The New Victorians -- stealing words
Nikolaus Maack
I picked up this book a friend of mine bought, called, "The New
Victorians". In the introduction, the author talks about various
polls of women, where roughly 90% of women agree that men and women
should be treated as equals, and that this is a valueable cause. Only
roughly 10% of these same women would apply the label "feminist" to
themselves.
The author goes on to suggest that the word "feminism" has been stolen
by extremists. What once referred to the idea that women and men are
of equal worth and that women should seek empowerment, has become a
word associated with concepts like "all heterosexual sex is rape",
"all men are inherently evil exploiters", "worship the goddess", and
"all pornography must be stamped out". Most women, disliking one or
all of these issues, find themselves unable to take on the label of
"feminist".
Instead of using the word "feminist" they try to use different words,
like "equalist", or say odd things like that they support the "women's
movement" but they're not a "feminist".
If people (men and women) speak up, asking why on earth a "feminist"
should believe that all men are evil, the "real feminists" say they
are brainwashed by the patriarchal system. A surprisingly large
number of feminists argue that to truly be a feminist, you have to
become a lesbian, thus freeing yourself from male tyranny. Anyone who
questions this idea is called a "homophobe". If you're a woman, and
you happen to like porn or erotica, or even just men in general, you
are considered to be against the cause of feminism.
Are all philosophical "isms" doomed to accumulate clutter, with time?
Does the clutter always make an "ism" progressively more extreme, one
only a "select few" can take on?
Is there a "core belief" to surrealism, under all the accumulated
"clutter"? If surrealism were defined as this core belief alone,
would it be an artistic/philosophical view that more people would find
appealing? Do you, personally, *want* to make surrealism accessable
to everyone? Would making surrealism accessable -- reducing it to a
core concept -- somehow reduce the significance of surrealism?
My stance -- which you don't want to hear because I'm a flakey, new
age, crystal sucking, moron, taoist, asshole -- is that the core
belief of surrealism is:
Promoting the use of intuition and irrationality to understand and
explore your world. This way, one can "liberate the imagination".
Imagination is good, useful, and worth exploring.
All the other beliefs that have been attached to this core belief --
such as anti-religion, anti-capitalism, and communistic points of view
-- only makes surrealism less accessable and less interesting. Sure,
you can believe in these things. There are valid arguments that such
stances promote a liberated imagination. But insisting that you
*must* believe them in order to be considered a "real surrealist" only
hurts the surrealist cause.
(You may now start screaming that I am a stupid, assholish, ignorant,
feeble-minded, know nothing.)
Nik
---
PSST! Wanna buy a postcard?
Original hand painted art, for cheap. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Brandon J. Freels
> Are all philosophical "isms" doomed to accumulate clutter, with time?
> Does the clutter always make an "ism" progressively more extreme, one
> only a "select few" can take on?
Again, your making a false analogy. Feminism has been ambiguous from the get
go. There was no self-proclaimed feminist manifesto. I did some research on
this awhile back, and found that there are at least five different sects of
feminism. Some are hardcore some are not. Sometimes I think some *feminists*
just call themselves *feminists* to hide their misandry.
> Is there a "core belief" to surrealism, under all the accumulated
> "clutter"? If surrealism were defined as this core belief alone,
> would it be an artistic/philosophical view that more people would find
> appealing? Do you, personally, *want* to make surrealism accessable
> to everyone? Would making surrealism accessable -- reducing it to a
> core concept -- somehow reduce the significance of surrealism?
Surrealism is the freedom of the mind. Despite your past sarcastic remarks
about *freedom,* it is the core belief. You haven't figured that out yet?
I've posted my definition two times in two days. You obviously haven't been
paying any attention to my posts.
> My stance -- which you don't want to hear because I'm a flakey, new
> age, crystal sucking, moron, taoist, asshole -- is that the core
> belief of surrealism is:
>
> Promoting the use of intuition and irrationality to understand and
> explore your world. This way, one can "liberate the imagination".
> Imagination is good, useful, and worth exploring.
>
> All the other beliefs that have been attached to this core belief --
> such as anti-religion, anti-capitalism, and communistic points of view
> -- only makes surrealism less accessable and less interesting.
Religion, and capitalism are oppressive forces no matter how much *you* need
them. Think about all the kids who will grow up in the capitalist systems to
waste their lives away in a banal system of working five days a week, and
being pissed of for the remaining two. The system is not built for the
pleasure of humankind but for the profit of nothing. Or should I say PROPHET
of nothing? Your lack of knowledge of the history of the Tao and the theory
of Buddhism is what makes you such a flaky, new age, crystal sucking, moron,
Taoist, asshole. The Tao de Ching was originally written for a king on how
to rule his people. Every religion is an oppressor of reality. Surrealism
wants to experience the complete truth, the higher reality [see my
definition when you get the chance to read an entire post]. They are
incompatible in this way.
> you can believe in these things. There are valid arguments that such
> stances promote a liberated imagination. But insisting that you
> *must* believe them in order to be considered a "real surrealist" only
> hurts the surrealist cause.
You must develop a valid argument as to how religion and capitalism are
compatible with Surrealism. Your arguments so far have been far from valid.
If we disagree, don't get mad and start whining again.
Leo Sgouros
I have never killfiled anyone in this ng yet but I am considering killfiling
you.
Please dont answer this post either, or I will do so.
Not that you should care.
Nikolaus Maack
live, something which I am paid to do, in order that I may make
student loan payments and buy myself things, because I live in a
capitalist system, though not necessarily by choice.
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Again, your making a false analogy. Feminism has been ambiguous from the get
>go. There was no self-proclaimed feminist manifesto. I did some research on
>this awhile back, and found that there are at least five different sects of
>feminism. Some are hardcore some are not. Sometimes I think some *feminists*
>just call themselves *feminists* to hide their misandry.
It seems your argument is that surrealism was well defined from day
one, and not ambiguous, therefore no parallel can be drawn between it
and feminism. I disagree. Even if surrealism had a manifesto in the
beginning, how long did the unity last before the group splintered
into a bunch of sects? It seems foolish to think that your own
ideology is rock hard, well defined, and unquestionable, while all
other ideologies are soft, white, and pasty. It's ridiculous. All
ideology is inherently flakey. All beliefs splinter and evolve.
>Surrealism is the freedom of the mind. Despite your past sarcastic remarks
>about *freedom,* it is the core belief. You haven't figured that out yet?
I would phrase it differently -- freedom of the mind is a little
vague, in my opinion -- but yes, I have figured this out.
>Religion, and capitalism are oppressive forces no matter how much *you* need
>them.
So is language. So is a toilet. So is the way we are taught to
perceive the world by our parents -- thou shalt see only that which is
physically present, and ignore the "ghosts" of your imagination. Laws
are oppressive. So is etiquette. These are semi-ridiculous examples
I jokingly posted about over the last few days, but arguments can be
made for the validity of each of these.
Does that mean they need to be incorporated into the ideology of
"surrealism"? Must they become part and parcel of the original
message? No. To preach that you're not a surrealist unless you hate
toilets and shit on the floor is ridiculous. To say that you are
against the liberation of the mind if you happen to like capitalism or
religion is equally ridiculous.
Listen: I'm not even arguing whether or not capitalism or religion
are oppressive forces. I will even ackowledge that in most
circumstances, yes, it's true. Does that mean that they MUST become
part of the surrealist message? I don't think so.
Consider how many people would agree with the idea "liberating the
mind is a good thing, and something we should strive for." They might
even like some of the methods surrealism suggests to do this, such as
spontenaity, automatic writing, and other nifty tricks.
Now say, "religion oppresses the mind; believe this or you're not a
surrealist." Blammo, you've lost a huge chunk of the people that were
with you. Now say "capitalism oppresses the mind; believe this or
you're not a surrealist." Blammo, another huge chunk, gone. Now say,
"Communism is a part of surrealism; believe this or you're not a
surrealist." And once again, blammo, people are out the door. Your
movement becomes isolated and ridiculous. You're left with two or
three people who agree whole-heartedly with you. Everyone else has
left, given up.
And yet those who left agreed with the core principle, the one you're
fighting for, that the imagination, the mind, should be free.
I'd like to hear your opinion on one of the questions I asked in my
original post: would it be a good thing to make surrealism more
accessable to people? Would paring surrealism down to a core belief,
discarding the extras, be a good thing? Even if you personally feel
that capitalism and religion are oppressive, does it benefit
surrealism to incorporate this into the beliefs of the movement?
That's the key to what I'm saying.
Don't preach to me that capitalism is bad, in the sense that it
oppresses the imagination. I agree with you. Don't preach to me that
religion -- I would specify "organized religion" -- oppresses the
imagination. I agree with you. But I question the need to attach
these to the CORE VALUE that the mind should be freed, that we should
struggle to release our imaginations.
I suspect that if I said to a "feminist" that the core value of
feminism should be "men and women are of equal value", and that the
idea that all men are evil should be dropped, she would argue in much
the way you're arguing now.
"You can't drop that. It's obvious that men are evil, that the
patriarchy oppresses women, that lesbianism is the key to granting
women real freedom and real power. You're trying to weaken the
movement, reduce it, destroy it."
That most women DON'T think men are evil should be an issue within
feminism, shouldn't it? That most women DON'T want to be lesbians,
but want financially equality -- shouldn't that be what feminism is
all about?
And if most people want to "liberate the imagination", but don't see
capitalism as inherently bad, isn't it responsible to ackowledge that?
You can go on believing capitalism is bad -- I won't stop you. You
can even spend your time trying to convince others it's bad. But why
should it be part of surrealism, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE?
>Your lack of knowledge of the history of the Tao and the theory
>of Buddhism is what makes you such a flaky, new age, crystal sucking, moron,
>Taoist, asshole. The Tao de Ching was originally written for a king on how
>to rule his people.
I don't see what this has to do with the issue at hand, so I won't
bother responding to it.
Nikolaus Maack
>this was a lousy troll Nik
It wasn't a troll. On this topic, I am completely serious. I'm
asking questions I think that need answering.
>I have never killfiled anyone in this ng yet but I am considering killfiling
>you.
>Please dont answer this post either, or I will do so.
You have to do what you think is right. If you feel that killfiling
me is necessary, I would actively encourage you to do so.
Leo Sgouros
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:3822b6b4....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Is there a "core belief" to surrealism, under all the accumulated
> "clutter"? If surrealism were defined as this core belief alone,
> would it be an artistic/philosophical view that more people would find
> appealing? Do you, personally, *want* to make surrealism accessable
> to everyone? Would making surrealism accessable -- reducing it to a
> core concept -- somehow reduce the significance of surrealism?
>
> My stance -- which you don't want to hear because I'm a flakey, new
> age, crystal sucking, moron, taoist, asshole -- is that the core
> belief of surrealism is:
>
> Promoting the use of intuition and irrationality to understand and
> explore your world. This way, one can "liberate the imagination".
> Imagination is good, useful, and worth exploring.
>
> All the other beliefs that have been attached to this core belief --
> such as anti-religion, anti-capitalism, and communistic points of view
> -- only makes surrealism less accessable and less interesting. Sure,
> you can believe in these things. There are valid arguments that such
> stances promote a liberated imagination. But insisting that you
> *must* believe them in order to be considered a "real surrealist" only
> hurts the surrealist cause.
when _you_ speak of "reducing [surrealism] to a core concept", you are
advocating a simplification which would strip away all its marvelous vital
complexity (you call it "clutter") and leave something hollow and dead.
because you consistently view cognitive processes, like the imagination, as
self-enclosed things (tools) that are, or are not, "useful" (or "good" or
"worth exploring"), your arguments are forever reaching for that against
which such "utility" can be measured. and since "utility" is a concept
which only has meaning relative to a specific human's specific goal (that
is, "utility" is the _product_ of cognition) you remain trapped in your own
gravity.
the human cognitive process is intrinsically exploratory (open, and ever
expanding in complexity).
but it _is_ easy to identify the fundamental surrealist project, without
diminishing "surrealism" in the least, when one recognizes it as an (open)
process which emerges from such cognitive exploration in a collaborative
effort to enhance our reality-as-experienced.
[ i've offered my description of this dozens of times in one sentence. ]
nobody is insisting you must believe in anything -- quite the opposite.
"belief" of any kind is alien to this process.
"anti-religion, anti-capitalism, and communistic points of view" are not
"other beliefs that have been attached to [a] core belief", they are
_conclusions_ reached via theoretical exploration of the implications of the
ever evolving body of surrealist theory -- or purely intuitive recognitions
of the same implications depending on which surrealist we speak of.
and as the case of "communistic points of view" clearly shows, this theory
evolves and expands and is perfectly capable of reconsidering those
conclusions and discarding those which are found no longer compatible with
"surrealism" _as it exists among living surrealists_.
and this is what you continue to fail to understand, Nik: that "surrealism"
(since it can only be accurately -- if somewhat obliquely -- described as
the aggregate of all surrealists acting in furtherance of the surrealist
project) is a _process_ which involves (demands) continuous exploration and
experiment as a collaborative venture toward enhancing every day living.
"surrealism" isn't something _you_ believe, or something _you_ do, or
something _you_ use to liberate _your_ imagination so as to improve _your_
creativity.
"surrealism" has no "utility".
"surrealism" is not an end in itself. it is not the goal of surrealists to
make "surrealism" more popular.
"surrealism" isn't a "thing" that can be considered apart from the context
of the entire community of living surrealists.
"surrealism" has no attributes.
-- 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
==============================================
dale houstman
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:3822938a....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> (Watch out. I've been doing some thinking.)
>
You said "everything is true" but I must say I don't believe this is
true. Everything you say proves that you have ceased to understand what a
thought might consist of.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> So is language. So is a toilet. So is the way we are taught to perceive
the world by
> our parents -- thou shalt see only that which is physically present, and
ignore the
> "ghosts" of your imagination.
Language and toilets are *tools*. The way we are taught by our parents is a
*social system of using tools*. Do you not see the difference?
> Now say, "religion oppresses the mind; believe this or you're not a
surrealist."
> Blammo, you've lost a huge chunk of the people that were with you.
Typical of a capitalist such as yourself to prefer quantity over quality.
> I'd like to hear your opinion on one of the questions I asked in my
original post: would > it be a good thing to make surrealism more
accessable to people?
Accessibility by manipulation is all you've suggested. That would achieve
nothing.
> Would paring surrealism down to a core belief, discarding the extras, be a
good
> thing?
The core belief has consequences you are not ready to deal with. You want to
generalize. Take you generalizations and stick 'em up your salivating
shitter!
> Even if you personally feel that capitalism and religion are oppressive,
does it benefit
> surrealism to incorporate this into the beliefs of the movement?
Yes. Man [or woman] must be free for his [or hers] mind to be free.
> I suspect that if I said to a "feminist" that the core value of feminism
should be "men
> and women are of equal value", and that the idea that all men are evil
should be
> dropped, she would argue in much the way you're arguing now.
You are making drastic mistake here. Feminism and Surrealism exist on two
different plains. The Surrealist Movement was started and continues, never
*breaking up* as you would have us believe. It runs in a coherent line with
very few offshoots [two that I know of: Abstract Expressionism, and the
Situationist thread]. Feminism is a *cultural phenomenon* caused by the
*notion* of women's liberation, and will never desolve as long as there are
strong women. There is no doctrine, just the need of women to fight agianst
oppression. Because it is a *notion* felt by oppressed women who feel the
need to revolt, it is a *cultural phenomenon* and has many interpretations,
just like African-Americans, Native Americans, or Latinos who fight against
oppression. The *notion* of revolt leaves room for many offshoots.
Brandon J. Freels
> Thank you. My experience of some of your arguments, Nik, was that
> they were against surrealism...maybe that you are.
I agree. Nik understands little of Surrealism and just as little of Taoism
and Buddhism. I would like the ask Nik *why* he is at alt.surrealism. As I
have said before his presence at this newsgroup is no different than the
presence of a theist on alt.atheism. So I asked him again, "Nik, why are you
here? What is your intention?"
Nikolaus Maack
Victorians" post. Some interesting stuff there, even if I don't agree
with all of it.
"Brandon writes:
>I agree. Nik understands little of Surrealism and just as little of Taoism
>and Buddhism. I would like the ask Nik *why* he is at alt.surrealism. As I
>have said before his presence at this newsgroup is no different than the
>presence of a theist on alt.atheism. So I asked him again, "Nik, why are you
>here? What is your intention?"
I think I've expressed this before, but let's see if I can do a better
job of it -- I'm a philosophical thief. When I encounter a
philosophy, I take the parts that suit me, and discard the rest.
Despite your insistence that I don't understand taoism and buddhism, I
do. I've done extensive reading, mostly on taoism. Buddhism is
something I've studied through conversation with a buddhist friend of
mine.
I also understand chunks of surrealism, but I reject most of what
people claim are "core elements" that they insist can't be discarded.
The anti-religious principle most of you talk about is an "anti
organized religion" principle, and I can completely agree with that.
However, I see no contradiction between surrealism and personal
religion.
Most of the complains levelled against religion, in this newsgroup,
have to do with the church fathers preaching to the masses what they
are supposed to believe. Yet, it is possible to be a "religious"
person, and not be stuck inside such a model.
I don't consider myself an "anti-surrealist". On many levels, I
consider myself quite in concert with surrealist beliefs. Just not
all of them. For example, I really do want to free my imagination,
free my mind. The method most of you describe to going about doing
this -- reject religion, oppose capitalism -- strike me as naive at
best, and foolish at the most.
Barrett talks about how surrealism isn't about freeing *your* personal
imagination. This makes me especially nervous -- does this mean that
surrealism feels it knows what's in the best interests of the entire
world? We shall free the world from its shackles? We shall overthrow
all that stands against us? Yes, that kind of thinking makes me
*very* nervous.
That, and my personal bias -- Barrett might call it my personal
failing -- is that I want a philosophy to relate to my personal life.
If it doesn't, I see no reason in considering it.
The very idea that a human being *could* say, "Yes, I agree with
*everything* that is known as the surrealist ideology" strikes me as
ridiculous. I imagine that all of us, as individuals, approach the
surrealist concept in our own way.
I suppose the argument is that the anti-religious, anti-capitalist
stances are essential core beliefs. You must believe that much, but
beyond those beliefs, you can believe whatever you choose?
I disagree. But I tend to do that a lot.
Brandon J. Freels
1. I understand that you are a philosophical thief, but I did not ask what
you *are*. I asked "why are you here?" For example, I am here to communicate
with others who have an interest in and knowledge of the Surrealist project.
So, why are you here?
2. The anti-religious sentiment expressed by Surrealism is not just in
response to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, but also in response
to the hierarchy of the god concept. How can a mind be free if it is
dominated by the hierarchy of gods?
3. Capitalist is a system of banality, used to slowly murder individuals
into mindless miserable shits. Its a game to the elite, and a lie of to the
common man. Its the biggest concentration camp ever made. The individual is
no longer a person, but an object judged by dollars signs, the consumer. How
can a mind be free if it is dominated by the hierarchy of money?
4. Why do you see an individual who rejects religion or capitalism as being
naive?
barrett john erickson
> Barrett talks about how surrealism isn't about freeing *your* personal
> imagination. This makes me especially nervous -- does this mean that
start by understanding what was actually said in the context in which it was
said:
"surrealism" isn't something _you_ believe, or something _you_ do, or
something _you_ use to liberate _your_ imagination so as to improve _your_
creativity.
"surrealism" has no "utility".
dale houstman
Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:01bf28a9$65cd9860$0100000a@bob...
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> <W0CU3.21941$C7.9...@news1.teleport.com>...
>
> > Religion, and capitalism are oppressive forces
>
Sometimes even the largest statements remain true.
> The term "religion" encompasses such things as the various >mainstream
flavours of Christianity, Islam, Judaims, >Hinduism, Buddhism and other well
known religion. It also >includes various "New Age" sects, >Unitarianism,
> Theosophy - as well as less mainstream flavours of the well >known
religion. Liberation Theology, for example, is >Catholic-flavoured
communism.
Everyone is quite aware of what "religion" means. Your list only serves to
support the notion that religions are oppressive. There is not one
organization listed above which does not have - as central tenets - the
suppression of various desires.
>The Taoist Tai Chi Society has a religios basis - perhaps you >could
explain to me how the old arthritic ladies help to >oppress the masses.
"Massess?" Where did you derive the ntion that oppression is always
mass-suppression from? And no one is saying that every member of any
religion is directly an oppressor: no I don't think the woman selling
cookies at the church bake sale is an oppressor. However, the religion she
is supporting is.
And I don't see what age and arthritis have to do with anyone's ability to
oppress another. Money, dogma and arms don't much care how bent the bones of
their users are.
>Then of course there is the incredible variety of the various >"native"
religious beliefs.
Well - yes.
>You are in effect saying that ALL of these different religious >movements
are oppressive.
It's nice when you get the point so quickly.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> The list Michael gave does serve another purpose.
Michael is your ass cleaner and I could care less what he thinks. His
pathetic attempts to clean your mushy mess can't remove the stains from your
underwear.
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> Most people who dislike religion assume that God must, by definition, be a
> large white man in the sky who tells you what to do.
You're making an assumption about *most people who dislike religion.*
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> Are you saying that the reason this man tried to grope you is because he
> was religious?
Of course, and that is why you are trying to grope us.
Brandon J. Freels
> I think it is to your benefit if the desire to murder is "suppressed". I
> sincerely doubt this the sort of "exploration" surrealists want to
> encourage. If anyone disagrees, please come over to my place and assist
> me with my "exploration".
Murder is a response to oppression, but also an act of oppression. It is
part of the dwindling fate that those who act against freedom push onto us,
driving us into the void.
There is no freedom for the enemies of freedom.
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> 1. I understand that you are a philosophical thief, but I did not ask what
> you *are*. I asked "why are you here?" For example, I am here to communicate
> with others who have an interest in and knowledge of the Surrealist project.
> So, why are you here?
Same deal. I just don't agree with everything you term to be part of that
project.
> 4. Why do you see an individual who rejects religion or capitalism as being
> naive?
Most people who dislike religion assume that God must, by definition, be a
large white man in the sky who tells you what to do. That's not the only
definition of God. That's not the only religion. Taoism, for example,
sees the universe as having a flow to it. This can be taken to mean that
God has no face, and is neither good nor evil.
Most people who dislike capitalism assume it's all about exploitation.
They ignore that you have the opportunity to sell your own goods, to be
your own boss, to do things your way. If you don't like your job, you can
quit, go somewhere else, find another job. You can also, if you'd like,
fuck off into the woods and grow your own food and avoid the game.
Capitalism is one of the few systems where, if you don't want to play, you
can take your ball and go home.
Capitalism and religion are not all bad. To assume they are out to get
you, and limiting, is to ignore their good qualities. Like, you have a
dozen different kinds of bread to choose from.
Nik
--
Twelve contorted faces. No lines, no waiting.
Visit The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Michael Voytinsky
<3824122d....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
> The very idea that a human being *could* say, "Yes, I agree with
> *everything* that is known as the surrealist ideology" strikes me as
> ridiculous.
The idea that in order to be a member in good standing of an ideology you
have to believe, or at least actively support, *everything* espoused by the
ideology in question is very common. If this idea was to be abolished, we
would see the end of party politics, trade unions, much of organized
religion, a variety of social and political movements, I mean.... I
mean.... OK, maybe you are on to something here.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
"When entering a health club, make sure there are people leaving.
Otherwise it could be an alien meat processing plant in disguise."
Michael Voytinsky
> Religion, and capitalism are oppressive forces
You are making a sweeping statement about very complex things.
The term "religion" encompasses such things as the various mainstream
flavours of Christianity, Islam, Judaims, Hinduism, Buddhism and other well
known religion. It also includes various "New Age" sects, Unitarianism,
Theosophy - as well as less mainstream flavours of the well known religion.
Liberation Theology, for example, is Catholic-flavoured communism.
The Taoist Tai Chi Society has a religios basis - perhaps you could explain
to me how the old arthritic ladies help to oppress the masses.
Then of course there is the incredible variety of the various "native"
religious beliefs.
You are in effect saying that ALL of these different religious movements
are oppressive.
Again, consider capitalism. Do you mean the extreme version advocated by
Ayn "The Crazy Bitch" Rand? Do you mean the US version of capitalism? The
Canadian version? The Swedish version? (Or do you consider Swedes to not
be capitalist?) What exactly are you opposing?
> them. Think about all the kids who will grow up in the capitalist systems
to
> waste their lives away in a banal system of working five days a week, and
> being pissed of for the remaining two.
What makes you think that some - or a lot - of people will not find
whatever system you espouse to be banal?
Some people actively enjoy working for large soulless corporations. What
gives you the moral right to say that they should be doing something else?
I have met people who got jobs as security guards so that they can have a
lot of leisure time - they got very well-read very quickly. Our current
capitalist society gives you this option. Perhaps the fact that some many
people do not choose it should tell you something about human nature that
you have not considered?
Kristina
news:01bf28a9$65cd9860$0100000a@bob...
> The Taoist Tai Chi Society has a religios basis - perhaps you could
explain
> to me how the old arthritic ladies help to oppress the masses.
I think my cats goes through a better and more indepth thought process
before purring than your comment. What does age or arthritis indeed! have
to do with oppression of lack thereof. I met this old man 75 or so, and
because he didn't speak English, thought he could do with a bit of
assistance (we both speak Croatian). He was a full on Catholic, as much as
you can be, and probably a fascist too, and a policeman in his earlier
days............"back in the old coutry, as they say". anyway, it did not
take him long to corner me between a fridge and chair in his small kitchen
and procedd to grope me. He didn't seem to understand the word no, and I
should have killed the little fucker then and there, but alas, I just left
him be....mistake on my part. This experience, was only one of many that
has taught me that if you think old people are "sweeties" you are mistaken.
Wipe that thought from your face right now! I know lots of nasty old women
as well. This is a perhaps more extreme example of oppression (well spoken
of anyway) here from a so-called god fearing memeber of the
community.....etc Religion is oppressove, don't think otherwise, it is
simple fact.
Old people, like all people have a mind and certain views, they do not
suddenly become a mashed meringue sitting in the sun all hokey pokey and
sweet on life...they retain those views and approaches, and of course, their
oppressive ideals/ideas too.
Kristina.
Nikolaus Maack
"dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Everyone is quite aware of what "religion" means. Your list only serves to
> support the notion that religions are oppressive. There is not one
> organization listed above which does not have - as central tenets - the
> suppression of various desires.
I think it is to your benefit if the desire to murder is "suppressed". I
sincerely doubt this the sort of "exploration" surrealists want to
encourage. If anyone disagrees, please come over to my place and assist
me with my "exploration".
The list Michael gave does serve another purpose. It shows that the idea
that all religion is to be discarded eliminates an enormous quantity of
varied and potentially useful experience.
While a hard core surrealist seems to think it's okay to pick up and play
with a tarot deck, the idea of picking up and playing with a religion is
somehow wrong. Why? It does not logically follow. There are useful
experiences to be mined, here. That alone should cause any surrealist --
someone who is supposedly open to new experience -- to hesitate in
dismissing them all.
Nikolaus Maack
"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> "surrealism" isn't something _you_ believe, or something _you_ do, or
> something _you_ use to liberate _your_ imagination so as to improve _your_
> creativity.
> "surrealism" has no "utility".
(And people say that I'm into vague new age generalities. *grin* )
If surrealism has no utility, why do you, personally, if not believe in
it, then at least, put so much effort into it? Why do you defend it? Why
do you try to explain it? Why do you love it?
And given the above, what on earth is meant by the phrase "liberate the
imagination", which is bandied about here so often? Good lord. You're
about to tell me that it's THE imagination that is being liberated, and
not anyone's imagination in particular, aren't you?
Nikolaus Maack
Insomnia. Bleh. It's 1am in Ottawa, as I read the following.
"Kristina" (bu...@start.com.au) writes:
> He was a full on Catholic, as much as
> you can be, and probably a fascist too, and a policeman in his earlier
> days............
Kristina, your story is a confusing one. You say that an old, fascist,
catholic, former cop, Croatian tried to grope you. You conclude:
> This is a perhaps more extreme example of oppression (well spoken
> of anyway) here from a so-called god fearing memeber of the
> community.....etc Religion is oppressove, don't think otherwise, it is
> simple fact.
Are you saying that the reason this man tried to grope you is because he
was religious?
Nik
dale houstman
Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:80300o$los$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
suddenly become a mashed meringue sitting in >the sun all hokey pokey and
sweet on life...they retain those >views and approaches, and of course,
their oppressive >ideals/ideas too.
>
because when they finally ran his corrupt little ass down into a hole in the
jungle, he had turned into that guy from the Pepperidge Farm commericals
(who, I have on good authority, was the head of the infamous White Knife
racist group and a cannibal to boot!).
If Mike were a bit smarter, he could have begun a real conversation simply
by asking "doesn't civilization require a certain degree of
oppression/repression to function?" While he and I might disagree on this
point, or at the very least on the particulars of the answer, this is the
basis for an adult communion. Simply listing a (non-exhaustible) group of
religions, and pompously presuming we don't know the definition of
"religion" is, of course, pointless. These are the types of conversation
points we might be considering IF this group weren't too often infected with
taoist parrots and middle-brow provocateurs bent on alarming the proles on a
weekend.
DMH
Kristina
say this, so I will.
I am saying that this is "one" example of oppression. I am also saying that
this man was a devout Catholic with pictures of jesus and god and the whole
shabang on his walls. He goes to church, believes in god, yet has no qualms
about forcing himself upon me in this particular situation. Oppression
does not exist without the individual, so you cannot simply define it as an
"abstract" as it has substance.
This is not an issue about sex here. It was the manner in which he went
about it, and in which he treated me in his home. He thought it was his
right and that I would be happy to come to his home a couple of times a
week for money. Yeah, there is more to the story. Anyway, I was responding
to the original post in where the question was "in what way is an old woman
with arthritis oppressive" so if you keep this in context with the question
I was responding to, it makes sense even more. Basically, I was
illustrating that old people are not beyond oppressive attitudes, and do
have the capacity to impose themselves/their ideas upon you...if you let
them. Need I say more, I don't think so.
ooohh, I feel better now.
And yes, basically to summarise your question....alot of religious people
are oppressors and alot of the time mindless tossers who feed their garble
as "sacred" while being rather un-extraordinary people all at once. How
can i respect the mind of anyone that just accepts its okay to hate
something just because their religion tells them to...I don't it frankly
disgusts me. The laziness and justification about life, is just appalling.
I have never met one full on religious person that I found
"interesting"....I find them imposing if anything, because they are quite
often on their "conversion" trail......and hell fixations.
My interest in religion is an aesthetic one...I can't go past some of those
old paintings, they're sensational. Byzantine art is purely sublime to me,
and hey, something about Giotto (beautiful symmetry and structure in his
work, the clarity in them is awesome, and Michaelangelo appeals as well.
Bosch is thickly dark and full....he did some fantastic hell paintings.
Anyway, that's all...
Kristina.
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8035d0$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
Kristina
news:8036v6$ukj$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:80300o$los$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> > Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
> > news:01bf28a9$65cd9860$0100000a@bob...
> > Old people, like all people have a mind and certain views, >they do not
> suddenly become a mashed meringue sitting in >the sun all hokey pokey and
> sweet on life...they retain those >views and approaches, and of course,
> their oppressive >ideals/ideas too.
> >
> Mike would have us believe that Dr. Mengeles couldn't have been an
oppressor
> because when they finally ran his corrupt little ass down into a hole in
the
> jungle, he had turned into that guy from the Pepperidge Farm commericals
> (who, I have on good authority, was the head of the infamous White Knife
> racist group and a cannibal to boot!).
Is this a real person here Dale? LOL....it doesn't really matter, either
way what you say is true. So much goes on that we just don't hear about,
and the worst part is that a big chunk of society is quite happy to turn
their back on the truth...religion is a good example of denial. I love that
word, it just embodies so much..."d e n i a l".........delicious. Oppresion
is based on denial and fear and controlling masses, or individuals...to me,
religion does this so well, and little sheep will lay down in slaughter to
their god's all in the name of "love" and life everlasting.....give me a
break!
>
> If Mike were a bit smarter, he could have begun a real conversation simply
> by asking "doesn't civilization require a certain degree of
> oppression/repression to function?" While he and I might disagree on this
> point, or at the very least on the particulars of the answer, this is the
> basis for an adult communion. Simply listing a (non-exhaustible) group of
> religions, and pompously presuming we don't know the definition of
> "religion" is, of course, pointless. These are the types of conversation
> points we might be considering IF this group weren't too often infected
with
> taoist parrots and middle-brow provocateurs bent on alarming the proles on
a
> weekend.
There are so many things one can have a converstaion about, and it all comes
down to a few things, like you said. I sometimes think i must have the word
"idiot" tattoed on my head...and that the only way people can talk with me
is through gross generalisations based on un-informed ignorant trickles of
what they deem to be thought...
I really don't get it, I must be stupid afterall. I just responded to
Nik... LOL. If there is one thing I find really un-attractive in
communication it is "laziness". (I'm just thinking about people continually
asking me the same question over and over, and the answer is there rather
plainly)....
Yes, the topic about civilisation requiring? benefiting? from a certain
amount of oppression/repression is an interesting one.
what would the world be like if it didn't exist....
I'll think on that.
Kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
Kristina
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:VR9V3.24054$C7.10...@news1.teleport.com...
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
> > Most people who dislike religion assume that God must, by definition, be
a
> > large white man in the sky who tells you what to do.
>
Hi Brandon darling...can you lend me your rock? LOL.
Now Nik thinks that all people that dislike religion (as he puts it) are
white! (to summarise...I can't be bothered too much just wanted to say
hello to you Brandon.....*smile*).
However, what a generalisation!!! We start from one religious group then
someone goes on about all the fucking religions, including indigenous, until
we go back to this view...now we are in fairy floss land where the Clan come
in...
Kristina.
>
>
Kristina
>
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:VR9V3.24054$C7.10...@news1.teleport.com...
> >
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote
> > > Most people who dislike religion assume that God must, by definition,
be
> a
> > > large white man in the sky who tells you what to do.
> >
> > You're making an assumption about *most people who dislike religion.*
>
> Hi Brandon darling...can you lend me your rock? LOL.
> Now Nik thinks that all people that dislike religion (as he puts it) are
> white! (to summarise...I can't be bothered too much just wanted to say
> hello to you Brandon.....*smile*).
Ohhh yuk! I'm shrinking in my seat here, I just realised I said that all
wrong! What I meant was, now Nik thinks that most people that dislike
religion subscribe to the view that they see god as an old white man....you
don't have to be any particular colour for that or cultural background.
Basically dislike of religion spreads through ethnic, cultural and lifestyle
foundations, something like that. "And not everyone that dislikes religion
sees god as such". Fuck, why couldn't I have just used that one sentence
first time round? LOL. Apologies for being so rash in my response
there....
Kristina.
dale houstman
>
> Is this a real person here Dale?
Dr. Mengles or the old guy from the Pepperidge Farm commericals? Be
specific, you little wallabye. And - no - I lied. All in the service of the
revolution, of course...
>I just responded to Nik... LOL.
Of course - my recommendation - most of us should find the strength not to
do this for the most part. I don't know if Nik is the first person to grow
his own troll inside his mind, but I think this may be infectious. Come to
think of it, this zen nougat at my job has a similar disorder: his "logic"
has become a system to avoid knowledge, as if knowledge were a disease. But
it appears to be incurable, and I am tired of talking to the patient with
the twittering echolalia.
> Yes, the topic about civilisation requiring? benefiting? from >a certain
amount of oppression/repression is an interesting >one. What would the world
be like if it didn't exist....
> I'll think on that.
>
Frued - of course - has a lot to say on it, but that's not necessarily
helpful. In "Doors of Perception" (a very Victorian and charmingly quaint
take on mescaline), Aldous Huxley speaks of valves (I think) that are built
into the consciousness to limit our sensory intake. It is these "stops" that
are opened when we take psychedelics, he conjectures. Obviously, there are
limits to our perception. Do these constitute a model for oppression? One
could say that oppression is necessary to keep the "barbarians from our
gates" (which is basically the modern American schemata for Law and Order)
yet there are examples of such dangers being ameliorated through social
incentive and collaboration. Yet there are "gross social violations" that
(always) incarceration or - sadly - death will follow, and we can't deny
imprisonment is an oppression. But short of that, in religion, we are mainly
speaking of the oppression of a wide range of human desires, and - often -
denial of emotions and their replacement with "attitudes and beatitudes"
which - for the main part - allow the persons involved to go on with rapine
and slander but now for the "good" of the victim. One wonders which is
worse: the oppression or the lying about the oppression, so that it comes
disguised as a tool of liberation? Maybe this is a point of departure?
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
"Kristina" (bu...@start.com.au) writes:
> I'm tired of your lazy questions Nik, but I think it is important for ME
> to say this, so I will.
It wasn't a lazy question, but a desire for clarification. See, you
describe a man who gropes you. He's an ex-cop, a Croatian, old, and
religious. For some reason you see his groping you as an example of
religious oppression.
But I could take the same example and say it's an example of an oppressive
Croatian, or an example of how being a cop fucks you up, or how old men
think they can get away with anything. There's no reason to conclude that
it was his being religious that was the main contributing factor.
Many extreme "feminists" would say that the reason he did it is much
simpler -- it's because he's a man, and men can't control themselves.
> I have never met one full on religious person that I found
> "interesting"....I find them imposing if anything, because they are quite
> often on their "conversion" trail......and hell fixations.
I have met many interesting and intelligent religious people. The reason
they tend not to get noticed is because, unlike a lot of religious people,
they don't preach the word of God at any given opportunity. They consider
their religion a private matter, and won't thrust it upon you. Sure,
they'll talk about it if you ask about it, but otherwise, they see no
reason to tell you all about "Jesus!" or whoever it is they like.
It's unfair to assume that all religious people are like the guy on the
streetcorner who is handing out leaflets. Or like the Jehovah Witnesses
who come to your door. It's the equivalent of assuming that all black
people are like the teenagers who spraypaint graffiti on the side of your
building, or that all men are like the rapist they're talking about on the
news.
And this is yet another perfect example of how ackowledging -- or
pretending -- that you don't know anything is useful. It helps you get
over your biases and prejudices if you approach every new experience
without preconceived notions.
For example... I ran into a homeless woman the other day, begging for
change. She had a small guitar and she yelled out, "Hey, handsome! Give
me some money!"
I decided to talk to her for a while, instead of just rushing past. I
consider this exploration of my imagination, but perhaps others would
disagree. Oh well.
"Give me money," she said. "You have a job, and I don't have a job, so
you should give me money."
She was probably in her forties or fifties, dressed rather shabbily. She
definitely couldn't play the guitar. She just strummed it mindlessly --
"Plink! Plink! Plink!"
I reached into my backpack for a twoonie (Canadian two dollar coin) and
said, "I don't really have a job, exactly. I work as a nanny for these
people. They give me room and board, and a bit of money, but not a lot."
Then I dropped the two dollar coin into her guitar case.
She started telling me about how she used to work as a nanny herself, and
how she was quite beautiful when she was younger. "All the wives would
get jealous of me," she said. "They'd look at me and worry that their
husbands were getting excited. That's why they want male nannies now,
like you! They can feel safe that their husbands won't try anything."
I resisted the urge to make a joke about homosexual husbands.
At this point she stood up, took the twoonie out of her guitar case, and
tried to give it back to me. "You keep it," she said. "You need it."
"No, no," I insisted. "When I have money, I give it away and I spend it.
It's okay, really."
She smiled and said thank you, told me to have a nice night, and I went on
my way.
I imagine that this experience goes against what most people think about
panhandlers. We tend to forget they are humans. If they're not human,
it's easier to hate them, and not to feel anything for them.
That same night, another homeless man asked me to go across the street and
buy him a bottle of cooking sherry. He gave me six dollars in change, and
told me he'd already been burned twice that night. People took his cash
and split. He told me, without a trace of irony, that his name was Animal.
I told him my name, and said I'd be right back. I ducked into the store,
and discovered that the shelf where the sherry was that he'd asked for,
was completely empty. I ended up buying him a slightly more expensive
brand, adding some of my own money to his, to make up the difference.
(Scathing sarcasm: I guess the shelf was empty because so many people were
cooking that evening, and needed sherry to add zing to the sauce.)
When I headed back to Animal's corner, he took the bottle from me, thanked
me, and told me how to get to the rooming house I was looking for.
What does all of this mean? Nothing. Except maybe that approaching human
beings with an open mind makes for more interesting experiences. Isn't
that what surrealism is all about -- experiencing things to the fullest?
Assuming all religious people are idiots and perverts and out to oppress
you is just as ridiculous as assuming all homeless people are evil,
inhuman, and nasty.
> My interest in religion is an aesthetic one...I can't go past some of those
> old paintings, they're sensational. Byzantine art is purely sublime to me,
> and hey, something about Giotto (beautiful symmetry and structure in his
> work, the clarity in them is awesome, and Michaelangelo appeals as well.
> Bosch is thickly dark and full....he did some fantastic hell paintings.
You can approach religion in the same way you approach religious art.
Some of the ideas are quite beautiful -- as beautiful as the art work.
Something gets lost in the translation, as people act on the ideals, but
that doesn't change the original beauty of the words. I've taken a few
religious study courses, and they were fascinating for the way they
examined religious ideas, and how people used them, without judging
whether the ideas are "wrong" or "right".
Yes, some religions are oppressive. It's hard not to see veiling a woman
from head to toe as oppressive. But even this religion has some
interesting qualities.
Brandon J. Freels
"As the Taoist pantheon developed, it came to mirror the imperial
bureaucracy in heaven and hell. The head of the heavenly bureaucracy was the
jade Emperor, who governed spirits assigned to oversee the workings of the
natural world and the administration of moral justice. The gods in heaven
acted like and were treated like the officials in the world of men;
worshipping the gods was a kind of rehearsal of attitudes toward secular
authorities. On the other hand, the demons and ghosts of hell acted like and
were treated like the bullies, outlaws, and threatening strangers in the
real world; they were bribed by the people and were ritually arrested by the
martial forces of the spirit officials.5 The common people, who after all
had little influence with their earthly rulers, sought by worshipping
spirits to keep troubles at bay and ensure the blessings of health, wealth,
and longevity."
[from http://www.askasia.org/frclasrm/readings/r000005.htm ]
More hierarchy in Taoism:
"Until recently, scholars mostly thought the religion was a distortion of
the philosophy, but some now argue that the text emerged first from a
religion worshipping the Yellow Emperor along with Laozi (known as
Huang-Lao)."
[from http://hkusuc.hku.hk/philodep/ch/laoency.htm ]
barrett john erickson
> I think it is to your benefit if the desire to murder is "suppressed". I
to speak of a "desire to murder" is to mistake the complex falsifications of
POWER for the authentic and far more fundamental processes of living.
authentic desire may be blindly "selfish", but it is never knowingly
destructive.
desire is life's strange attractor.
Andrea Chen
>
> More hierarchy in Taoism:
> "Until recently, scholars mostly thought the religion was a distortion of
> the philosophy, but some now argue that the text emerged first from a
> religion worshipping the Yellow Emperor along with Laozi (known as
> Huang-Lao)."
> [from http://hkusuc.hku.hk/philodep/ch/laoency.htm ]
This is dishonest Brandon. A few lines down in the same text:
>
>
> Besides the empirically dubious claims about the mystical experiences and the meaning change, the religious
> interpretation of the text faces serious difficulties. (1) The mystical reading, "there is a dao which language cannot
> describe," describes that very dao and is incoherent on its face. Elaborating further on that dao, as religious readings
> take the texts to do, is hard to motivate. (2) If we take seriously the claim that language cannot talk about dao, it must
> rely on a theory of what language can do as much as it does on the concept of the object. We can study that
> philosophy of language with no threat of incoherence (especially since ordinarily dao refers to a linguistic
> object-prescriptive discourse). If we can explain the content and character of Laozi's text using its linguistic theory
> alone, it will undermine any remaining motivation to postulate the mystical experience and accuse Daoists of changing
> the meaning of they key term in their critique of Confucianism.
In other words while "some now argue" the religious roots, the authors
of the text that you are using for authority find this unlikely. You
are completely distorting what is said. This is *so* standard for you
and your friends when you venture into intellectual territory.
If you were honest, you might quote texts like the following (from the
same source) which show some compatibility with surrealst goals.
>
>
> How does this line of thought lead to the "abandon knowledge" conclusion? What motivates it is the goal of freedom
> from social control. Laozi treats (prescriptive) knowledge as based on language. Accordingly, knowledge consists of
> arbitrary, historically "accidental" social systems of making distinctions, guiding desires and acting. Laozi then justifies
> "abandon knowledge" as a way to recover our natural, authentic, spontaneous human impulses.
Andrea Chen
>
>
> And do tell, exactly in what way does religion have compatability with
> surrealism...
Read the text *I* quoted. It begins:
> > > Besides the empirically dubious claims about the mystical experiences
> and the meaning change, the religious
> > > interpretation of the text faces serious difficulties.
This is paper Brandon uses to claim that the source of the Lao Tzu is
religion. Yet the paper disputes the religious base of Taoism. To cite
a paper as an authority and then reverse the argument of the paper is
dishonest. So is your approach which ignores the statement that the
religious base is "dubious." Or is it stupidity? Perhaps you don't
understand the meaning of dubious? It means that the authors don't
agree with your and Brandon's assumption.
> I'm curious as to why you think this post is 1). dishonest, and
> 2). How you see the connection and correlation of religion to surrealism.
I explained why it's dishonest. Your second question is a firther
example of this dishonesty. First of all I didn't express my personal
opinion, I simply asked that if texts are going to be used as an
authority that the author's opinions be rendered accurately. Second of
all if I were to follow the author's line of thought it would argue that
the Taoist approach is a "linguistic theory," a way of stepping outside
the realities created by words. This has little to do with "religion."
> You are very vague in your reply.
No I'm not. A text is used as authority, but on examining this text
one finds that it says something very different than what is claimed.
Referance the web page if you doubt me.
>In what way do you see this as akin to surrealism...(refering to
> the above paragraph you feel illustrates something we have missed here).
I said:
>
> >
> > If you were honest, you might quote texts like the following (from the
> > same source) which show some compatibility with surrealst goals.
>
Note I state compatibility with surrealist "goals." I don't say the
methods are the same.
Here is the original source:
> Laozi then justifies
> > > "abandon knowledge" as a way to recover our natural, authentic,
> spontaneous human impulses.
Arguments over methods aside, do you claim that surrealism does not
desire recovery of our "natural, spontaneous, authentic, spontaneous
human impulses?"
This is a goal that the writers of the paper in question claim for the
Lao Tzu and by implication the Chuang Tzu along with other works of
philosophical Taoism.
I know you and your friends pride yourselves on ignorance of other
cultures, but whatever else it might be (and it was a central part of
Sino thought for 3 millinium) taoism is a way of thinking about
reality. When Mao said "when the enemy advances we retreat, when the
enemy retreats we advance" he was borrowing a "paraidgm" from a form of
thought which celebtated the fluidity of water and the flexibility of
bamboo over rigidity. Mao was an athiest, but he still used a Taoist
approach. It was quite successful and adaptions of it were even capable
of stymying the most advanced westen armies as experiences in SE Asia
showed.
Brandon is committed to arguing that taoism is *only* a religion. He
used as a source which argued the opposite (this is dishonesty and a few
mistakes of this type will destroy you in academia or science.)
Whether or not the taoist approach is compatible with the surrealist
approach is another issue, but Brandon's created a strawman, one easily
eemolished by anyone who makes a rudimentary study of the subject.
>
> Kristina.
> Please, be more specific, I'm looking forward to it.
Brandon J. Freels
Jane English] and listing all the contradictions between Taoism and
Surrealism. There were so many that I got bored and stopped. Here are a few
of them:
High and low rest upon each other (2)
[Surrealism is not interested in simply juxtaposing the two but unify them]
If men lack knowledge and desire then clever people will not try to
interfere (3)
[Surrealism is pro-knowledge and pro-desire, Surrealism does not run away
from clever people who interfere, but kicks them in the crotch]
The Tao is the forefather of the gods (4)
[Surrealism has no gods, there can be no forefather for things that do not
exist]
The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead,
He is detached, thus at one with all (7)
[Surrealism is not about detachment, but reattachment]
Better stop short than fill to the brim (9)
[Surrealism says "fill to the brim if you like, indulge in excess!"]
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination (14)
[Surrealism says "There is nothing that is beyond the imagination!"]
Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment,
Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change (15)
[Surrealism loves change, Surrealism is all about desire and fulfillment]
It is more important
To see the simplicity,
To realize one's true nature,
To cast off selfishness
And temper desire. (19)
[Surrealism says, "Do not temper desire, let desire be!"]
Therefore, "Toa is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them. (25)
[Surrealism spits on hierarchies, there is no king in Surrealism]
Kristina
>
> Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:80399p$o7b$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
>
> >
> > Is this a real person here Dale?
>
> Dr. Mengles or the old guy from the Pepperidge Farm commericals? Be
> specific, you little wallabye. And - no - I lied. All in the service of
the
> revolution, of course...
>
> >I just responded to Nik... LOL.
>
> Of course - my recommendation - most of us should find the strength not to
> do this for the most part. I don't know if Nik is the first person to grow
> his own troll inside his mind, but I think this may be infectious. Come to
> think of it, this zen nougat at my job has a similar disorder: his "logic"
> has become a system to avoid knowledge, as if knowledge were a disease.
But
> it appears to be incurable, and I am tired of talking to the patient with
> the twittering echolalia.
Good Morning Dale...
You have made a good point there regarding "avioding knowledge". But, onto
more pertinent issues:
I think my coffee scroll ran away last night, it was morphing into something
else just before it committed suicide jumping off the West Gate
Bridge....(or so I read in the paper this morning).
Anyway...there is only so far to go in communicating with an infected
nougat....
Mmmm.....you've said so much here, and I admit, I don't know much about
Freud and Huxley...aside from a familiarity that rings through my mind...
However, you say "one wonders which is worse........."
I think lying about the oppression is worse. There is so much of it, that
at least if we can see it for what it is and it is exposed, then there is at
least awareness of it taking place. I'm thinking broadly here, but even if
we take it to the more specific areas of religion and what the
so-called-fathers of the church advocate we do in living our lives...is a
farce. An obvious area in Australia (....as I'm sure it takes place
everywhere else) is sexual abuse within the church....(and I'm speaking here
of Catholic, Christian Brothers type set-ups where there are boys schools,
etc...orphanages, etc.) If there is one thing that organised relgion is
good at, it is oppressing the individual in whatever way benefits the
Priest. (shit this is overly simplified...sorry, haven't had a coffee yet,
my squeaky tendrils are still half colied in bed).
Basically, I think lying seems to go hand in hand with oppression, ...does
knowing about oppression make it easier to stand up to then? I'd say
yes...but there are such vast areas of what "community" see as oppression,
and what people agree on. It is a fascinating area. For example we
recently had a referendum here to see if Australia wanted to remain a
Monarchy or whether we'd like to be a Republic. Appalingly so, the
majority of Australians voted for the Queen....Is this oppression? I'd say
the current model is a sham and a fruitcake overly baked for too long
now....but it's just the wider picture...
I'll stop here and go retrive the remainder of my tentacles of thought...
Kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
Kristina
news:382622...@earthlink.net...
> Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> >
> > More hierarchy in Taoism:
> > "Until recently, scholars mostly thought the religion was a distortion
of
> > the philosophy, but some now argue that the text emerged first from a
> > religion worshipping the Yellow Emperor along with Laozi (known as
> > Huang-Lao)."
> > [from http://hkusuc.hku.hk/philodep/ch/laoency.htm ]
>
>
> This is dishonest Brandon. A few lines down in the same text:
>
>
> >
> >
and the meaning change, the religious
reading, "there is a dao which language cannot
> > describe," describes that very dao and is incoherent on its face.
Elaborating further on that dao, as religious readings
> > take the texts to do, is hard to motivate. (2) If we take seriously the
claim that language cannot talk about dao, it must
> > rely on a theory of what language can do as much as it does on the
concept of the object. We can study that
> > philosophy of language with no threat of incoherence (especially since
ordinarily dao refers to a linguistic
> > object-prescriptive discourse). If we can explain the content and
character of Laozi's text using its linguistic theory
> > alone, it will undermine any remaining motivation to postulate the
mystical experience and accuse Daoists of changing
> > the meaning of they key term in their critique of Confucianism.
>
> In other words while "some now argue" the religious roots, the authors
> of the text that you are using for authority find this unlikely. You
> are completely distorting what is said. This is *so* standard for you
> and your friends when you venture into intellectual territory.
What ARE you talking about?
>
> If you were honest, you might quote texts like the following (from the
> same source) which show some compatibility with surrealst goals.
And do tell, exactly in what way does religion have compatability with
surrealism...I'm curious as to why you think this post is 1). dishonest, and
2). How you see the connection and correlation of religion to surrealism.
You are very vague in your reply.
>
> >
> >
> > How does this line of thought lead to the "abandon knowledge"
conclusion? What motivates it is the goal of freedom
> > from social control. Laozi treats (prescriptive) knowledge as based on
language. Accordingly, knowledge consists of
> > arbitrary, historically "accidental" social systems of making
distinctions, guiding desires and acting. Laozi then justifies
> > "abandon knowledge" as a way to recover our natural, authentic,
spontaneous human impulses.
I like exploration and therefore and have no intention of abandoning
knowledge. In what way do you see this as akin to surrealism...(refering to
the above paragraph you feel illustrates something we have missed here).
Kristina.
Galactor5
part. But i do feel that to state all forms of religion are oppressive even to
the surrealist project may be too general of a statement. I don't have any
trouble seeing where this would be quite frequently the case. There are however
so many forms of even just one religion that it is perhaps a stretch to
conclude all are, and without doubt. An example i feel probably wouldn't fall
into the caterogy of an oppressor would be one Japanese form of buddhism i was
involved with for a short time rather early on. At the core consists primarily
the aligning of yourself with the goals you wish to attain and focusing on
world peace (although you are not required to focus on those things, or
anything) - and that, as i recall, is pretty much it's scope. If religion is
described as a system of beliefs, worhshiping, and practices all accepted and
followed in faith, then it could clearly be seen as an oppressor of true
liberty of the imagination.
Another issue I was recently curious about was the role of love in
surrealism's philosophy and the stance early surrealists took towards it. In
other words, i felt it couldn't (or shouldn't) have been dismissed as other
oppressors to the cause ("liberty for the artist from the rules of art"). In
re-reading through some pages in the book 'Modern French Poetry', 1955, these
comments reinforced my notion:
" The two leaders especially, Breton and Eluard, due perhaps to the very
freedom they felt about such problems, discovered in the experience and the
meaning of love a lesson of purity quite opposed to the purity of love's
absence. ...Love is at the same time, paradoxically, our surest way of escaping
from the world and our profoundest way of knowing the world. Paul Eluard is
perhaps the most eminent among the surrealists to maintain a lofty awareness of
this truth. He knows that despite the delirious profrusions of love, it is the
one foce in man capable of breaking through the iron gates of language and
reason: the two obstacles to love which have been inherited from man's age-old
fear of love and its falsely named debilitating power."
pg. 171
Also, the writer remarked about surrealism in general as follows:
" If the realist is concerned with establishing contact between a man and his
life (the physical objects and forces which touch his life), the surrealist is
concerned with establishing the contact between a poet and his destiny (the
physical objects and supernatural forces which form his destiny.) This latter,
the coming together of an artist and his destiny is always the mark of a great
work of art. One has to break with the things that are in order to unite with
the things that may be." -I particularly liked the last sentence.
"...Poetry is the domain of the marvellous (le merveilleux) which becomes so
familiar that it becomes real. The surrealists refrain from analyzing this
experience of the marvellous in order to safegaurd and preserve the power of
the imagination, and thereby belong to the tradition of the visionaries (of the
voyants) who see without explaining."
pg. 147
That's my two yen anyway.
regards,
john
Kristina
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:TZtV3.25034$C7.11...@news1.teleport.com...
> I was planning on reading through the Tao Te Ching [trans. Gia-Fu Feng and
> Jane English] and listing all the contradictions between Taoism and
> Surrealism. There were so many that I got bored and stopped. Here are a
few
> of them:
>
> High and low rest upon each other (2)
> [Surrealism is not interested in simply juxtaposing the two but unify
them]
>
> If men lack knowledge and desire then clever people will not try to
> interfere (3)
what the hell is that....do we have that "everything is everything
philosophy there"....just leave it be, don't touch, don't think, don't do,
yadda yadda......boring. If someone lacks "desire" I'd say they are well
and truly dead, breathing perhaps, but most definately dead. Decayed,
rotten hollow.....etc. A boiled pumpkin has more life than a person with no
desire. Come on, is there such a thing anyway......I san smell oppression
in the air.....spells like tao.
> [Surrealism is pro-knowledge and pro-desire, Surrealism does not run away
> from clever people who interfere, but kicks them in the crotch]
Without desire, really there is nothing...I like my desires, they are
fundamental to me. Oh I like to be interfered with on occasions, keep away
from my crotch though. You are right in the sense that 'interfere' has
certain conotations to it, therefore, i know what you are saying
here....imposing comes to mind.
>
> The Tao is the forefather of the gods (4)
> [Surrealism has no gods, there can be no forefather for things that do not
> exist]
Thank you.....beautiful.
> The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead,
> He is detached, thus at one with all (7)
Yes, lets remain nice and calm and so perfectly at peace in Tao!!! Anyone
that tries to tell me this is not an oppresive religion has got a old rubber
boot for a brain...I don't want to be one with all....how boring. I'd
rather be "one", and that's all.
> [Surrealism is not about detachment, but reattachment]
>
> Better stop short than fill to the brim (9)
another boring imposotion on the whole process of life.......far out, I can
see why you stopped and got bored....
> [Surrealism says "fill to the brim if you like, indulge in excess!"]
>
> The form of the formless,
> The image of the imageless,
> It is called indefinable and beyond imagination (14)
what exactly is the "form of the formless" supposed to mean anyway?
> [Surrealism says "There is nothing that is beyond the imagination!"]
I agree there is nothing that is beyond the imagination....
>
> Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment,
> Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change (15)
oh and again with the lack of desire and movement.......just stilted
garbble!
> [Surrealism loves change, Surrealism is all about desire and fulfillment]
>
> It is more important
> To see the simplicity,
> To realize one's true nature,
> To cast off selfishness
> And temper desire. (19)
Oh and to this I could write a whole essay...
"temper desire" again? Sounds very familiar to me. Denial is so full of
religion....and vice versa if you like it better the other way around.
> [Surrealism says, "Do not temper desire, let desire be!"]
>
> Therefore, "Toa is great;
> Heaven is great;
> Earth is great;
> The king is also great."
> These are the four great powers of the universe,
> And the king is one of them. (25)
I had a huge Toa yesterday, fucking mammoth....couldn't even fit all of it
in my mouth, but I DID try, it just came back out and slapped me in the
face...and said "you're a very bad girl, resist desire!!!" so I bit
it....tasted like rubber. I won't go near that toa again I tell you...
> [Surrealism spits on hierarchies, there is no king in Surrealism]
Thank you Brandon, this was a great read, and it made me laugh too. Love
it!!!
Kristina.
anti-toa girl.
>
>
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:TZtV3.25034$C7.11...@news1.teleport.com...
Good work, Brandon.
> I was planning on reading through the Tao Te Ching [trans. >Gia-Fu Feng
and
> Jane English] and listing all the contradictions between >Taoism and
> Surrealism. There were so many that I got bored and >stopped. Here are a
few
> of them:
>
> High and low rest upon each other (2)
> [Surrealism is not interested in simply juxtaposing the two >but unify
them]
>
> If men lack knowledge and desire then clever people will >not try to
> interfere (3)
> [Surrealism is pro-knowledge and pro-desire, Surrealism >does not run away
> from clever people who interfere, but kicks them in the >crotch]
>
> The Tao is the forefather of the gods (4)
> [Surrealism has no gods, there can be no forefather for >things that do
not
> exist]
>
> The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead,
> He is detached, thus at one with all (7)
> [Surrealism is not about detachment, but reattachment]
>
> Better stop short than fill to the brim (9)
> [Surrealism says "fill to the brim if you like, indulge in >excess!"]
>
> The form of the formless,
> The image of the imageless,
> It is called indefinable and beyond imagination (14)
> [Surrealism says "There is nothing that is beyond the >imagination!"]
>
> Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment,
> Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for >change (15)
> [Surrealism loves change, Surrealism is all about desire and >fulfillment]
>
> It is more important
> To see the simplicity,
> To realize one's true nature,
> To cast off selfishness
> And temper desire. (19)
> [Surrealism says, "Do not temper desire, let desire be!"]
>
> Therefore, "Toa is great;
> Heaven is great;
> Earth is great;
> The king is also great."
> These are the four great powers of the universe,
> And the king is one of them. (25)
> [Surrealism spits on hierarchies, there is no king in >Surrealism]
>
Of course, it won't mean a thing to the "besotted."
DMH
Leo Sgouros
> Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change (15)
> [Surrealism loves change, Surrealism is all about desire and fulfillment]
>
They attain it without having to seek it, Brandon.
Thats is why tao is not profane and vulgar like surrealism-
it doesnt have to try some method to get some place, it allows change to
come to those who practice-it doesnt *dirty* the path with the method-
Do you see the difference?
dale houstman
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KZzV3.7150$4s5....@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Thats is why tao is not profane and vulgar like surrealism-
> it doesnt have to try some method to get some place, it allows change to
> come to those who practice-it doesnt *dirty* the path with the method-
> Do you see the difference?
This is perhaps taoist theory (just as "God grants you forgiveness for your
sins and eternal life) but it is not how it operates in the day to day. I
have seen many taoists and most of them are in an oddly repressed state. To
say it "allows" change to come is pointless without investigating the nature
of that change. Most religious movements attempt to pass themselves off as
natural and inevitable. The Army claims that it just exists to allow young
men to "be all that" they "can be" but that's just advertising too.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
Agreed, mostly.
However these "trappings" are usually ones we as individuals assign, and
what I understand of the surrealist project is that it is these "trappings"
we are fighting against.
_L_
Nikolaus Maack
>I was planning on reading through the Tao Te Ching [trans. Gia-Fu Feng and
>Jane English] and listing all the contradictions between Taoism and
>Surrealism. There were so many that I got bored and stopped.
What's fascinating in this list of yours is the way you constantly
take a poetic statement, and misunderstand it, taking it literally,
and thus missing the entire point. (Oddly enough, I feel like this
happens with MANY of the things I say in this newsgroup.)
You also are guilty of taking one line of text and picking on it,
ignoring the overall scope of the text. Didn't Andrea -- hello,
Andrea! -- just take you to task for this?
>High and low rest upon each other (2)
>[Surrealism is not interested in simply juxtaposing the two but unify them]
If they "rest on each other", they *are* unified. One of the major
points of taoism is the recognition that without HIGH there is no LOW.
Without LONG there is no SHORT, without BEAUTY there is no UGLINESS.
As soon as you define something as BEAUTIFUL, you create ugliness.
The Tao Teh Ching spends chapter after chapter talking about how once
the world was unified -- one, the TAO -- and then humans came along
and divided it all up into concepts. They named things, and thus
caused disorder. This, the Tao Teh Ching says, is the origin of all
confusion and misunderstanding. Its message is that we should return
to a unified simplicity.
>If men lack knowledge and desire then clever people will not try to
>interfere (3)
>[Surrealism is pro-knowledge and pro-desire, Surrealism does not run away
>from clever people who interfere, but kicks them in the crotch]
Who are the clever people in the above? WE are the people who would
call ourselves clever. What should you do if you encounter people who
lack knowledge and desire? Leave them alone. This is a piece of
advice, which you are contorting into something else.
Taoism often talks about keeping to yourself, not bothering to try to
change yourself or the world. Yes, this could be seen as a difference
between taoism and surrealism. The Tao Teh Ching sees all change as
fleeting.
>The Tao is the forefather of the gods (4)
>[Surrealism has no gods, there can be no forefather for things that do not
>exist]
Surrealists often talk about discarding the mystical, and getting to
the real behavior behind the mystical. That is, pick up a tarot deck,
and understand the process behind it, without believing in the ghosts
and the magic. Taoism is promoting the same idea in the above.
Forget Gods. Tao is what existed before Gods. Putting a God on top
of taoism is the same as putting "magic" on top of tarot cards.
>The sage stays behind, thus he is ahead,
>He is detached, thus at one with all (7)
>[Surrealism is not about detachment, but reattachment]
Detached, perhaps, from social pressures and social forces? That's
another BIG concept in the Tao Teh Ching. And surrealism.
>Better stop short than fill to the brim (9)
>[Surrealism says "fill to the brim if you like, indulge in excess!"]
This might be the main difference between taoism and surrealism.
Taoists say only take as much as you need, no more.
>The form of the formless,
>The image of the imageless,
>It is called indefinable and beyond imagination (14)
>[Surrealism says "There is nothing that is beyond the imagination!"]
To take a trick from the Tao Teh Ching, the surrealism that you can
name is not the real surrealism.
What you know is an approximation of an ideal. One cannot know the
ideal, either in the imagination, or in our behavior. Do you
disagree?
(He's killfiled me. Why am I talking to him like he can hear me?)
>Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment,
>Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change (15)
>[Surrealism loves change, Surrealism is all about desire and fulfillment]
Another legitimate difference between taoism and surrealism -- the Tao
Teh Ching says that all things return to the centre. No extremes
last. Struggling to change the world is a futile exercise, as your
changes will always revert back to the centre.
A good taoist, for example, wouldn't bother trying to explain to you
what taoism is. A good taoist would remain silent. When I attempt to
explain taoism to you, I'm really trying to explain it to myself.
>It is more important
>To see the simplicity,
>To realize one's true nature,
>To cast off selfishness
>And temper desire. (19)
>[Surrealism says, "Do not temper desire, let desire be!"]
While the desire issue might be there, the rest is identical to the
surrealist cause -- knowing your own nature, freeing your mind,
liberating your imagination, all amount to the same thing.
>Therefore, "Toa is great;
>Heaven is great;
>Earth is great;
>The king is also great."
>These are the four great powers of the universe,
>And the king is one of them. (25)
>[Surrealism spits on hierarchies, there is no king in Surrealism]
Who is the king in the above? It *can* be taken poetically -- you are
the king. And how can their be a hierarchy if they are all equally
great? In taoist parables, it is not uncommon for a king to encounter
a wise peasant, who teaches the king -- through simple behavior and
simple words -- that the king is an idiot.
A lot of taoist thought is strongly opposed to confuscian beliefs.
The confuscians were into ritual, proper form, and proper respect.
Sons must respect their fathers and all that. Taoists mock this
concept all the time. If taoism has a traditional enemy, it's
confuscius and his ideas of proper behavior and hierarchy.
Nik
---
PSST! Wanna buy a postcard?
Original hand painted art, for cheap. See:
Brandon J. Freels
the differences between Taoism and Surrealism, my Tao Te Ching *magically*
opened to this passage:
"There is no greater sin than desire" (46)
That's all that needs to be said.
Andrea Chen
basis. As illustrated over and over Dale, Barrett, amd Brandon had no
awareness of these. Less than a year ago they were unaware of the
importance of Freud.
On the issue of "myticism" etc. they also rewrite history. In
the early
twenties surrealism had a strong inclination in that direction. Under
the influence of the communist party Breton went to a "materialism"
(Brandon was briefly a "communist" last year out of devotion, but now
he's decided it's incompatible.) After the fling with the communist
party Breton himself returned to a more open minded attitude towards
various mystic forms.
The following quote is relevant because Chinese alchemy is one
of the
many esoteric, mystical, superstitious (though also the base for some
good medicine) doctrines clustered around Taoism. For those who
want some base for why this stuff is of interest, think Jung, Levi
Strauss etc. the whole drift of post WWII thought which finds models and
"archetypes" of the human mind in myths and rituals.
The author of this quote is a chap called Breton. As an aside
to
Kristina this guy was rather important in surrealism and if he claims a
subject is relevant it is, though you don't have to agree with his con
conclusions anymore (since he's dead and can't kick you out,) though of
course if you start taking this line seriously Barret will kick you out
of the surrealist project which means you can't be a surrealist.
>
> "We know that surrealism started from the systematic
> recourse to the unconscious. In the so-called
> reasoning phase of its activity, it worked to make
> the conscious benefit from the results of its
> exploration--that is, it undertook, with what it
> brought back from the depths of the unconscious, to
> extend the limits of the conscious. I think this
> is the beginning of the dialectical approach which
> must bring about the fusion of the two terms in a
> third that surmounts their contradiction. But this
> third term can only be the recognition of the precept
> that governs alchemical philosophy as well as the
> wisdom of ancient China, namely, that the whole
> matter consists of going from conscious action to
> unconscious action. Only unconscious action is
> natural; it alone is capable of accomplishing physical
> and chemical operations which cannot be rendered in
> terms of reason. The ancient Chinese summed it up
> in these words: `Follow nature,' signifying by this
> that `not to do does not mean to do nothing, it means
> not to hinder the course of nature,' and also, `all
> that flows from the source accords with the will of
> heaven.'"
Kristina, as an aside, do some basic research. It's no secret
that
during most of his life Breton was open to mystical ideas. Also use
some common sense. The unifying of opposites (again a quote from
Breton) that Barrett puts in his sig is very similar to the taoist
approach. And *do not* use Nik as an authority on Taoism. That's
erecting a strawman ( a term Brandon failed to correctly define.) It's
dishonest.
Also little Kristina, be wary of the freinds you chose. If
you've been
reading you will note Brandon recently said feminism was an excuse for
misandry (though he's old enough to remember serious wage differences
and people saying women can't be president because they might press the
button during their periods.) The following is his take on anorexia, a
disease most frequent among young women in which they literally starve
themselves in a complicated mixture of self hatred combined with a sense
that they fail to meet some standards of beauty. Brandon finds it
attractive. Like footbinding it's compatible with Barrett's surrealist
project. Remember misogyny was frequent in early surrealism and boys
caught in a fifties mentality (thus chosing a "cool" but safe category
for "rebellion") are not likely to escape it. I realise you are the
bimbo sort whose only idea of "oppression" is when a old fart who paid
you money to come to his house gropes *YOU* and that the idea that other
women (who compete for men like Brandon, Barreet and Dale) being
oppressed is foreign and especially the idea of an internally carried
out oppression, but I thought I'd give you a chance. Ask Brandon to
justify the following remarks. Ask dale and Barret while they found
nothing objectionable in them.
>
>
>
> >> Forum: alt.surrealism
> >> Thread: On The Reactionary Nature Of Self Declared "Surrealists"
> >> Message 2 of 5
>
>
> Subject:
> Re: On The Reactionary Nature Of Self Declared "Surrealists"
> Date:
> 1999/06/28
> Author:
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
> Posting History
>
>
> Andrea Chen wrote
> > But you can't. You can't even see the power and the horror in the
> > grotesque skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a perfumed
> > toilet bowel, though it's a well known that similar images (though
> > different in origin) act as a critique of Rome.
>
> On the contrary, Chen, I find the image of a skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a perfumed
> toilet bowl to be a very beautiful image, thank you very much. There is no horror or grotesque features in this
> image. You are obviously a victim of what society has implanted in your little computer chip of a brain.
zambianboy
Andrea Chen wrote:
> > "We know that surrealism started from the systematic
> > recourse to the unconscious. In the so-called
> > reasoning phase of its activity, it worked to make
> > the conscious benefit from the results of its
> > exploration--that is, it undertook, with what it
> > brought back from the depths of the unconscious, to
> > extend the limits of the conscious. I think this
> > is the beginning of the dialectical approach which
> > must bring about the fusion of the two terms in a
> > third that surmounts their contradiction. But this
> > third term can only be the recognition of the precept
> > that governs alchemical philosophy as well as the
> > wisdom of ancient China, namely, that the whole
> > matter consists of going from conscious action to
> > unconscious action. Only unconscious action is
> > natural; it alone is capable of accomplishing physical
> > and chemical operations which cannot be rendered in
> > terms of reason.
that is beautifully put. a definition without definition. too many peoplein this group are not aware of this. it is the unconscious
that leads the
path, not the concious; but many here feel that through explicit actions
they can become surrealist. i strongly disagree.
it is something that goes beyond, that happens at such a deep and basic
level within you, that you don't even realise its happening. totally unconscious.
Nikolaus Maack
>> "We know that surrealism started from the systematic
>> recourse to the unconscious. In the so-called
>> reasoning phase of its activity, it worked to make
>> the conscious benefit from the results of its
>> exploration--that is, it undertook, with what it
>> brought back from the depths of the unconscious, to
>> extend the limits of the conscious. I think this
>> is the beginning of the dialectical approach which
>> must bring about the fusion of the two terms in a
>> third that surmounts their contradiction.
I am seriously creeped out. This is almost exactly what I have been
trying to say for... for... Jesus, for a long fucking time. In my
mind, one of the very important aspects of surrealism is treating the
subconscious as an equally important voice as the conscious. Use both
voices in your daily life.
This is what most people mistake in surrealism as giving over complete
control to the irrational. Not what I mean, and not the goal of
surrealism. Let your subconscious speak. Too many people try to
oppress that so called "irrational" voice. In many ways, the
subconscious is more rational than the conscious voice. This is
because so few of us pay attention to our subconscious.
>> The ancient Chinese summed it up
>> in these words: `Follow nature,' signifying by this
>> that `not to do does not mean to do nothing, it means
>> not to hinder the course of nature,' and also, `all
>> that flows from the source accords with the will of
>> heaven.'"
Those words Breton is quoting could have been taken straight out of
the Tao Teh Ching.
Andrea, where did you find this Breton quote? What book is it from?
Andrea Chen
>
> Those words Breton is quoting could have been taken straight out of
> the Tao Teh Ching.
>
> Andrea, where did you find this Breton quote? What book is it from?
>
Nik:
This is frustrating and proves Kristina's assertion that you have no
interest in posters with any sympathy to you. You prefer bickering.
Talysman posted it in response to something you said. You will find the
text I just referanced towards the middle.
| Feedback
Subject:
interesting commentary on surrealism and
taoism
Date:
1998/12/20
Author:
Talysman <taly...@softhome.net>
Posting History
in amazement, I beheld ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Nikolaus Maack)
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Of coure Breton never got his hands dirty with
that Buddha nonsense, so I
:)guess that's what's important, er for some of us,
anyway. So you mean to
:)tell me our stupid argument -- religion and
surrealism and Buddhism -- has
:)been muddying surrealism since the 1920s? Wow.
Surrealists (us included)
:)really do suck.
"During these last few years surrealism has
often had
the opportunity of turning to account everything
that
could link the poetry of this last century to
initiatory
tradition. Previously, in _Arcane_17_, which I
wrote
in Canada, I expressed the conviction that the
process
of artistic discovery is invested in the form
and the
means of the advancement of high magic. Today
it is
well established--we have proof of it--that
esoteric
thought has strongly attracted of influenced
most of
surrealism's precursors, such as: Hugo, Nerval,
Bertrand,
Fourier, Baudelaire, Lautreamont, Rimbaud,
Mallarme,
Jarry, Roussel, Kafka. To the extent that
surrealism
obeys historical determinations in passing
through them,
it is plain that it could not skirt the esoteric
in its
turn; that, even though confining itself to
poetic ground,
it would be led to verify certain fundamental
esoteric
theses. Surrealism long since had begun to have
a
presentiment of this; the important thing is
that it
should be assured of it from now on."
I'm sure Brandon is fuming right now and wants to
scream "stop taking the words of these mystics as having
any sort of bearing
on the surrealist project! surrealism has *no*
connection to
magic or esotericism! these may be of *interest* to
surrealists, but only as images to work with, not as
fundamental truths!" but let's keep going with the
quote, to see if this so-called
surrealist will redeem himself and renounce
religion:
gah! sacrilege! this paragraph started out pretty
good, I bet
even Brandon agrees with it... but then the writer
starts talking about Chinese philosophy as if it were a great
truth, and even
quotes from taoist writings! and he states that
unconscious
action can help someone to *literally* perform
alchemy! plus,
here he is talking about "not to do [wu wei] does
not mean to do nothing..." Brandon has already pointed out
that the taoist idea of wu wei is COMPLETELY
INCOMPATIBLE with surrealism. and here
is some *fool* telling us that wu wei is the
ultimate goal and
hidden precept of surrealism!
the scoundrel!
but let's give him one more chance. maybe he'll add
that these
old philosophies and mystical beliefs are only false
attempts to grasp the truths of surrealism, although I
have to admit he's
pretty much proven himself unfamiliar with the
background and the goals of the surrealist project as Brandon
and Barrett have so
thoroughly described it. carry on, mystic:
"In _Surrealism_and_Painting_ I was able to say
that a
work could not be considered surrealist unless
it
attained the total psycho-physical field (of
which the
conscious field is only a small part), and as an
example
I suggested the building of a bird's nest. I
have watched
birds a great deal on Bonaventure Island, off
shore from
Perce; never have I listened to them so much, or
heard
them so well, as in the Canadian forest. In the
present
stage of its evolution I want to say that it is
no longer
only in poetry and art that surrealism aspires
to regain,
to put back into working order, this natural
principle
that bestows on them their plumage and song,
this _tao_
of the Chinese that also assures us that `the
seasons
roll around' and that `the phoenix soars.'
Surrealism
continues to count on this principle, and
intends to
found upon it its effort to bring human conduct
into
equilibrium again, and to restore to humankind a
higher
understanding of life."
NO! more mysticism! and an explicit reference to
taoism! Brandon is spinning in his grave! who is this foul
mystic who has such a complete lack of understanding
for the real aims of the surrealist project?
Andre Breton. this was something he read on
Radio-Canada in 1953.
--
cement jeans are asking buttoned-up farmhouses about
patron
ambiguity.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Andrea Chen
>
> that is beautifully put.
It is a quote from Breton.
> a definition without definition. too many peoplein this group are not aware of this. it is the unconscious
> that leads the
> path, not the concious;
The slogan that Dale used was a few months back "liberation of the
unconscious." However I stressed the point that perhaps we (and this
isn't surrealism but common sense) might also want to be liberated from
the unconscious. So now Dale shifted his slogan to liberation of the
imagination.
Breton's emphasis was on the revelation of the unconscious. This was
why automism was once central. It should be noted that this was an
"artistic" or "social" application of Freudian analysis.
I have argued continually that a promising path for the continued
development of surrealism is taking this early theme and playing with it
in light of later theories of mind. Unfortunatly despite Barrett and
friends pontificating about "science" there is clear evidence that they
not only have failed to catch up with Freud (Brandon holds to the 19th
century view that the unconscious is a place rather than a dynamic.)
There is no familiarity with Dennett who is a modern center of
discussion. And no awareness even of Julian Jaynes who remains a
controversial and intriguing (and despite the far out nature of his
ideas not fully dismissed) figure after 30 years.
What does one do with the "bicameral mind," the claim that
consciousness is a recent development (tied to language) and that the
voices of gods were one half of the brain talking to another? It puts
this discussion of religion etc. in a whole new light since these things
become expressions of the unconscious.
>but many here feel that through explicit actions
> they can become surrealist.
Who? Nik maybe. Brandon, Barrett, Dale are satisfied with a smug
academia inspired rhetoric. There is no action, no movement, just a
ranting about the surrealist project and a dissaproval of modern art
movements. "Poetry slams" are bad, they don't oproduce a "zine" (a word
which indicates rebellion from traditional media) but a "magazine."
It's a group hypnosis, an intoxication which leads and has led to
nothing while claiming to be the center of the world.
> i strongly disagree.
> it is something that goes beyond, that happens at such a deep and basic
> level within you, that you don't even realise its happening.
Maybe, but technique and analysis still have value. Interestingly the
emptying of the mind and the rapid no thought creating of art (or the
shooting of arrows) is thousands of years old and predates Freud. Once
again a shared feature of Taoism (and it's developments) with
surrealism.
Related to discussions here and to the Taoist article I quoted
yesderday I would also claim studies of language are relevant to
surrealism. For example the Vietnames language had no word for "I" as
we know it. Instead one referred to oneself in referance to various
relations (eg. father, brother, neighbor.) In each was a different self
and role. One expects that the result was a "self"y different than the
one Dale and friends take for granted. They are locked into the
perceptions of their language and culture.
Similarly there is an amazuing amount of editing. Brandon wants to
argue that the Lao Tzu is religious. He used as a "proof" a document
which actually claimed the opposite, that this mystical, religious base
was dubious. I quoted parts of the article which stated this.
"Kristina" read these and then demaned why I thought "religion" was
relevant. She was so convinced that Brandon must be right that she
completely oblivious to the text in front of her eyes. I find this
editing of reality fascinating and think it does have connections to
surrealism.
totally unconscious.
Michael Voytinsky
"dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Everyone is quite aware of what "religion" means.
How to you account for the fact that there is considerable amount of
debate about exactly what constitutes a religion?
Everyone seems to agree that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and such are
religions. But how does the term apply to religions that are not
centered on God or gods - such as Buddhism.
How about various "New Age" groups - are they religious?
How would you define religion?
> Your list only serves to support the notion that religions are
> oppressive.
In what way?
If all religion is oppressive, then the Taoist Tai Chi Society is
oppressive. Perhaps you can explain to me how it is oppressive.
> There is not one organization listed above which does not have - as
> central tenets - the suppression of various desires.
Suppression of various desires is the inevitable part of just about
everybody's upbringing. Much of toilet training consists of
suppressing desire - surely not all suppression of desire is a bad
thing?
> cookies at the church bake sale is an oppressor. However, the
>religion she is supporting is.
Please explain in what way all religion is oppressive. So far you are
repeating yourself.
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Galactor5
to me.
Andrea Chen
>
> > cookies at the church bake sale is an oppressor. However, the
> >religion she is supporting is.
She isn't selling cookies at a bake sale. She is performing exercies
in a public park in China.
And she and millions of others like her are the biggest threat
Communist authority has faced so far. Which is why they react so
irrationally to a bunch of "harmless eccentics."
The Communist party tried to determine reality. Mao Tse Tung thought
has declined but the impulse remains. They tried to control all
organization. Now they have lost some control and the vanguard of the
waves rattling the rigid fundamental structure is superstitious little
old ladies (highly respected) and little old men (even more respected)
and functionaries.
We shall see what this leads to, but authority has been fundamentally
questioned, the rock at least a little cracked and in these momentary
fissures (like the fall of the Berlin wall, like things which happened
in the sixties including Prague Spring, like the Kerensky govt, like...)
there is something which is perhaps surrealist; a greater awareness, an
opening of possibilities before the dismal reasserts itself. And
sometimes these moments do lead to real, if incomplete change and even a
greater liberation.
Meanwhile 3 wannabe surrealists in a coffee shop in Peking mourn
because they can't get Dale and Barrett's magazine electronically so
they could join the surrealist project and make it a major publication
with a readership surpassing 6, totally oblivious while the police drag
the little old ladies to jail...
The surrealists pose no threat to the system. They work for the system
by deriding those who do.
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> I am seriously creeped out. This is almost exactly what I have been
> trying to say for... for... Jesus, for a long fucking time. In my
> mind, one of the very important aspects of surrealism is treating the
> subconscious as an equally important voice as the conscious. Use both
> voices in your daily life.
No you haven't been saying this. You've been saying that Surrealism is all
about the irrational. PLONK. I'm killfiling your ass. Finally.
> This is what most people mistake in surrealism as giving over complete
> control to the irrational. Not what I mean, and not the goal of
> surrealism. Let your subconscious speak. Too many people try to
> oppress that so called "irrational" voice. In many ways, the
> subconscious is more rational than the conscious voice. This is
> because so few of us pay attention to our subconscious.
>
> >> The ancient Chinese summed it up
> >> in these words: `Follow nature,' signifying by
this
> >> that `not to do does not mean to do nothing, it
means
> >> not to hinder the course of nature,' and also,
`all
> >> that flows from the source accords with the will
of
> >> heaven.'"
>
> Those words Breton is quoting could have been taken straight out of
> the Tao Teh Ching.
>
> Andrea, where did you find this Breton quote? What book is it from?
>
> Nik
barrett john erickson
"Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38271B...@earthlink.net...
> d it's
> basis. As illustrated over and over Dale, Barrett, amd Brandon had no
> awareness of these. Less than a year ago they were unaware of the
> importance of Freud.
we are well aware of Freud's place in surrealist history.
but i for one reject his reductive (and ultimately reinforcing of the status
quo) analysis of human cognition for a more current model. his metaphors
were based on 19th century cognitive science which has since been rendered
obsolete, and they are in no way central to "surrealism" as it exists today.
> On the issue of "myticism" etc. they also rewrite history. In
> the early
> twenties surrealism had a strong inclination in that direction. Under
> the influence of the communist party Breton went to a "materialism"
> (Brandon was briefly a "communist" last year out of devotion, but now
> he's decided it's incompatible.) After the fling with the communist
> party Breton himself returned to a more open minded attitude towards
> various mystic forms.
as i've said before, "surrealism" is always "of its time". i don't feel
chained by its past, nor do any other surrealists of _our time_.
i know Dale agrees with me when i say that we have no problem acknowledging
where earlier surrealists made mistakes or failed to see things as clearly
as we can now and wound up exploring dead ends.
i said as much only a day or two ago relative to the flirtation with the
French CP. it applies to this mystical period as well.
Breton's inability to see the significance of the science of his time was
yet another clear example. and buying into the sexist perspectives of their
time is still another.
but none of these specifics is central to the surrealist project, merely
paths explored in attempts to further that project.
> The author of this quote is a chap called Breton. As an aside
> to
> Kristina this guy was rather important in surrealism and if he claims a
> subject is relevant it is, though you don't have to agree with his con
> conclusions anymore (since he's dead and can't kick you out,) though of
> course if you start taking this line seriously Barret will kick you out
> of the surrealist project which means you can't be a surrealist.
on the contrary, Kristina has revealed herself to be quite familiar with,
and intuitively in tune with the direction of surrealist thought (past and
present) and anything she said would be taken from that perspective.
you, however, have revealed no affinity with surrealist thought, and
therefore everything you say is treated with the utmost suspicion.
> Also little Kristina, be wary of the freinds you chose. If
> you've been
> reading you will note Brandon recently said feminism was an excuse for
> misandry (though he's old enough to remember serious wage differences
> and people saying women can't be president because they might press the
> button during their periods.) The following is his take on anorexia, a
> disease most frequent among young women in which they literally starve
> themselves in a complicated mixture of self hatred combined with a sense
> that they fail to meet some standards of beauty. Brandon finds it
> attractive. Like footbinding it's compatible with Barrett's surrealist
> project. Remember misogyny was frequent in early surrealism and boys
> caught in a fifties mentality (thus chosing a "cool" but safe category
> for "rebellion") are not likely to escape it. I realise you are the
> bimbo sort whose only idea of "oppression" is when a old fart who paid
> you money to come to his house gropes *YOU* and that the idea that other
> women (who compete for men like Brandon, Barreet and Dale) being
> oppressed is foreign and especially the idea of an internally carried
> out oppression, but I thought I'd give you a chance. Ask Brandon to
> justify the following remarks. Ask dale and Barret while they found
> nothing objectionable in them.
shit, back again to the anorexia exchange again. when will you catch on
that you were the one who was making demeaning assumptions? when will you
quit trying to rewrite the history of this episode?
i repost my comments on this in their entirety.
my response to "Andrea" (from 29jun99) who responded to my response to "iv"
(following all that?):
["iv"]
> > > The anorexic expresses through her own body a
> > > devastating critique of our goals, norms, and values.
> >
[me]
> > shit, gilbert, is this what you're learning in school?
> >
> > anorexia as social critique?
> >
> > i do hope you'll tell us what kind of grade you get on this pompous
> > piece of ascription masquerading as analysis.
> >
>
["Andrea"]
> For a student of desires and also the distortion caused by normal
> cultural values, you are a bit conservative. In other word it's the
>[... most of "Andrea's" long critique of what "she" thinks i think
removed ... ]
> But you can't. You can't even see the power and the horror in the
> grotesque skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a perfumed
> toilet bowel, though it's a well known that similar images (though
> different in origin) act as a critique of Rome.
of course "Andrea" has no idea what i meant, since i offered no explanation
beyond what i actually said above (which was plainly not a comment on
anorexia), and "she" has (by all previous experience) never successfully
understood anything i did say.
"she" will certainly misrepresent this too:
the "power and the horror" is not to be found in the "grotesque skeleton of
a young girl" but in the surrender to the falsifications of the existing
order, a surrender evidenced by "vomiting her dinner into a perfumed toilet
bowel".
still, in my opinion it is far worse to do what gilbert has done, claiming
that "the anorexic expresses through her own body a devastating critique of
our goals, norms, and values". this is not only wrong, since the anorexic
is in fact surrendering to those goals, norms, and values no matter how
destructive they are to her health, but complicitous since it
sentimentalizes that surrender as a model of tragic rebellion.
-- barrett
[ end of repost.... ]
"she" ignored this post and my point and continues to misrepresent my
position.
dale houstman
Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:807jvt$nj9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <802tar$rm1$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone is quite aware of what "religion" means.
>
> How to you account for the fact that there is considerable >amount of
debate about exactly what constitutes a religion?
Yes - there is considerable debate about the detailed naure of gravity, yet
most people can still identify its "presence" - but we aren't debating the
finer points here, we are responding to your pompous assumption that we have
to look up the word "religion" to understand your arguments. We don't. And -
if this debate exists - it is surely not centered about a dictionary entry?
>
> Everyone seems to agree that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, >and such are
religions. But how does the term apply to >religions that are not centered
on God or gods - such as >Buddhism?
It's a fair question (even if not the one we were discussing), and it has
been bandied about in courtrooms and IRS meetings. William James devotes an
entire book to it. Still it doesn't appear to me - outside such specialized
areans - that many people have a difficult time determining what is and what
isn't a religion. There are god-centered religions, and those not
god-centered, as you suggest. A high degree of ritual and mystery (which in
turn calls for priests or experts to interpret signs and texts for the
laymen) seems the usual affair. This is not untrue in Buddhism which has an
immense amount of texts and an educated intelligentsia who interpret them.
And then one has to distinguish between organized and unorganized religion.
Non-centralized religious concerns are often mystical direct knowledge of a
deity events. It may be - as James decided - that the main ingredient of all
religions is the need for transcendence, and a relative disdain for /
avoidance of / dismissal of the physical world versus a numinosity. Buddhism
(which - in some sects - has saints, and demons, and ghosts, and miracles)
certainly fits this mode. The denial of desire is central to most religious
phenomonon. This is why surrealism rejects its power plays.
> How about various "New Age" groups - are they religious?
I would say so, yes - although the question is generalized -
mainly because so many of these sorts of systems were born directly out of
the Theosophist con-game, and build up a pantheon of transcendent devices
not based upon any material observation: crystals, homeopathy, spiritual
communion with nature forces only one step away from deities. It's weak
animism plus a dollop of paganism. both are religions as recognized
universally.
>
> Suppression of various desires is the inevitable part of just >about
everybody's upbringing. Much of toilet training >consists of suppressing
desire - surely not all suppression of >desire is a bad thing?
Barrett address this better than I could. Suffice to say that teaching
someone not to shit on the livingroom floor is a far cry from asking them to
believe in an afterlife, or a hierarchy of universal power.
>
> Please explain in what way all religion is oppressive.
All religions are based on some form of material denial, fostered by the
need to transcend the "merely" physical. Then this system is forced upon the
young as soon as they can open their eyes. First you say that oppression is
a common coin of society, and then you seem to find it difficult to believe
that religions are oppressive. But why not them also? I am not saying that
only religions are oppressive, only (in the context of this ng) that
surrealism has particular philosophical reasons for rejecting religion.
These revolve around the issues of centralized power (Pope, cardinals,
shamans, etc.) and "mystery" which must be guarded and translated, and the
assault on desire.
As for toilet training - if people were to shit anywhere and anytime there
are material consquences of rather dire impact: ask any village in the Third
World in which human feces have gotten into the food and water supply. It
may be traumatic for a child to give up his natural propensity to shit on a
rug, but he is not being told not to shit. Religious oppression is simply
not of this nature; religion will have you suppress the very word
"shit" in the vain hopes of achieving an afterlife. Or it will deny you free
movement in your relationships, so that an unhappy union will be forced to
continue in hopes of some "greater and later good." It will (as it has in
South America) attempt to make you happy with political and economic
injustices all in the name of "our eternal reward." And so on...
DMH
dale houstman
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:CxKV3.3975$rK2.2...@ptah.visi.com...
> i know Dale agrees with me when i say that we have no >problem
acknowledging where earlier surrealists made >mistakes or failed to see
things as clearly as we can now and >wound up exploring dead ends.
Not only do I agree, I think this is precisely why surrealism - in whatever
state - continues to function on a worldwide basis: it invites doubt and
debate over what might be seen as "dogma" by those who would call surrealism
a religion. And it is precisely this inherent "scientific" system of
reinvestigation (which Breton called for as late as Arcane 17) which makes
it imperative to fight the notion that religion can be any part of
surrealism.
From the rest of the Andrea snippets, I can only conclude that she has a
demonstrable inabilty to get off the dime.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
<el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:slrn82eusp...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net...
> Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >To top it all off, last night, after I had sent my original post
concerning
> >the differences between Taoism and Surrealism, my Tao Te Ching
*magically*
> >opened to this passage:
> >
> >"There is no greater sin than desire" (46)
>
> I don't know what translation you're using, but I don't particularly
> care for it. "sin"? Hmm.. anyway, the complete verse reads something
like:
>
> Be cool, get with the Tao, and people will
> have enough to eat.
> Forget the Tao, and you'll probably end up
> beating yourself senseless.
>
> Selfish pride is self-destructive;
> War sucks;
> Walk around blinded by craving, and you'll bump your nose;
> Get with the picture dude,
> The Tao ain't so bad.
>
> Taking little snippets of it out of context is no way to understand
> Taoist thought...
>
> If you are going to pick on Taoism, at least try to understand it first,
> and direct your criticisms at the MEANING of the words, not just the
> out-of-context and wholly misinterpreted snippets that seem to rouse
> such an antagonistic response in you.
>
>
> >
> >That's all that needs to be said.
>
>
> _
Brandon J. Freels
how many times she used my name in her original post? I think she has a
crush on me.
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:CxKV3.3975$rK2.2...@ptah.visi.com...
barrett john erickson
>
> I have argued continually that a promising path for the continued
> development of surrealism is taking this early theme and playing with it
> in light of later theories of mind. Unfortunatly despite Barrett and
> friends pontificating about "science" there is clear evidence that they
> not only have failed to catch up with Freud (Brandon holds to the 19th
> century view that the unconscious is a place rather than a dynamic.)
> There is no familiarity with Dennett who is a modern center of
> discussion. And no awareness even of Julian Jaynes who remains a
> controversial and intriguing (and despite the far out nature of his
> ideas not fully dismissed) figure after 30 years.
as usual, you expose yourself as the one who hasn't quite "caught up" by
making assumptions about what i do or do not know based on your inability to
understand what i've posted. but i'll give you a bit more anyway...
Dennett may be a "modern center of discussion" but i did enough research
(too long ago to remember any detail) to find him not quite "modern" enough.
i ended my research into Dennett early because i had already read Varela
(and understood enactive cognition) and therefore jumped into the evolution
of cognitive science/theory at a later point than Dennett represents (not
only according to my bias, but also chronologically). when i later
attempted to read Dennett, i couldn't get interested because i'd already
examined and rejected many of the basic assumptions and vectors i
encountered in his work (if i remember right i detected a distinct
computational bias). they were easy to spot after all, since most of those
assumptions and vectors were ones i'd long held and only recently shed.
as for Jaynes , same problem. he too has based his work on models created
earlier than the enactivists. having already found a far more marvelous and
seamlessly simple model which i think better addresses clinical and
neurological findings while resolving many of the philosophical paradoxes, i
see no compelling reason to revisit this kind of reductionist approach
(splitting cognition into conscious and unconscious, etc.) . his main (?)
thesis -- this "bicameral mind" (the theory that "consciousness" developed
in humans only recently) -- is simply trivial in my opinion, since it is the
evolving complexity of cognitive processes as a continuum of emerging
complexity which is the salient feature of the enactive model. at what
point someone decides to call observed behavior "conscious" vs.
"unconscious" doesn't interest me.
in my opinion, both Dennett and Jaynes have been or are in the process of
being eclipsed.
so it seems more appropriate (since you are so much more current in such
matters) to reverse this question: how do Dennett and Jaynes respond to
Maturana and Varela? what do _their_ footnotes tell you?
> What does one do with the "bicameral mind," the claim that
> consciousness is a recent development (tied to language) and that the
as i said, _this_ "one" dismisses it as an irrelevant and trivial
anachronism.
so i don't much care what implications it has for religion, etc.
Brandon J. Freels
wrote:
> Taking little snippets of it out of context is no way to understand Taoist
thought...
No more snippets, and the meanings the same. Taoist are anti-desire. Here
are three translations of chapter 46:
46. [trans. Peter Merel]
When a nation follws the Way,
Horses bear manure through its fields;
When a nation ignores the Way,
Horses bear soldiers through its streets.
There is no greater mistake than following desire;
There is no greater disaster than forgetting contentment;
There is no greater sickness than seeking attainment;
But one who is content to satisfy his needs
Finds that contentment endures.
46. [trans. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English]
When the Tao is present in the universe,
The horses haul manure.
When the Tao is absent from the universe,
War horses are bred outside the city.
There is no greater sin than desire,
No greater curse than discontent,
No greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself.
Therefore he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.
46. [trans. Stan Rosenthal]
When the way of nature is observed,
all things serve their function;
horses drawing carts, and pulling at the plough.
But when the natural way is not observed,
horses are bred for battle and for war.
Desire and wanting cause discontent,
whilst he who knows sufficiency
more easily has what he requires.
Leo Sgouros
> Dale spoke:
> >
> > > cookies at the church bake sale is an oppressor. However, the
> > >religion she is supporting is.
>
> She isn't selling cookies at a bake sale. She is performing exercies
> in a public park in China.
>
> And she and millions of others like her are the biggest threat
> Communist authority has faced so far. Which is why they react so
> irrationally to a bunch of "harmless eccentics."
>
> The Communist party tried to determine reality. Mao Tse Tung thought
> has declined but the impulse remains. They tried to control all
> organization. Now they have lost some control and the vanguard of the
> waves rattling the rigid fundamental structure is superstitious little
> old ladies (highly respected) and little old men (even more respected)
> and functionaries.
>
> We shall see what this leads to, but authority has been fundamentally
> questioned, the rock at least a little cracked and in these momentary
> fissures (like the fall of the Berlin wall, like things which happened
> in the sixties including Prague Spring, like the Kerensky govt, like...)
> there is something which is perhaps surrealist; a greater awareness, an
> opening of possibilities before the dismal reasserts itself. And
> sometimes these moments do lead to real, if incomplete change and even a
> greater liberation.
<snip some stuff>
First I wanted to comment that when I clicked on this post I was unprepared
for the way this was presented.
Bravo(and no I am not just cheerleading for Andrea)
Second, I have made many posts to the talk.politics.china and
soc.culture.china ng's about this issue because I feel strongly about it.
Several months ago when this Falun issue broke the surface, at least for me,
I made some comments and some typical outrageous proclamations, stuff like"
Falun should not be backed", etc.
It was the UFO and other modern tales that had become entertwined with the
Qi Gong that caused some concern, because the State could always in some way
create a problem that could have blowback for people here in America, like
the writers of the UFO books or at least the people that continued to
propagate certain stories.This arrest of the student is just the next
logical step in the State's attempted damage control.
My concern is also that some forces here would use these confusing tidal
forces as tools to attempt to push China to some sort of revolution,not just
in thought, but in actual insurrection.
I could have written this whole script.
Since I still have plans for the ideas that I have propagated out on the net
I dont want to get too specific, but if anyone actually read the posts I
tied several ideas together along with the cox report and some statements by
the IPI(the clearing house for official US propaganda).
What this issue has done is opened up several doors of perception(gotta love
it)on both sides-the State and the practicioners.
The State is fearful of the modern tools of communication that this group
has(recall that some people arrested had changed beeper numbers 20
times!)and fearful that a new twist, a modern version "religion" tied to the
already well accepted and much respected Eastern teachings would be a sort
of rallying point that would lead to the loss of power for the Communists.
On top of this if you have the "do-gooders" of the Religious Right jumping
into the fray from here you have the possibility of causing a much more
drastic reaction from the State-
and their reaction has already been very drastic.
What I am going to eventually bring back out is
1-the State cannot hold Falun responsible for ideas, especially ideas that
the leaders themselves already propagated(missile tech, spying, the Chinese
Embassy)
2-I attempted to tie these ideas directly to Falun, UFO's, and American
defense superiority in such a way that if the State goes all the way up the
chain, it will end up implicating itself.
This is a bare outline, but I would be glad to go into more detail if anyone
is interested.
Yes, the Genii is out, and cannot be put back in-
Kristina
Perhaps, I think Brandon (and quite a few others) has illustrated quite well
how tao is oppressive in one of his posts...(anyone can understand it
too)...and the rest of religion?...go and look for yourself. What is it
with the constant same old same old same old. Is this a forum for
supporting total ignoranuses, seeking religious answers???
And hello!!!!....what is it with people constantly asking "what is
surrealism" "how do I know if I'm a surrealist" "what is a surrealist
question" and the whole hoo-hah that follows. I didn't realise the every
couple of days some moron comes in here asking the same old goddam fucking
question over and over again.......there is a thing called the WEB and it
has SITES, so for everyone that feels like arguing why religion is
oppressive over and over, just go and look for it yourself, what is wrong
with some people, do you NOT KNOW how to explore and FEED your own mind? Is
it a surreal newsgroups purpose to keep hashing over and over.........(god I
could do with some of that now)......... I've exhausted myself here. I
decided not to respond to Nik because of his inane questions, and the fact
that the whole situation was becoming rather "freak-like" in its repetitive
consistency. (he has every right to disagree with me, I respect that, I just
thought it was not getting anywhere)....... Is there just more and more of
this.....?
Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:807jvt$nj9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <802tar$rm1$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Everyone is quite aware of what "religion" means.
>
> How to you account for the fact that there is considerable amount of
> debate about exactly what constitutes a religion?
Not to me there isn't.....it is very clear what religion is. As far as you
go though, as I suggested, go and look it up yourself, instead of asking
everyone, Dale may wish to indulge you here, but I'm not interested.
>
> Everyone seems to agree that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and such are
> religions. But how does the term apply to religions that are not
> centered on God or gods - such as Buddhism.
What the hell do you call Budhha then if not a figure of worship and god?
Really, see how banal your argument is....
It's a heirachy, just like all other religions....and there is a central
figuere of worship.....
>
> How about various "New Age" groups - are they religious?
they can all go fuck themselves with their crystals for all I care....
>
> How would you define religion?
I think a wheel barrow full of chocolate at the moment, wrapped up in
hashish. That is MY god...I will bow to the chocolate moose and nothing
else....of course, I use my own definition of "religion" here, because I
CAN! and DESIRE to...
>
> > Your list only serves to support the notion that religions are
> > oppressive.
>
> In what way?
>
> If all religion is oppressive, then the Taoist Tai Chi Society is
> oppressive. Perhaps you can explain to me how it is oppressive.
Get lost and read what I mentioned....you are a trolley are you not?
>
> > There is not one organization listed above which does not have - as
> > central tenets - the suppression of various desires.
>
> Suppression of various desires is the inevitable part of just about
> everybody's upbringing. Much of toilet training consists of
> suppressing desire - surely not all suppression of desire is a bad
> thing?
Yeah, well what can I say....it always goes back to shit and onions doesn't
it. This anal fetish is getting me giddy....
>
> > cookies at the church bake sale is an oppressor. However, the
> >religion she is supporting is.
>
> Please explain in what way all religion is oppressive. So far you are
> repeating yourself.
I think YOU are doing a good job at repeating yourself......go sit on the
loo-loo a while and think it over...while you are suppressing your desire to
shit a big thoughtful response. Spare me the details.....
Kristina.
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
>To top it all off, last night, after I had sent my original post concerning
>the differences between Taoism and Surrealism, my Tao Te Ching *magically*
>opened to this passage:
>
>"There is no greater sin than desire" (46)
I don't know what translation you're using, but I don't particularly
care for it. "sin"? Hmm.. anyway, the complete verse reads something like:
Be cool, get with the Tao, and people will
have enough to eat.
Forget the Tao, and you'll probably end up
beating yourself senseless.
Selfish pride is self-destructive;
War sucks;
Walk around blinded by craving, and you'll bump your nose;
Get with the picture dude,
The Tao ain't so bad.
Taking little snippets of it out of context is no way to understand
Taoist thought...
If you are going to pick on Taoism, at least try to understand it first,
Kristina
What a surprise, I killfile you instantly, and if it were not for Barrett, I
wouldn't of even read this post of yours....what is it with you, don't you
like people ignoring you? I would also take up some reading lessonsif I
were you, you have a crummy way of being wrong in what you
say.........hmmmm, I think the phase you use is "dishonest"?. Poor little
girlie, not only do you spend time talking to me when I'm not even
listening, you obsessively badger Brandon, Barrett and Dale, and anyone that
challenges your involvement in here! Albeit, a mindless boring one. I must
admit mt thoughts extend to seeing you as the only bimbo here. I seek no
approval or recognition from anyone, you on the other hand make a special
effort of chasing everyone around.
> "Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38271B...@earthlink.net...
> > Also little Kristina, be wary of the freinds you chose. If
> > you've been
> > reading you will note Brandon recently said feminism was an excuse for
> > misandry (though he's old enough to remember serious wage differences
> > and people saying women can't be president because they might press the
> > button during their periods.)
Excuse me I can think for myself and I know what Brandon is talking about,
and his views are clearly and well expressed, unlike your mindless out of
tune yoddeling. You don't have to save my soul sister...spare me your
drooling too, I'm not attracted to women who represent a flakey piece of
chewed up dogfood.
The following is his take on anorexia, a
> > disease most frequent among young women in which they literally starve
> > themselves in a complicated mixture of self hatred combined with a sense
> > that they fail to meet some standards of beauty. Brandon finds it
> > attractive.
Yes, I know you follow Brandon around, you can't get enough can you? Are
these the only sorts of relationships you aspire to achieve and experience
in life, where people inevitably can't stand you, and yet you slither along
like a weeping pustulating snake? I know full well what Brandon thinks of
you...we speak of you often Andi baby. I'm sorry, we are getting married
next week, you had better get used to the fact he doesn't love you.......now
go and suck on your bound foot honey bunchken! (I'm writing this as clearly
as possible so that you can understand it, I know you are severly impaired).
Like footbinding it's compatible with Barrett's surrealist
> > project. Remember misogyny was frequent in early surrealism and boys
> > caught in a fifties mentality (thus chosing a "cool" but safe category
> > for "rebellion") are not likely to escape it.
Listen if you think I'm naive, good for you, and if you think me stupid, all
the better. I said I don't need recognition from anyone, and as far as male
oppression goes, can you please tell me a time in HISTORY and ART where it
did not exist? No you can't so go play with your dyslexic dildo......don't
miss your mouth while you're at it. Do you even know anything about art
today or what is happening? Do you even know anything about surrealism
today? I'd say you are stuck in your little "I am a victim of the
patriachy".........well I've got news for you! Not every woman wants to
live like that, there are those among us who do have strong opinions and
think for ourselves, as opposed to clinging to "outmoded" and "laboriously
degrading" theories and approaches. If you get a kick out of being "small"
in your own world, fine, I see it all too often. Women can do anything they
want, have you never heard that? Why do you feel so broken and torn down?
Go and seek counselling, it MIGHT help you.
I realise you are the
> > bimbo sort whose only idea of "oppression" is when a old fart who paid
> > you money to come to his house gropes *YOU* and that the idea that other
> > women
Like I said, read and take it in. I did not get paid to go to his house, I
went to see him out of concern. He lived in the same street as me. It was
upon meeting this old man that he offered me money...Again, your comment
only goes to show how little you know. I think you are feeling rather
oppressed by your own limitations and can't find a way to get above that,
this is not my problem andrea, take it somewhere else and tell someone that
cares....
(who compete for men like Brandon, Barreet and Dale) being
> > oppressed is foreign and especially the idea of an internally carried
> > out oppression, but I thought I'd give you a chance. Ask Brandon to
> > justify the following remarks. Ask dale and Barret while they found
> > nothing objectionable in them.
Are you truly insane? What is fucking wrong with you? Do you really
dislike surrealism that much that you have to go on like a mad person? Get
a life! The rest of your post was just too weird to even touch. I think
you have identity issues, and if you cannot handle another woman questioning
your piddly little views, well too bad. Don't assume anything about me. I
however do not have the time or desire to educate you here any further.
Like I said, I killfiled you instantly....and this way you shall remain.
Last fact: You have no concept or idea (not even a vague one I might add)
of feminism or surrealism...two of my favourtie subjects. I can't
communicate with an asswipe like you, your ideas are already used, well worn
and lack nutrition ....only thing attracted to you is flies.....now Buzz
off!
Kristina.
dale houstman
(since I kill-filed Andrea as soon as I saw her awful name, I will take the
opportunity to respond - just once! - here_
"Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wroe in message
> news:382733...@earthlink.net...
>
> >
>Unfortunatly despite Barrett and friends pontificating about >"science"
there is clear evidence that they not only have >failed to catch up with
Freud (Brandon holds to the 19th
>century view that the unconscious is a place rather than a >dynamic.)
Barrett has answered this in fine fashion - although we all know "Andrea"
(no more than her cheap Canadian knockoff Nik) will not respond to
communications in any way beyond the reassertion of lies and bitter
hostility.
All I have to say is that I have never claimed to be an expert of any sort
on the cognitive sciences. My inuitive feeling about consciousness has
always been that its division into "parts" (even if these units are defined
as "processes") is essentially a compromise with ignorance: Freud had no
access to a wider neurological investigation. If he had, I am certain he
would have written his elegant books upon a different basis. As is he
remains central to the >poetics< of consciousness, and I have no beef with
his place in some pantheon of crucial theories. I simply do not believe in
the subsection of mind. This is based on direct experience, not Andrea's
obviously extensive misreading of the Western and Oriental canon. All I can
say about that is that again it is not a matter of quantity.
DMH
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>are three translations of chapter 46:
You didn't like my translation? But still, I'm not convinced.
What does the Tao Te Ching mean when it talks about "desire"?
Some people like to translate "desire" in Buddhist texts as "attachment,
clinging". Is that a better translation?
Desire for death? Desire to return to the womb? Desire fuelled by hatred?
Desire born of habitual quest for comfort and security?
Desire for a Double Big Mac with Extra-Greasy Fries?
I realize that the direction I'm leading with these questions explicitly
disagrees, at least on a superficial level, with most English translations
of Lao Tze.
But I think most English transations of Lao Tze are probably pretty bad.
With such wide variation between different English translations, it's
worth remembering that in all likelihood, none of them are anything like
the original was.
Speaking in favour of an interpretation of Taoism that is not at odds with
Surrealism, at least not on the grounds of "It's against desire!", we have
already heard from Andre Breton (to no real response so far).
We also have Aleister Crowley.
Crowley's translation of the Tao Te King reads a little differently:
(XXIX)
1. He that, desiring a kingdom, exerteth himself to obtain it, will fail.
A Kingdom is of the nature of spirit, and yieldeth not to activity. He
who graspeth it, destroyeth it; he who gaineth it, loseth it.
((The usurper merely seizes the throne; the people are not with him,
as with one who becomes king by virtue of natural fitness. The usurper
has but the mask of power.))
2. The wheel of nature revolveth constantly; the last becometh first, and
the first last; hot things grow cold, and cold things hot; weakness
overcometh strength; things gained are lost anon. Hence the wise man
avoideth effort, desire and sloth.((Effort is the Rajo-Guna, and makes
one go faster than is natural. Sloth is the Tamo-Guna, and makes one
go slower than is natural. Desire is the disturbance of the Satwa-Guna,
exciting the lust of Change, in one direction or the other, from the
natural.
Crowley was aware that people would read something like "the wise man
avoideth [...] desire" in exactly the way that you have, and he therefore
felt the need to explain more clearly what KIND of desire was meant. Of
course, he did so by referring to the "Satwa-Guna", and I have no idea
what that is.
But anyway, Aleister Crowley did not exactly live the kind of meek,
desire-less, self-supressed life you're trying to paint Taoism as advocating.
Are you still willing to embrace desire if we define it as "the lust of
Change, in one direction or the other, from the natural"?
For the record: I am not from Ottawa - but you'd be surprised at how big the
Ottawa region's local calling area is; I am not a "Nik Maack supporter"; I am
not a Taoist; I am not a Marxist; I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated
with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
_
Andrea Chen
our discussion on the goals of Breton which involved techniques for
revealing the ordinarily unseen dynamics within, integrating the
unconscious into our art and lives (eg. making the unconscious
conscious.)
As noted this topic was too heavy for our 3 heroes and they changed
their slogan from "liberating the unconscious" to "liberating the
imagination" in order to avoid the difficult issues and contradictions
that the real world practice of surrealism brings. Rememeber these are
people who think (like every 15 year old) that they can automatically
disntinguish between "authenic" and "artificial" desires. No need to
read Marcuse or any of the other of dozens of writers who work on such
themes, they just *know* their desires are authenic and that those of
they dislike are artificial.
For example the desire to bicker with Nik is authenic. Dale has
written something like a thousand posts in this crusade and Brandon
isn't far behind. (Note that this desire interfered with all kinds of
things including explorations of the unconscious which could have been
done with this time in a different state of mind.) Related to this is
purity of motive. Our heroes chastise Nik for his own good, though
after a year it does no good.
Note I'm knocking a bit of aggression here. I like it myself.
Kristina had a desire to prove herself a smarty pants and started acting
like a junior high school teacher making all sorts of silly demands like
asking how a text (which merely pointed out that Brandon used selective
quotes to imply that an authority said the Lao Tzu was religious (when
the authority said the opposite)) advanced our knowledge of surrealism
while refusing to read the text I quoted because she knew (Brandon had
told her and she writes poems for Brandon!) that the Lao Tzu was
religious and asking how religion related to surrealism when the point
was that the experts quoted thought it was non religious. So I must
admit I took a little pleasure in gently slapping Kristina. Sophomores
using big buzzwords bore me. A completely unethical desire...
BUT unlike that which possessed Dale, Brandon and now Kristina not an
obsession like the desire to get Nik to admit what he isn't going to
admit.
And we are often possessed by equally irrational, trivial desires.
Indeed it's difficult for most people to be silent and by themselves.
They have to do this and get that and to chatter. Most people spend
their lives driven by such desires.
If the goal is revelation of the unconscious then they get in the way.
The Taoist meditation of simply watching the mind and sometimes the
environment does reveal things which would not otherwise be seen. If
one wants to know even such things as deeper desires, it is necessary to
stop the babble, to conquer desire and look. At oneself and others.
This concept is untenable to the 3 stooges because their desire is to
shut away reality in a morass of big pompous words which say nothing,
which offer no direction, but allow their little cult to believe they
have "liberated the imagination" (though we see no proof) and to engage
in "authentic desires" though there is little evidence of a state of
being that rises beyond banality and spite. But they *believe* and this
is importance. A Taoist reflection and detachment would force them (and
all of us) to confront the relative poverty of our lives.
Nikolaus Maack
>Are you still willing to embrace desire if we define it as "the lust of
>Change, in one direction or the other, from the natural"?
Dale and Brandon both must have read the posts from Barrett (if not
me) where he talks about the two kinds of "desire". One is "authentic
desire" which is an internal yearning for something, an expression of
self. And the other is an "inauthentic desire", a desire brought
about by external forces and not internal ones.
Barrett said (I believe it was Barrett) it's the difference between
wanting "nourishment" and wanting a "Big Mac". One is an internal
need, and the other is a programmed one.
This "inauthentic desire" could be the very desire that the bible, the
Tao Teh Ching, and other religious texts advocate avoiding. Many
religious texts make reference to avoiding desire for the external
world, for external things. These desires are temporary, fleeting,
and provide no real satisfaction.
The text Brandon quoted, saying (paraphrased) "Fill the cup until it
is half full and be satisfied, don't fill it to the brim," could be
taken to mean "Take what you need, and no more." Or, in another way,
"Satisfy your authentic desires, and no more than that."
"Authentic desire" sounds like the desire of spirituality. The need
to express yourself and your true needs. It also sounds vaguely like
the "new age" concepts of knowing your true self, speaking from the
heart, being the real you, etc. etc. Althought some of us would hate
to use those terms.
barrett john erickson
> Although Barret, Dale and Brandon oppose it, let's (temporarily) basde
> our discussion on the goals of Breton which involved techniques for
> revealing the ordinarily unseen dynamics within, integrating the
> unconscious into our art and lives (eg. making the unconscious
> conscious.)
> [etc.]
and "Andrea" used to accuse us "three stooges" of living in the past,
revering Breton and discounting or ignoring anything since him.
but that's the "Andrea" we all remember... when challenged on your own
ground, try to redirect the discussion into stale and barren fields fallow
for years, reframe all response along lines that your challenger finds
irrelevant so they'll simply ignore you and allow you to pontificate
unanswered.
"Andrea", you're still an abyss without allure.
[ how _do_ Dennett and Jaynes answer Maturana and Varela anyway? after all,
Jaynes had nearly 20 years to consider their work, and Dennett is still
alive (if i haven't missed something). ]
Brandon J. Freels
> You didn't like my translation? But still, I'm not convinced.
I have an *acquaintance* who says nearly the same thing about the Bible. His
name is John P. Boatwright. He says that all English translations of the
Bible are all wrong, and that the Book of Genesis the Bible *states plainly*
what scientists are now determining the age of the universe to be, 12.5
billion years. He says that each day that *god* created the universe is
really two billion years, and therefore the creation story fits with modern
scientific discoveries. He has no valid way to authenticated his personal
interpretation. Shit he's annoying.
dale houstman
<el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:slrn82hhlo...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net...
> Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >
> How do you tell an authentic desire from an inauthentic >one?
All desires are authentic. Programmed "needs" are usually associated with
different forms of the inessential. So, while all humans have an easily
discerned tendency to move towards nourishment / companionship / shelter
etc. There is no corresponding "intrinsic" nature that calls for "Milk Duds
/ The Hoochie Hotline / Howard Johnson Inns." These are all socialized.
localized, and exploitable. One can imagine a world without any of these
(and a million similar local manifestations of what Dante decreed as
"pandering"), but not without the others. This is what is meant by
"authentic."
> Do authentic desires ever conflict with each other?
I would say this is obviously so. If you are hungry and desirous of sex at
the same time, one might have to make a decision - or not. However, desires
that are not corrupted by pandering and the "pornography of sensationalism"
may be seen to have some less sugar-driven form of patience.
> Are authentic desires ever (or always) impossible to satisfy?
Yes, although much of this is due to a world that keeps you in a constant
state of non-satiation, so you are prepared to consume. But it is obvious
that at any point a man's thirst or hunger might be far from fulfilled. But
not all desires are there to be satisfied: this is the consumer creed.
Desire (like poetic metaphor) exists for its own elegance; many desires
transcend material gain, and are in fact desires for the poetic. It is this
class of desires that is often exploited by religions and turned to mere
worship and tithing.
>Does freedom of desire imply a quest for satisfaction? Or >does it mean
desire without expectation of satisfaction? Or both?
I think it means that all the powers of authority and oppression have been
nullified in order that man's desires may be sought for in the context of
individual encouragements and restraints. I don't (in my wildest nightmares)
envision a world in which any man's slightest desire is instantly met, only
one in which desire operates without authority from above, or from the
supernatural world, or where those desires are met with self-interested and
corporate exlpoitations. Nothing can guarantee satisfaction (not even a
Milky Way). I think it is somewhat perverse to desire with no expectation...
Desire is an expectation. Still, there is always a chance that expectations
might not be met. And - as in H.G. Wells' Eloi - an instant gratification of
every material desire leads to a certain degree of listlessness. However...
that's scientific romanticism.
DMH
dale houstman
<el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:slrn82hj2l...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net...
>
> Obviously if an addict is "recovering" he has some desire to >get off the
drug, and sometimes just as much to take more of >it. What could you say to
him?
Nothing worthwhile perhaps. I know what you mean, but I don't rank
drug-addiction as a desire, but a corruption of desire by (really) a sort of
"sensationalism" akin to the advertisements for corporate product. The
reasons for addiction are manifold, but one is supposedly that certain
drugs - cocaine and speed for instance - mimic the chemical properties of
body chemistry - adrenalin - and thus a natural process is corrupted by an
overly sensational imitator.This is akin to how a Big Mac (backed by its
numbing yellow and red clown explosion) replaces a man's desire for
nourishment with a need to be in on something inchoately "in." I mean it's
obvious most fast food doesn't activate us to get it by its appeal to our
need to eat, but by associating that desire with a confusing capaphony of
noise and actions and (in McDonalds case) infantilizing scenarios. That plus
the promise of FAST! How much crap is poured on us with the promise of FAST!
At any rate it isn't what I say to the addict, but what I do for him. And -
as always - he has to desire more to get off the drug than he does to stay
on it. For the most part - from what I have seen - most addicts don't get to
this level before they have lost much that is valuable to them.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>How do you tell an authentic desire from an inauthentic one?
>it mean desire without expectation of satisfaction? Or both?
All of these are good questions that I hope Barrett will try to answer
for us. After all, it's his model.
I'm especially curious about how one is supposed to tell an authentic
desire from an inauthentic one. In the model Barrett describes, there
is a desire inside of me, which is real, "authentic", living in a
world trying to fill me full of outside desires, which are
inauthentic, and presumably, false.
This split is a convenient one, as a psychological tool -- actually,
it's little more than a "be true to yourself" concept cloaked in
psychobabble. But it's a useful concept. I admit that I like it,
even though it seems pretty silly. Is it realistic view? Not really.
The line between authentic and inauthentic desire is blurry at best.
How can we tell what is "programming" and what is really "me"?
Presumably all of our authentic desires are based on how we were
raised, and our environment. In other words, all our so-called
"authentic desires" are based entirely on "inauthentic" ones. Social
pressures beyond our control shape us. THEN, when we reach the age
where we can think for ourselves, we try to become "authentic" human
beings.
(Andrea mentions some of these in her post, which Barrett,
unfortunately, didn't bother to look at. Oh well.)
In new age speak, I suspect the only way to tell between an authentic
desire and an inauthentic one is to use your intuition. Trust in
yourself, and go with what feels right. If it doesn't feel right,
then you screwed up. Try again.
(If you want to piss off Barrett, ask God for guidance. *giggle*)
I wonder if Barrett has some funky twenty dollar fillet mignon words
that he can use to describe this process? My own words are probably
good enough, even though they're just penny candy.
Brandon J. Freels
> Anyway, forget about Taoism. I still want to know what you think about
the
> nature of desire.
I can't say it any better than what Dale has posted.
Brandon J. Freels
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/eastglos.htm defines desire as "craving
sensory and mental objects." While the definition is primarily in relation
to Buddhism, am I making an assumption by saying that Taoism agrees with
this definition?
My definition of desire does not seem to disagree with this, but is somewhat
more explanatory: "A biological urge towards the acquisition of some object
(or experience) that appears to promise satisfaction of the urge or
enjoyment in general."
So can we not conclude that what Surrealism wants to liberate is apparently
the same as what the Eastern *philosophies* [I'll use this term since you
*desire* it so] want to repress? Is this not the major difference between
the two?
The Surrealists seem to accept this difference, why can't the new agers?
The one similarity that I find between Taoism and Surrealism is that they
both believe they are following the natural way. The problem is that the
"natural way" is difference for each theory.
As for the concept of the yin and yang I must say that the simple balanced
juxtaposing of two forces is not the same as the complete unification of
those forces. In Surrealism a black and a white fish do not simply become a
black and a white fish in a circle, but one grey fish.
****
P.S. Check out the Catholics' view on Taoism:
http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/14446b.htm
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
> Barrett said (I believe it was Barrett) it's the difference between
> wanting "nourishment" and wanting a "Big Mac". One is an internal
> need, and the other is a programmed one.
How do you tell an authentic desire from an inauthentic one?
Do authentic desires ever conflict with each other?
Are authentic desires ever (or always) impossible to satisfy?
Does freedom of desire imply a quest for satisfaction? Or does
it mean desire without expectation of satisfaction? Or both?
_
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
> name is John P. Boatwright. He says that all English translations of the
> Bible are all wrong, and that the Book of Genesis the Bible *states plainly*
> what scientists are now determining the age of the universe to be, 12.5
> billion years. He says that each day that *god* created the universe is
> really two billion years, and therefore the creation story fits with modern
> scientific discoveries. He has no valid way to authenticated his personal
> interpretation. Shit he's annoying.
heh. Closer to my way of being annoying would be those people who say that
the Bible doesn't reflect accurately what Jesus was like. That he was actually
a radical anarchist hacker surrealist Taoist zen master.
Anyway, forget about Taoism. I still want to know what you think about the
nature of desire.
Leo Sgouros wrote, in another context, something like: "Tell that to a
recovering drug addict..." which I think gets to the heart of the matter.
Obviously if an addict is "recovering" he has some desire to get off the
drug, and sometimes just as much to take more of it. What could you say
to him?
_
Leo Sgouros
> juxtaposing of two forces is not the same as the complete unification of
> those forces.
The point is they cant exist without each other.
In Surrealism a black and a white fish do not simply become a
> black and a white fish in a circle, but one grey fish.
>
Why not?
In surrealism a black/white fish can simply become just that
What I think you need to address is with the tao,what do you empty to fill?
And what do you fill to empty?
And surrealism can give us pieces of the whole by describing where we are in
that process.
Think of a river-
it has two banks
one side can be yang, one side can be yin-
we can allow surrealism to be that river, to borrow from "lifes bandwidth"
pieces of a greater whole but not necessarily structured like a river or
flowing like one.
This is a bit out there but I want to see what happens with this.
dale houstman
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VR8W3.372$KE1....@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
> > As for the concept of the yin and yang I must say that the simple
balanced
> > juxtaposing of two forces is not the same as the complete unification of
> > those forces.
>
> The point is they cant exist without each other.
Of course not, since they are a set of arbitrary characteristics: I mean
COME ON: some food is yin and some is yang, and too much yin can drain the
chi out of your yang? Yin and yang are entirely imaginary concepts, no less
invalid that that human energy field that healing hands people cannot seem
to find blindfolded.
I told the zen-snob at work the other day that I thought the plural of "chi"
was "cheese."
>
DMH>
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
>What I think you need to address is with the tao,what do you empty to fill?
>And what do you fill to empty?
>And surrealism can give us pieces of the whole by describing where we are in
>that process.
>Think of a river-
>it has two banks
>one side can be yang, one side can be yin-
>we can allow surrealism to be that river, to borrow from "lifes bandwidth"
>pieces of a greater whole but not necessarily structured like a river or
>flowing like one.
>This is a bit out there but I want to see what happens with this.
This is right on, I think. Or close enough anyway.
The mistake some taoists make is like clinging to the river-bank.
The mistake some other people make is like claiming that there is no
river-bank.
(And then there's the ordinary mass of people who are just treading water
or struggling to swim up-stream.)
_
Brandon J. Freels
elsam wrote
> The mistake some other people make is like claiming that there is no
> river-bank.
You sound like John P. Boatwright now. He'd say something like: "The mistake
some people make is claiming that their is no god..."
Yadda Yadda Yadda
barrett john erickson
news:3828b036....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net () wrote:
> >How do you tell an authentic desire from an inauthentic one?
> >Do authentic desires ever conflict with each other?
> >Are authentic desires ever (or always) impossible to satisfy?
> >Does freedom of desire imply a quest for satisfaction? Or does
> >it mean desire without expectation of satisfaction? Or both?
>
> for us. After all, it's his model.
Dale's answers have done this quite well.
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
> Desire (like poetic metaphor) exists for its own elegance; many desires
> transcend material gain, and are in fact desires for the poetic.
Dale, I just want to say that I really like your whole post there.
Thanks for the answers.
> I think it is somewhat perverse to desire with no expectation...
> Desire is an expectation. Still, there is always a chance that expectations
> might not be met.
That's the part I'm not sure I understand. That "Desire is an expectation".
_
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
> some people make is claiming that their is no god..."
Bah. So I posted that spontaneously, without much forethought. It wasn't
meant to convince you of anything.
But from this side, you sound a lot like a particular kind of atheist; one
who's seen so much of the same kind of stupidity that he's built himself into
an intellectual bunker, and mistakes anything he doesn't understand for yet
more of the same.
_
dale houstman
<el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:slrn82jofg...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net...
>
> > I think it is somewhat perverse to desire with no >expectation...
> > Desire is an expectation. Still, there is always a chance >that
expectations
> > might not be met.
>
> That's the part I'm not sure I understand. That "Desire is an
expectation".
It strikes me that the desire for something (to some degree) implies the
expectation of achieving that desire: that they are in some manner the same
sort of "motion towards." Surely the disappointment that attends some
frustrated desires lies in the dying away of expectation?
Or not?
DMH
>
>
>
> _
dale houstman
> "Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
> news:3828b036....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> > el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net () wrote:
> > >How do you tell an authentic desire from an inauthentic one?
> > >Do authentic desires ever conflict with each other?
> > >Are authentic desires ever (or always) impossible to satisfy?
> > >Does freedom of desire imply a quest for satisfaction? Or does
> > >it mean desire without expectation of satisfaction? Or both?
> >
> > All of these are good questions that I hope Barrett will try to answer
> > for us. After all, it's his model.
>
> Dale's answers have done this quite well.
>
Barrett."
I desire a hard cider...
DMH
dale houstman
<el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:slrn82j553...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net...
>
> The mistake some taoists make is like clinging to the river-bank.
>
> river-bank.
>
> or struggling to swim up-stream.)
I'm with that "ordinary mass of people" who refuse to allow a river-bank to
be exploited as a mere symbol.
Heraclitus said: "you never step in the same river twice."
I say: "yes, but it's always wet."
DMH
>
>
> _
Brandon J. Freels
> But from this side, you sound a lot like a particular kind of atheist; one
> who's seen so much of the same kind of stupidity that he's built himself
into
> an intellectual bunker, and mistakes anything he doesn't understand for
yet
> more of the same.
Typical. John P. Boatwright would say the same thing: "You just don't
understand my mathematics calculations. If you did you would see that the
Bible say 12.5 billion years in the original Hebrew. God made it all, Jesus
died for our sins."
Shit, he's scary. Here's his homepage:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/index.html. Please don't become like
him.
Nikolaus Maack
>understand my mathematics calculations. If you did you would see that the
>Bible say 12.5 billion years in the original Hebrew. God made it all, Jesus
>died for our sins."
Which is typical of the behavior of the most rabid atheists. "You
just don't understand that there is no God. If you could be rational
about this, you'd understand how foolish you sound. There is no God.
Jesus didn't die for our sins."
Either position takes a personal opinion -- God exists / God doesn't
exist -- and calls it fact. Both are equally unreasonable. There is
no way of knowing. One side says not knowing, we must be
unreasonable, and have faith. The other side says, not knowing, we
must be reasonable, and have no faith.
A surrealist -- in my humble opinion -- should balance both positions.
Doesn't a surrealist aim to temper reason with unreason? So we should
say that not knowing, we must be both reasonable and unreasonable, and
have faith and have no faith. There is and isn't a God.
The tarot deck has a use. It's not really magic, though.
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
> http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/index.html. Please don't become like
> him.
Okay then, I'll keep it in mind that religious texts are dangerous ground.
Many people go astray there. See http://www.melloworld.com/Reciprocality/r6
for an even weirder example.
"Jesus is the ARM OF GOD, and his THIGH confirms it!"
...and you know this guy? Is he fun at parties?
_