me. Any
newspaper or magazine taken at random (except, in parallel to your
front-loaded example, Atheist Home & Garden) will reveal an ad or an article
praising God, or casually thanking God for some favoritism, etc. I just
don't see many articles doing this casually for a non-believer, and it is
this very casualness that is an indicator of religion's lock on culture.
> Imagine the outrage if christian groups started that stuff!
But it happens every day! And not only is there not an outrage (except in
the editorial offices of Atheist Home & Garden!) but there are too-free
hotlines to make what amounts to millions of dollars a year in
contributions! Every politician must make (at least) lip service to the
notions of religious family values, and moral turpitude, and God's grace,
etc. It startles me that people can say what you said.
> > > Also, speaking of memes, atheism, if it were truly the >dominant meme,
would have already replaced all the worlds >religions, as the "truth"
obviously is that religion has caused >all the wars in the name of some god.
> >
> > Who spoke of memes: I never do! I don't quite see your logic here,
>
>
> Well I believe memes are like genes-
> the strongest ones push out the weaker ones
Okay, but the "truth" or "non-truth" of any thought isn't necessarily a
survival technique: are the hundreds of so-called heretical sects of
Christianity for instance all gone because their ideas were incorrect
inconparison to the obviously rock solid idea of the Trinity or water into
wine, etc.), or because someone else had more money and (thus) more arms? So
the relationship isn't the same. Anyway, evolution isn't really a mater of
"strong" and "weak" genes fighting for their place; I couldn't for instance
say that the passenger pigeon was full of weaker genes, but merely that a
confluence of several factors (the growth of cities, the pigeon's natural
habitat, the non-existence of a strong conservation group, etc.) came
together at "No Passenger Pigeon Pass." Evolution (and this is where its
poetry sleeps I think) is not about the efficacy of any particular unit, but
about a complex interweave of coincidences and opportunities. We (as man)
could as easily have not been here, given a few degrees more one way or
another, or a million other factors. So it isn't about "weak" or "strong"
genes.
> Yes, as a matter of fact, property and identity.
> Sad as it may be.
> Regards
> L
Identity: that'll be hard to beat!
DMH
dale houstman
> Dale, USENET, Dale, USENET
> this isnt the crusades, this usenet where I do not see the converting
> do-gooders is what I am referring to-
> Oops, surrealism-
> there we go1!1!!
Well, okay, but I don't (forgive me) naturally assume that the world we are
talking about is composed solely of the media we are talking on. But I don't
(having taken your clarification) really see that either. I would be
surprised that USENET would be vastly different in temperment than "the real
world" or are more atheists purchasing computers than theists? Truth is, I
was momentarily involved in the atheism ng (I found it essentially dull),
and it was besieged by believers who obviously felt an immense desire to
"harrow hell." The sad truth is too many atheists are like dry drunks, and
can ONLY define themselves by what they now "lack," so the idea of an
atheist ng is oddly nonseductive. It is uneventful to define oneself in
terms of a thing you have rejected. But that "harrowing" aspect is (I think)
where much of that crossposting crap starts, so it could as easily have been
stimulated by one of the bumptious believers. It really makes no difference
to me: the question of "God" or "atheism" or any of a myriad similar
subjects was settled for me quite a long time ago: it feels hollowed of
significance to me as an argument, and really seems to be a more convoluted
form of a debate over which flavor ice-cream is best. More may be at stake
for the participants, but the level of debate isn't stimulating, and once
you believe "God is the Word" what possible difference could a few phrases
from a heathen make?
But really: enough of God. He's had his fifteen minutes...
DMH
barrett john erickson
news:ae5S3.10998$C7.4...@news1.teleport.com...
> Basically, I think atheism is all that Surrealism and Existentialism have
in
> common. Breton's reaction was probably due to the conflicts between the
> Surrealists and the Existentialism at the time of the interview.
actually, where surrealists _can_, existentialists _cannot_ be specifically
identified with atheism since there _were_ religious existentialists
(Gabriel Marcel for one and a few others i can't remember) whose arguments
were not seen as counter to the notion of existentialism.
i think it would be more accurate to say that what "surrealism" and
existentialism have in common is the emphasis on the spontaneous act as the
fundamental formative process: "we do before we are" -- "existence precedes
essence".
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #2 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Leo Sgouros
Leo Sgouros
>
> Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:xr6S3.178$hx4....@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com...
YAY!!
Brandon J. Freels
> There isn't a day that goes by that religious propaganda doesn't intrude
upon quite
> unrelated subjects. I believe we don't notice it as such because
religiosity is part of
> the general background noise of culture, but I have had this same
discussion before, > and frankly the notion that atheism is more muscular in
its seductions escapes me.
How true! Everyday I am bombarded with religious bullshit. There was a time
when it pissed me off. Okay, it still does. The programming centers [i.e.
television stations] especially. Didn't they do "Noah" recently, and now
"Mary." Shit, I would prefer to see a television special on "Gilgamesh."
Brandon J. Freels
> Truth is, I was momentarily involved in the atheism ng (I found it
essentially dull),
> and it was besieged by believers who obviously felt an immense desire to
> "harrow hell."
After visiting the atheism newsgroup I was actually bombarded with e-mails
from prowling Christians about why I should believe in god.
> It is uneventful to define oneself in terms of a thing you have rejected.
You are born an atheists. Don't get caught up in the linguistics. Theism
comes after atheism.
Brandon J. Freels
> actually, where surrealists _can_, existentialists _cannot_ be
specifically
> identified with atheism since there _were_ religious existentialists
> (Gabriel Marcel for one and a few others i can't remember) whose arguments
> were not seen as counter to the notion of existentialism.
Good point. I believe Kierkegaard was also a theist. Not certain though.
> i think it would be more accurate to say that what "surrealism" and
> existentialism have in common is the emphasis on the spontaneous act as
the
> fundamental formative process: "we do before we are" -- "existence
precedes
> essence".
Good point again. I always like the "existence precedes essence." How else
do you see Sartre's or even Camus' theories as being compatible with
Surrealism? I've always found the feuding between the two groups to be
rather childish, and pointless.
Leo Sgouros
secret ballot is invalid
private e-mail to me is a tool for deception when the same people doing the
mailing are reading news groups hoping to gauge your responses
you cannot be such a fool
its all part of the conspiracy, Brandon.
HTH
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:qfiS3.11822$C7.4...@news1.teleport.com...
>
comes after atheism.
Point (somewhat taken) but to say you are born an atheist is a
simplification ( even if a delicious one); you are not really born with any
stance vis a vis god, so you couldn't accurately describe that state as
atheism, I think. I am not even certain you could describe it as
"non-theist" because what is the neurological state of the infant, its
stance (as it were) as to the authority and "numinousness" of the universe?
Or is the infant in some ways a god unto itself? I feel the kernel of theist
belief as well as the kernel of non theist belief exists in that ineffable
state, a sort of proto-imagination. The thrust of what I was saying remains
whatever the truth: self-conscious atheists tend to spend an inordinate
amount of time discussing one thing: God. I find this depressing.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
Leo Sgouros wrote
Brandon J. Freels
> Point (somewhat taken) but to say you are born an atheist is a
simplification ( even if > a delicious one); you are not really born with
any stance vis a vis god, so you couldn't > accurately describe that state
as atheism, I think.
I guess. I wonder what one would call that untainted period that exists
before you are forced to decide? Proto-atheism?
> The thrust of what I was saying remains whatever the truth: self-conscious
atheists
> tend to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing one thing: God. I
find this
> depressing.
True to a point. I find that when atheists gather in groups this is how they
come across, but not on an individual basis. There is a local atheists group
around here (in Portland), but I have decided to stay away from their
activities for a similar reason. I like their anti-religion comments (they
have a cable access show), but I can't imagine just sitting around talking
about the non-existence of gods. It sounds boring, and I have better things
to do.
On the other hand, I won't pass up an opportunity to scream profanities at a
passing preacher. This has less to do with my atheism, and more to do with
my ...
dale houstman
> dale houstman wrote
> > Point (somewhat taken) but to say you are born an atheist >is a
simplification ( even if a delicious one); you are not >really born with any
stance vis a vis god, so you couldn't >accurately describe that state as
atheism, I think.
>
> I guess. I wonder what one would call that untainted period >that exists
before you are forced to decide? Proto-atheism?
Well, the Christians call it innocence, which is actually quite a nice word.
You couldn't call it "proto-atheism" because so many of them little bastards
turn out to be god-blobs. Pre-interference maybe. "Free time"
> True to a point. I find that when atheists gather in groups >this is how
they come across, but not on an individual basis.
I wouldn't disagree. This is related to those (rather) inane questions "what
make surrealists (angry, content, etc.)" where there is the assumption that
such and such group is an isolated and aberrant example of the human race.
As an atheist, what one does is go to work, sleep, fuck, eat... But atheism
should not be an occasion for grouping it seems to me, because they have
very few "positive programs" of their own. Politically, they are almost
useless as a group: "oh dear, how can I vote for this bill? The Atheists
don't like it?" I suppose some of them need comforting in an unfriendly
world, but the notion of an atheist support group tires me exceedingly.
>There is a local atheists group around here (in Portland), but >I have
decided to stay away from their activities for a similar >reason. I like
their anti-religion comments (they have a cable >access show)
We have a similar presentation here (in Minneapolis), and when I see it all
I can think is "what a trio of slow wits!" They say the same obvious things
over and over and seem entirely self-satisfied in their badly-produced
citadel. It is depressing. Atheism (by itself) isn't much of a "thing."
> On the other hand, I won't pass up an opportunity to >scream profanities
at a passing preacher
An entirely different program! If these atheist groups could get into mass
and individual stances of this type, maybe something could come of it. But -
given the nature of the groups I've seen - they are like religious groups
without the imaginative mythology. Numbing...
DMH
barrett john erickson
> barrett john erickson wrote
> > actually, where surrealists _can_, existentialists _cannot_ be
> specifically
> > identified with atheism since there _were_ religious existentialists
> > (Gabriel Marcel for one and a few others i can't remember) whose
arguments
> > were not seen as counter to the notion of existentialism.
>
> Good point. I believe Kierkegaard was also a theist. Not certain though.
yes. i have a tendency to think of him as a precursor, but only because of
the 100 years or so between him and Sartre. it's probably more valid to
place them together on the basis of the fundamental principle of existence
preceeding essence.
> > i think it would be more accurate to say that what "surrealism" and
> > existentialism have in common is the emphasis on the spontaneous act as
> the
> > fundamental formative process: "we do before we are" -- "existence
> precedes
> > essence".
>
> Good point again. i always like the "existence precedes essence." How else
> do you see Sartre's or even Camus' theories as being compatible with
> Surrealism? I've always found the feuding between the two groups to be
> rather childish, and pointless.
well, i started to answer this last night, but i got too boring even for
myself.
so i'll just condense and say that i think their main point of convergence
is the concept of existence preceding essence, and their main point of
divergence is the existentialists treatment of the imagination as an
epistemological problem to be solved with reason ("how do we tell the real
from the unreal?"), as opposed to the surrealists seeing it as the key to
our greater experience of a more immediate reality (how do we integrate the
imagination into our daily living).
existential anxiety (nausea) was as inevitable a result of their path as mad
love was for the surrealists.
[ and this was mirrored here in the 60's with the divergence from common
ground of the "new left" in one direction and the "hippies" and "yippies" in
the other. was the crisis faced one of reason or imagination? ]
thanks to phenomenology, however, i do think the existentialists were far
ahead of their time in their understanding of consciousness. Sartre, for
example offered several in-depth studies in which he rejects the concept of
the unconscious or subconscious, preferring a more unified concept with
"nothingness" at its core, pursuing fulfillment (understanding through
action) and leading to concepts very compatible with the enactive cognition
model which was first put forward two or three decades later.
[ the relevant book I recommend most often is Sartre's "Transcendence of the
Ego" as it is short, relatively easy to understand if you read it slowly
enough and forms a very good foundation for such inquiries which fits well
with Varela, et al. ]
Brandon J. Freels
action against the school board for letting the Christian run Boy Scouts
recruit on school grounds. The atheists lost in court, despite having a
pretty good argument. But not more than a month later the school board
decided to kick all non-school oriented programs off of school grounds, that
included the Boy Scouts. So, in a weird sort of way, the Atheists got there
point across.
dale houstman wrote
elag
elag
Lao Tzu had dirty underwear.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair had a Swiss bank account.
cyt...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> last night i found a path into a purplish wood. there is a disused
> windmill at my left. its hands are stopped. it is apollo/dionysus. it
> is a clock. something
> creaks to life. the trees sigh out of the mouths of men getting blow
> jobs below their green umbrellas. the ocean bangs on my right. it is
> in a chest.
> some call it heaven, hell, golden gate park or_____
> tonight rides the same bone of form and emptiness. the sky opens up
> into a V,
> a new arrival. i drop, i follow dale's breadcrumbs here
> now i stop to laugh.
> "to study the self is to forget the self." surrealism, like zen, like
> physics, & the embryonic human brain-- which resembles a fetal elephant
> with hands (lobes) partly covering its eyes, and is held up by a
> prehistoric "backbone"--is no-religion. is-ness itself. WHAT orthodoxy
> I
> I