neo-surrealist question to brownflwr?
CHENNO
what stands now is that we forge ahead and that we do so with the utmost
conscience, with the most horribly beautiful truths ringing their shrill
laughter to the world and also within each of us.
What he fails to answer is why "we"? need to forge ahead with Surrealism.
I read the site, but am curious to your response here?
Thanks
Angie
CHENNO ôżô
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
barrett john erickson
>Brownflower quotes>>>>
>what stands now is that we forge ahead and that we do so with the utmost
>conscience, with the most horribly beautiful truths ringing their shrill
>laughter to the world and also within each of us.
>
>What he fails to answer is why "we"? need to forge ahead with Surrealism.
perhaps you can explain why you feel a need to ask this question?
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
Andrea Chen
>
> CHENNO wrote in message
>
> perhaps you can explain why you feel a need to ask this question?
>
The answer is now clearly written. Forge ahead, a cliche, a mantra,
this fills the mind with purpose when there is none. Mr. Erickson you
claim the freeing of the imagination is your life's purpose. Have you
freed any imaginations here? Have you opened them even a little? When
Nik states that he would free his own in the hope that it might help
free another you mock him as a "personalist" (shades of Stalin and
Maoist re-education) cast aspersions on his morality, yet it seems to be
hectoring and lecturing not freeing his imagination. What have you
done? What have you tried?
This "forge ahead" seems to be a drug, it fills you with self
importance and accomplishes nothing.
RandmAxess
>perhaps you can explain why you feel a need to ask this question?
>-- barrett
Good question Chenno .... unfortunately it doesn't seem as though the so called
"surrealists" can answer that one. Too bad though, I was looking forward to
the answer. It surely would have been a good chuckle.
The more the data banks record about each one of us, the less we exist.
-Marshall McLuhan
Dale Houstman
>
> This "forge ahead" seems to be a drug, it fills you with self
> importance and accomplishes nothing.
This from a self-professed "button pusher" who wants to take over
the world from her modem.
What (by the way) is wrong about being filled with self-importance?
Or are we only allowed to be filled with your importance?
Dale "I Wish I Were as Well-Educated as Andrea" Houstman
barrett john erickson
RandmAxess wrote in message <19990119111134...@ng10.aol.com>...
i, for one, was uncertain as to CHENNO's intent and wanted clarification
before responding.
but i'll answer _your_ implied interpretation (i.e., that there needs to be
some reason for "surrealism" to "forge ahead" -- correct me if i'm
misinterpreting) ...
Brownflowr stated:
"of what use, though, is speculation? these great men are dead. what
stands
now is that we forge ahead and that we do so with the utmost conscience,
with
the most horribly beautiful truths ringing their shrill laughter to the
world
and also within each of us."
which prompted CHENNO to ask:
> >What he fails to answer is why "we"? need to forge ahead with Surrealism.
i might question the implication of "progress" inherent in Brownflowr's
choice of words, but not the substance of this comment.
the answer to CHENNO's question, as you have (apparently) interpreted it, is
that "forg[ing] ahead" isn't an option requiring justification, but an
imperative intrinsic to the commitment to (surrealist) exploration.
i think Brownflowr recognizes that -- even though his path of exploration
diverges from what one might call its surrealist roots toward the
integration of his belief.
this is one reason why i consider Brownflowr more friend than foe -- even
though he proclaims his break with "surrealism" -- while i consider the
"personalists" more foe than friend, even though they proclaim their support
of "surrealism".
Leo Sgouros
--
there is a river...
go drown in it
Grrrrreeeeeeek Terror
barrett john erickson wrote in message <782mdn$1i2$2...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
you are dragging this from the sky
this is realism you practice
word tool{word2u}
please, disease.,cease,
8^)
CHENNO
rather not.
Besides I think those red little pills make you tired!
zzzzzzzzzzzz
barrett john erickson
RandmAxess wrote in message
>I'm not the one that said surrealism MUST forge ahead....but I would like
to
>know why it MUST forge ahead (from a quote)? What if it didn't? What
effects
i repeat from the very post you are responding to:
the answer to CHENNO's question, as you have (apparently) interpreted it,
[and as you now confirm and reiterate] is that "forg[ing] ahead" isn't an
option requiring justification, but an imperative intrinsic to the
commitment to (surrealist) exploration.
you have clearly stated your indifference to surrealist exploration, so you
feel no such imperative. so this answer cannot satisfy you.
your statements that "surrealism is a dead issue", "hasn't any power outside
of that of pure entertainment" and that it is an "antiquated system of
values and beliefs" betray your ignorance of the subject, and your hostility
to it. so no answer will make sense to you.
your presence in alt.surrealism must mean you are lost.
RandmAxess
>some reason for "surrealism" to "forge ahead" -- correct me if i'm
>misinterpreting) ...
I'm not the one that said surrealism MUST forge ahead....but I would like to
know why it MUST forge ahead (from a quote)? What if it didn't? What effects
would we see if it didn't?....It would have no effect! The governments of the
world would not crumble. Society would not be thrown into chaos. Because
surrealism is a dead issue ... it hasn't any power outside of that of pure
entertainment. Not that thats a terrible thing but its certainly nothing to get
any lofty ideas about. It most certainly is nothing important enough to claim
that it MUST forge ahead. There are things in this world that MUST forge ahead
but the antiquated system of values and beliefs called surrealism isn't even
close to being on the list.
RandmAxess
question...tsk tsk tsk....you've proven the point. I think its laughable how
people in this newsgroup, when cornered, always resort to claiming that so and
so is "ignorant of the subject" or "hostile". (Let me set the record
straight..I am neither) Lets try to avoid those words and instead start giving
examples....real concrete examples of why you feel surrealism is important here
and now. You can't can you? Tell me how my life will be altered if not for
surrealism....tell me how surrealism is some pillar of creativity (or whatever
you feel it is) that MUST forge ahead...I would genuinely like to be
enlightened. Explain yourself and quit hiding behind excuses like "no answer
will make sense to you". If you fail .... YOUR presence in alt.surrealism must
mean YOU are lost.
CHENNO
they resort to the "lack of understanding" or some other shit!
to dance around the subject...
Maybe there is no answer for this question?
or , maybe, there;s to many answers?
or maybe we are all lost?
CHENNO ô¿ô
barrett john erickson
RandmAxess wrote in message <19990121012226...@ng43.aol.com>...
>All that denial and running around and yet....you still can not answer the
>question...
i answered the question twice. but as i said, you cannot be satisfied with
the answer because you insist on demanding some kind of _external_
justification for the _internal_ imperative a surrealist feels to pursue the
surrealist project.
>tsk tsk tsk....you've proven the point. I think its laughable how
>people in this newsgroup, when cornered, always resort to claiming that so
and
>so is "ignorant of the subject" or "hostile". (Let me set the record
>straight..I am neither)
you're previous post offers overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but i'm
willing to reconsider my opinion if given reason (and your simple assertion
is no correction to the record you created with that post).
so i invite you: go ahead, give me reason to reconsider.
>Lets try to avoid those words and instead start giving
>examples....real concrete examples of why you feel surrealism is important
here
>and now.
see the following musings:
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/consitscisurr.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/trick.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/revolution.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/liberian.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/analogy.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/pissing.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/imageday.html
[from which, i assume, you will find no illumination.]
>You can't can you?
it's a matter of rewalking a well worn path i don't find particularly
stimulating anymore. to attempt to enlighten those who prefer darkness is
wasted effort.
if that description doesn't fit you, i'll engage more deeply. but you'll
have to overcome your first impression.
>Tell me how my life will be altered if not for
>surrealism....tell me how surrealism is some pillar of creativity (or
whatever
>you feel it is) that MUST forge ahead...I would genuinely like to be
>enlightened.
the surrealist project is to integrate the liberated imagination into daily
living, thereby enhancing reality as experienced. this is a process
requiring action, it is not something that gets done _to_ you.
and it isn't a NOVA episode or a "learn while you sleep" tape.
you're perfectly free to proclaim "surrealism" irrelevant to _your_ living
and see _no_ reason it _MUST_ "forge ahead" and see _no_ alteration in
_your_ life. you're also perfectly free to surrender _your_ imagination to
the forces of banality if you choose to do so.
if this is your choice, the _most_ you can expect from "surrealism" is an
occasional challenge to your complicity in the existing order, which may or
may not break through you disinterest and provoke some response from you.
but if your project is to liberate your imagination _and_ integrate it into
your daily living, i.e., to begin a quest for that enhanced reality, you
will soon find that the constraints imposed on the imagination are both
personal and social and eventually require action in a social context.
again, the imperative (the "MUST") is a result of the (personal) commitment
to the (social) project. if you don't understand this commitment, you can't
understand the imperative.
>Explain yourself and quit hiding behind excuses like "no answer
>will make sense to you". If you fail .... YOUR presence in alt.surrealism
must
>mean YOU are lost.
i can't force you to understand.
RandmAxess
that I've been given as a response proves the point perfectly. I see that in
his latest barrage, barrett points us to a mess of reasoning at several web
pages @MagneticFields.org. This is wonderful .... the only problem is that it
still doesn't answer the question in fact it doesn't even present any original
ideas. Bourgeois self-importance is nothing more than the status quo....so much
for "forging ahead". Browsing the dung heap of nonsense at Magnetic Fields
leads one even closer to believing the "surrealism" that this poor misguided
individual finds so promising, is in fact nothing more than the same
"duck and hide behind our own idealistic rhetoric" games that we've come to
expect from theologians and politicians...etc. In fact I'm waiting for someone
to resort to the old religious escape and tell me that in order to understand
surrealism today I need to have "faith". Which may not be too far off the mark
since we already have those who seem to feel the words of Breton are some sort
of gospel. Once again .... so much for "forging ahead".
That being the case, I hope someone else will take a shot at answering the
question since barret has tried and failed. But I'm sure somehow he'll see it
as my inability to understand his poorly explained reasoning. That is another
well worn defense mechanism, especially in this newsgroup. I think you may be
right though....maybe there is no answer to the question and we may be left to
face that horror of horrors which these few refuse to accept...that is that
weak ideologies from the past, such as surrealism, have nothing to offer the
present (outside of perhaps a warm blanket against which those to scared to
face todays realities can cuddle in false security)....wouldn't that make the
faithful shudder!
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
-George Santayana
Dale Houstman
> that is that weak ideologies from the past, such as surrealism, have nothing to
> offer the
> present (outside of perhaps a warm blanket against which those to scared to
> face todays realities can cuddle in false security)....wouldn't that make the
> faithful shudder!
Could be; what "strong ideology" are you claiming as an alternative? And,
since "strong ideologies" (ideologies that talk in terms of certainty and hierarchy
rather than Breton's "weak" notions of constant re-evaluation of things) tend
to become somewhat intransigent and authoritarian (and top heavy) what
do you suggest as a counter-measure to this possibility? And why don't you
start another ng using the name of your chosen "strong ideology" as its
title? Then you will be doing something positive.
Surrealism is not a faith, because one of its central tenet (as expressed
by countless people countless times) is that all things must be investigated
anew. Surrealism evolves, just as general knowledge evolves. No one is
asking you to have faith in Surrealism.
As for the original question: why must we forge ahead with Surrealism?
the answer is that I don't know, except to say that the question is an empty
one; it could just as easily be asked "why must we forge aheads with living?"
and the answer is either "we don't have to" (which is obviously true) or
"your question is an empty one." I can only answer it personally; that the
surrealist ideas and programs have made a significant contribution to my
life and the lives of others around me, and that the surrealist notions of constant
re-evaluation of and confrontation with the accepted norms of a society
will always be needed. If you do not believe this, then you already have
formed an answer to the question for yourself, and are setting yourself
beyond re-evaluation. Thus you are of no interest to one who wishes
(against all odds) to transform their personal and social lives.
You should try posting a question that you don't know the answer to.
Anything else is aggressive nihilism. Or is aggressive nihilism one of those
"strong ideologies" that we should be looking into as an alternative to
the weak ideology of continual experimentation?
Dale
RandmAxess
>do you suggest as a counter-measure to this possibility?
I'm not nearly as naive as those such as yourself who would believe that they
have an answer (and especially the answer your giving) thus I'm not so full of
myself as to propose an alternative, nor was it my original intention to do so.
I merely asked a question.
A question which so far seems to have exposed all so called surrealists here
as the "mindless drivelers" that someone once called you. However at least
someone finally gave an answer to the original question: Why must we forge
ahead with Surrealism? And finally truth be known....
>"the answer is that I don't know"
Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous to be spouting
off the virtues of some system when you can't even give a reason for its
continued existence? Sounds like you either haven't a grasp on the system and
therefore are disqualified from answering the question or in fact you do
understand and are content to blindly follow a path that you yourself cannot
even find a reason for. Either way your motives are somewhat questionable. The
fact that the question took this long to finally get one answer is proof that
it was not an empty one.
>the surrealist notions of constant
>re-evaluation of and confrontation with the accepted norms of a society
>will always be needed.
OK now then we get to the bottom of the posting where we suddenly discover from
the above exerpt, that the writer really didn't understand the question. So
maybe I'll rephrase it so that all the people here who are so wrapped up in
finding alternative viewpoints and different methods of understanding, yet
seemingly can't understand anything, will find it easier to comprehend.
Before I do though lets look at the last section of that exerpt.....
> notions of constant
>re-evaluation of and confrontation with the accepted norms of a society will
always be needed.
Thank you Einstein! If you needed Breton and the Surrealists to reveal that
basic truth to you or if you think think the notion began with surrealism, you
are truely living in your own surreality from which you may as well not bother
awakening, reality would be far too devastating for you. However your statement
is irrelevant anyway since the need for fresh outlooks and original solutions
were not under attack by my question. What was being questioned was the need
for surrealism to forge ahead with these.
Why must surrealism forge ahead?Surrealism at its peak answered very few
questions and offered little in terms of original "re-evaluation". I hate to
piss on your parade but contempt for and rebellion against society was not a
new concept that the surrealists conjured up. In fact their methods of doing
such were so ridiculous that no one would ever have taken them seriously enough
to actually consider their "re-evaluations" as anything short of pure
entertainment. Freud didn't ....the communists didn't .... no one did... (this
is one of the reasons Dali became synonomous with the movement much to the
chagrin of those who dislike him and think he blurred the meaning of the
movement...at least he could paint which to the public had far more appeal than
a useless manifesto and the fruitless meanderings of Breton and company...but
thats a different topic)
So I'll rephrase the question .... Given that the investigation of all things
in a new perspective is in fact worth striving for....why must it be under the
title of surrealism? Why must it be surrealism that forges ahead? The very act
of using a dust bin of ideas such as the surrealist movement as a foundation
for your attempts to conjure new ideas or view ideas in some new and
alternative light, more or less proves that your incapable of anything even
remotely similiar to an original idea. Perhaps its time to cut your modernist
apron strings and start looking ahead for yourselves and for the love of God
quit calling yourselves surrealists!!! sheesh! Oh yeah and I wouldn't suggest
calling yourself Disco either. LOL
Attempts at reform, when they fail, strengthen despotism, as he that struggles
tightens those cords he does not succeed in breaking.
- C.C.Colton
CHENNO
Freud didn't ....the communists didn't .... no one did... (this
is one of the reasons Dali became synonomous with the movement much to the
chagrin of those who dislike him and think he blurred the meaning of the
movement...at least he could paint which to the public had far more appeal than
a useless manifesto and the fruitless meanderings of Breton and company..
Thank you!!!! I have tried to make that same point of Dali's impact!!! I could
not agree more with the statememnt above!
And noone will ever agree with everyone!
and so it goes into the melting pot of opinions...
CHENNO ôżô
Dale Houstman
Why so aggresive and full of yourself?
Why so angry that no one had answered the question, then angry because
they did, now angry because someone asked you one. There is medication
for this obsessive disorder of yours.
If you don't want to answer, don't! Why spend so much spite (depriving
your friends & family of its local manifestation) in answering what you do
not mean to answer? Silly. If the best answer to a reasonable question that
you can come up with is "I don't have an answer" you should be a little
more humble in your assessment of those who are at least trying to think of
one. But, of course, you are not here to display your intelligence and if
you were it would take a very small shelf.
Why are you upset that someone tried to answer your question and
you are too deaf to notice them doing it?
If you knew how to read, you would notice that I did not simply say
that I had no answer to your question; I said that your question was
inherently an empty one, and I told you why. I also told you why the
surrealist adventure was worthy of my attention. But, that didn't fit
so conveniently into your glib (and predictably loutish) response. Like
so many you find it so easy to be angry without reason that you never
care to be reasonable without anger. You should try it.
As for taking a long time to answer your question being evidence
that it is not an empty question, all I can say is that one can only ignore
a colic child for so long. Your bleating finally woke us up. However,
the question remains empty. Unless you really think your little piece
of intellectual lint had us all pondering for weeks until we answered. Now
who's full of themselves?
Have you run out of small children to bully in your neighborhood? Or
is this mookish behavior on your part seen as attractive in your part of the
trailer court?
I answered your question, and you don't like the answer. Fine, nobody
is asking you to stay. If surrealism is so stupid to your "sensibilities" may I
suggest you find a discussion on a subject you enjoy?
> Given that the investigation of all things in a new perspective is in fact
worth striving >for....why must it be under the title of surrealism? Why must it be
surrealism that forges >ahead?
Because this is the precise tenet on which surrealism is built. This is not
(as you seem to think) true of all modern movements, many of which are
constituted of a single philosophical viewpoint. Your argument to the
contrary isn't convincing, though it is expected.
I will call myself a surrealist if I wish to! Your rather dumbass comments
reveal you to be incapable of understanding anything of any depth in the
least, and you should be flattered I took this mich time with you. Odds are
you'll be killed in a saloon fight.
Dale
Brandon J. Freels
>Surrealism is the trailer park of the art world.
Brandon:
Surrealism has nothing to do with the art world.
Surrealism has nothing to do with mysogyny.
Surrealism has nothing to do with Salvador Dali.
Surrealism has nothing to do with Pop Art.
Surrealism has nothing to do with deception.
Surrealism has nothing to do with making money.
What the critic writes is only a reflection on him/herself. Chenno I would
suggest you get your head out of your art world ass.
---BJF
RandmAxess
>angry without reason.....?????
Gee Dale I hardly think a posting that ends in laughter (LOL) was "angry" but
if thats the way you saw it perhaps you could seek counseling for your
paranoia. Did I hit a raw nerve perhaps? Upset your little delusions maybe?
Obviously I have since you're now reduced to the child-like response you've
given. Nothing shows your intelligence level (or lack thereof) more than
calling someone a "dumbass". Gee Dale, thats really putting that surrealist
technique of yours to good use....it must have been a sheer stroke of genius
for you to have seen this question in such an alternative perspective that it
would have evoked such a radically different response....I do applaud you and
that wonderfully successful technique! Yes sir I can see now that such a
technique is exactly what will shape the future of mankind!
>Your rather dumbass comments
>reveal you to be incapable of understanding anything of any depth
Wow now theres another stroke of Dales surrealist ingenuity!!! Did you come up
with that spectacularly original thought yourself or did you perhaps quote it
from a thousand other posts in this newsgroup? In case you weren't paying
attention which, throughout your posts it's obvious you weren't, you would have
noticed that we already covered the topic of using such a lame, head in the
sand, tactic to avoid confronting the reality of the topic. I suppose you may
have allowed your paranoia to get the best of you and perhaps weren't thinking
clearly. At any rate I would suggest that you yourself remain lost in your
surrealist delusions that way your ideas are guaranteed to have no effect on
anything other than your own ego and perhaps a few other misguided followers.
I only hope for the sake of any so called neo-surrealist movement that they
never allow you to be their spokesperson! At least not until your sedatives
kick in.....ROFLMAO
CHENNO
is this mookish behavior on your part seen as attractive in your part of the
trailer court?<<<
Dear Dale; After reading this portion of your post, I would love for you to
tell me what makes you superior enough to say trailer court? Is there something
wrong with living in a trailer park?
How tacky of you!
If you think you are going to change society by speaking only to the rich, you
are sadly mistaken.
As for your comments to randmaxess you did not anwser the question, you danced
around it..or spewed out your own anger? I ask?what are you angry about?
Sometimes there are no answers!
And furthermore,how Dali like of you to use the word "mookish"hmmmmmm making
your own words up?
How many scrabble games have you won with that word?
And I am not sure I like your morbific attitude
Surrealism is the trailer park of the art world.
Angie
barrett john erickson
ignorance and reactionary hostility toward "surrealism" in spite of his
claims to the contrary.
can it be that he _lied_ to us when he claimed he was neither ignorant or
hostile?
[i'm SHOCKED, simply SHOCKED that he would do such a thing.]
on the other hand, his continued inability to respond to the simplest of
statements without inverting (or converting) them for the purposes of better
fitting his petulant preconceptions is an easily recognized symptom of the
learning disorder we've seen plenty of recently.
[the most current science indicates that, while this condition _is_ mildly
infectious, a
genetic mutation not usually found among surrealists, must also be present
for it to become active.]
i've made a contribution the Conceptual Dyslexia Support Group in his name.
RandmAxess
>ignorance and reactionary hostility toward "surrealism" in spite of his
>claims to the contrary.
meanwhile barrett has adopted Dales theory of "lets insult those who question
us ..... rather than provide an answer".... still neither have honestly
answered the question put before them....ahhhh the flights of ego soar so high
that one can no longer see the ground.....I thank you all (23 people) who have
e-mailed me in objection to these two maligned individuals and while I agree
that its better to discuss these principles on our own via e-mail rather than
respond to ....as Artnoose put it...."feed the lost causes of Dale barrettt
inc". I can't help but get a certain satisfaction in constantly forcing them to
spew forth their mantras like so many programmed robots. I still stand here
naked so to speak amidst their many insults awaiting an answer to my question
which I've tried to put in a different form so that they (the seemingly nimble
minded) might understand. However even as you Pyntr have said "how can one
state the question more simplistic than merely asking for CONCRETE examples" of
the so called "neo- surrealists" effect on today and the future.
I think it was barrett who said it influenced his life on a daily
basis....sorry if I'm wrong about that barrett (personally I think you and Dale
are the same person)...on behalf of the 50 + individuals in the Fine Arts chat
room of AOL (you people do know what Fine Arts are don't you?) I would like to
address whoever made the statement "surrealist ideas and programs have made a
significant contribution to my life and the lives of others around me"
....maybe it was Dale, that genius of the trailer park haters.
I hate to confuse him/her all the more, but being the inquisitive one in this
thread, I'd now like to pose another question for all to trip over and that is
....Could you please explain...(and I will ask that you do so in "laymans
terms" so as not to invite more useless rhetoric)....CONCRETE examples of the
"significant contributions" that surrealism has made in your life?.....
You were very eager to state the importance of surrealist philosophies in your
life and the lives of those around you so ....once again I am merely asking an
innocent question. Enlighten me if you will as to how these philosophies effect
you "on a daily basis" ....remember...those were your words...so don't start
spouting the familiar rhetoric about expanding understanding blah blah blah or
that I don't understand surrealist theories ... I seek to understand what it is
daily that you do that makes you a self proclaimed surrealist.....do you put
your socks on your ears?...is that what makes you call yourself a
surrealist?.....do you read your mail upside down? ...is that what makes you
call yourself a surrealist? do you answer the telephone with goodbye? ......is
that what makes you call yourself a surrealist? or rather do you just need to
belong to a group of other misguided simpletons who call you their friend and
provide you with some feeling of self importance? ...is that what really makes
you call yourself a surrealist? I dare Dale or barrett to answer this
question..... without rhetoric and without critisizing me for asking !!!! What
is it that you two do on a daily basis that makes you feel that you are
carrying forth the surrealist tradition (which in itself is an oxymoron)? I
assure you there will be many lurkers awaiting your response. And by the way
Dale ....I am laughing as I write this much in the way I smile when I explain
how snowflakes fall to my 5 year old daughter...I am most certainly not angry.
I am however very interested in your response since your typical postings are
as humorous as those of a 5 year old.
Dale Houstman
LOL. Even madman laugh, and so do hyenas.
You are a willful contrary, and I am sure you serve your purpose;
you seem to be exactly the sort of sub-par presence that delights
those who get their delights cheap.
You are loutish when you are responded to, and similarly loutish
when you are not responded to. You only have one setting,
and it's "irritate". Mosquitos often "hit a nerve" also, but they're
not very bright either.
Getting someone's hackles up is easy and cheap. It doesn't even take a
human to do that; animals, plants and machinery can accomplish much
the same. You are a perfect one-trick pony. Another example of a failing
education system.
Dale
RandmAxess
Chenno screamed
>Dear Dale; After reading this portion of your post, I would love for you to
>tell me what makes you superior enough to say trailer court?
a point well made Chenno!....I overlooked it as another example of Dales empty
argument but now that you mention it ....it is rather ironic that someone who
claims to be searching for alternative ways to view society for the benefit
thereof.... blah blah blah..... should expose him/herself so blatantly as a
discriminatory individual....so much for his blasphemous arguments....hopefully
someone with an IQ will answer the question.
RandmAxess
>CHENNO wrote
>>Surrealism is the trailer park of the art world.
>
>Surrealism has nothing to do with the art world.
>Surrealism has nothing to do with mysogyny.
>Surrealism has nothing to do with Salvador Dali.
>Surrealism has nothing to do with Pop Art.
>Surrealism has nothing to do with deception.
>Surrealism has nothing to do with making money.
I agree! But you forgot to mention that surrealism has nothing to do with
today!
CHENNO
CHENNO
would
suggest you get your head out of your art world ass.
Excuse me? I may provide any opinion, I choose.... And you should get your own
head out of your judgemental ass...
My comment to you was in reference to you trailer park comment... How can you
teach or offer info opinions with such a snobbish approach! for someone so
anti$$ you are contradicting yourself?
If you are so "educated" than you should be more able to express yourself
without all this nonsense.
Do you Paint?
Do you write?
or do you just spout out from a book....?
elag
.
.
. _
. . .
. . .
. . . _
. . . . .
. . . . o
. .
>bounce< >bounce<
CHENNO
.Elag joins the game:
.
. _
. . .
. . .
. . . _
. . . . .
. . . . o
. .
>bounce< >bounce<
barrett john erickson
if "RandmAxess" is merely "seek[ing] to understand", as he claims, why did
he ignore attempts to explain where i believe _all_ his "questions" are
fundamentally flawed (i.e., his utilitarian assumptions about "surrealism")?
just what is it he's trying to "understand"?
what he is obviously _not_ trying to understand is _my_ perspective on
anything. i can only conclude that any "questions" he points in my
direction are a pugilistic posture which neither seeks or deserves answer.
Dale Houstman
It's a joke chenno. I have lived in a trailer court also, and I lived in
a closet for a few months also. It's a joke. Or (as some say) LOL.
Unless you really think I am trying to engage you in a sociological
debate on the class posture of trailer parks?
It's a joke chenno. It's a joke. There are larger issues here, or possibly
no issues at all, but this is neither. It's a joke.
Out of the entire dialogue between Randymexcess (or whatever) this is
the biggest nugget you could find to chew on? This is what I mean by
selective and willful aggression; any post can be disagreed with and made
the center of a verbal storm simply by limiting one's focus and going in
with a prejudged attitude. "I am going to find someone to disagree with."
"Ah! He misascribed a quote." Tiny little eurekas go off, and you're running
down the street in a towel.
It's a joke.
Dale
CHENNO
indeed a laughingstock.....
Yes, It is a joke!
Ciao Jester
RandmAxess
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
>today!
Brandon:
YOU ARE CORRECT!!!
Surrealism has EVERYTHING to do with the FUTURE!!!
Brandon J. Freels
CHENNO wrote
>If you are so "educated" than you should be more able to express yourself
>without all this nonsense.
>Do you Paint?
>Do you write?
>or do you just spout out from a book....?
Brandon:
I used to paint.
I still do some collage. Not long ago I posted my collage "Creation Myth").
I write. Go to amazon.com and look up "Freels". In 1996 I had a small book
published by Future Tense Publishing (a local press) entitled "Who the Hell
is Brandon Freels?"
Brandon J. Freels
www.teleport.com/~futuret
Andrea Chen
> meanwhile barrett has adopted Dales theory of "lets insult those who question
> us ..... rather than provide an answer".... still neither have honestly
> answered the question put before them....ahhhh the flights of ego soar so high
> that one can no longer see the ground.....I thank you all (23 people) who have
> e-mailed me in objection to these two maligned individuals and while I agree
> that its better to discuss these principles on our own via e-mail rather than
> respond to ....as Artnoose put it...."feed the lost causes of Dale barrettt
> inc". I can't help but get a certain satisfaction in constantly forcing them to
> spew forth their mantras like so many programmed robots.
This I think is a key to creating an innovative art which takes
advantage of the interactive nature of Usenet. Use Dale, Barret and
Brendon as props. Their reactions are predictable (eg. claim Ronald
MacDonald is the greatest surrealist of our time and Brendon is likely
to start a discussion on it.) If surrealism is to evolve (a neu
surrealism) they offer plenty of real life illustrations on the "social
mind" and the apparently unconscious mechanisms which govern it. As I
have pointed out before they take a well known symbol of noncomformity
and rebellion, claim it as their own and use it to justify a rigid
dogma. The mechanisms they use are dismally familiar, they are exactly
the sort used by parents, schools and other forces of comformity. In
the past they have "won" (Dale's paradigm) by acting with some unity and
drawing individuals who felt uncomfortable with their process (but had
too many differences and too strong a sense of honor to form a similar
mob) into petty disputes defined on their terms. At this stage this
hodge podge greatly out numbers the 3 stooges, yet they are able to make
themselves the center and catalyst of any sustained discusion.
If those who were dissatisfied would start writing their own scripts
(and play into the scripts and themes of others thus (to some degree
connecting the pieces and allowing a complex drama of story, image and
idea to play through time) then the 3 stooges would fall into their
rightful place, their reactions would provide drama and conflict making
the art form more interesting. If you can't use them; then ignore them
and simply try to play into the work of others. But do remember that
the most obvious and shopworn ploys (eg. the 3 stooges are parts of the
"chenity" or the socalled hybrid driven by a mad lust for disorder) can
have effect if everyone pretends to belive him. Can you imagine the
interesting permutations and screeches in dale's prose when he strives
to explain to newcomers that "NO NO NO" he's not really Andrea Chen and
6 others (creating the shared reality which the 3 stooges have so far
been the only ones to impose) expose the game that "Dale" is playing.
I would argue that such an artform is possibly "surrealist" and if
explored and developed would allow loosely joined people to counter far
more sinister socially mantained "pardigms" than those which currently
irritate and drive people from this group.
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Leo Sgouros
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>All those in favor of Ronald McDonald as a surrealist icon raise your
hands!
>---BJF
>
>
Leo/Brandon
Perceptor
>
> I would argue that such an artform is possibly "surrealist" and if
> explored and developed would allow loosely joined people to counter far
> more sinister socially mantained "pardigms" than those which currently
> irritate and drive people from this group.
I find Brandons question to randm axis on 1/25/99 telling to say the least for these
are the very people I feel he would like to drive from this group:
"Do you have any relations to Talysman, Nikolas Maaaacke, or
Andrea Chen?"
CHENNO
say the least for these
are the very people I feel he would like to drive from this group:
"Do you have any relations to Talysman, Nikolas Maaaacke, or
Andrea Chen?"
I am scratching my head at the issues mentioned here?(scratch)
Out of this stream of posts, I found Randmaxess had some very interesting
points! and as far as openess and acceptance of things to the group,Andrea Chen
seems to comment with respect and knowledge,,, She addresses the issues at hand
and offers workable terms, unlike a few posters...I mean really, we are all
here for a reason......
It seems some are attacked for there opinions and minimzed to child-like cat
fights..and all the issues get lost!
In my opinion...Andrea and randmaxess get rave reviews for bringing up viable
points,
I for one care not who wants me here or not..
And the back and fourth pissing contest is getting old!
Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself.
Rita Mae Brown
Brandon J. Freels
>I find Brandons question to randm axis on 1/25/99 telling to say the least
for these
>are the very people I feel he would like to drive from this group:
>"Do you have any relations to Talysman, Nikolas Maaaacke, or
>Andrea Chen?"
Brandon:
Actually, I find these individuals the most likely to drive "Surrealism"
from this group.
barrett john erickson
>If surrealism is to evolve (a neu surrealism)
neu surrealist (n., illiterate)
a neutered pseudo-surrealist, or one who promotes a mutilation of surrealist
theory in which desire is flattened and the "liberation of the imagination"
has been deformed into the "manipulation of buttons."
>they take a well known symbol of nonconformity and rebellion, claim it
>as their own and use it to justify a rigid
"Andrea" has always failed to recognize that "surrealism" isn't a "symbol"
that can be "claimed" or "used".
[it appears to be a common disfunction of the "neu" to treat everything as a
"symbol".]
>[...]
> If those who were dissatisfied would start writing their own scripts
>(and play into the scripts and themes of others thus (to some degree
>connecting the pieces and allowing a complex drama of story, image and
>idea to play through time)
if i weren't familiar with the fundamental emptiness behind these words i
might think "Andrea" was actually saying something worth engaging (a
situationist critique).
but i've taken that dead end before.
in the end its all about masquerade for "her" (a post-modernist posture).
elag
more!
McDonald doth murder sleep,' the innocent
sleep,
Sleep that knits up the revelled sleave of
care.
barrett john erickson
>I mean really, we are all here for a reason......
the problem is that our reasons are not compatible.
a few of us are here because we have a passion for the surrealist project,
while some here are clearly hostile to it, and others don't think they
should have to face any challenges to their understanding of it even if they
insist on posting materials which are (by informed opinion) in direct
conflict with that project.
perhaps we even disagree on which of these three groups is entitled to claim
more legitimacy in alt.surrealism?
[of course, there's a fourth group which only seeks a venue for displaying
creative work. their "reason" provokes no conflict and they should raise no
objection from anyone.
and then there's the "silent majority" -- those like the RandmAxess admirers
who want to let others defend the flawed opinions they are not willing
to risk in open forum. they have abdicated their place among those who care
about the issues being discussed.]
CHENNO
Such is life Barrett,and I do not wish to engage in a constant war with you or
anyone for that matter....You may have a point on the reason,we are all here.
Just to state to you barrett,I am here to share my love for surrealism and I do
not claim to have all the answers,I know I could learn alot here,(much easier
if it was not always a bitching match) I understand we all have differnt
opinions and thank god<what a boring place it would be:) I am more than willing
to listen to your opinons as long as they are not in an attacking manner,I can
be respectful
can you?
Thanks
Andrea Chen
>
> Barrett wrote>the problem is that our reasons are not compatible.<
>
> Such is life Barrett,and I do not wish to engage in a constant war with you or
> anyone for that matter....You may have a point on the reason,we are all here.
>
> Just to state to you barrett,I am here to share my love for surrealism and I do
> not claim to have all the answers,
I would suggest that the original (at least in theory) impetus of
surrealism was the exploration of the unknown; the exposure of the
unconscious and experiments in making it public. Certain steps were
taken (their success is a matter of debate) and they are known. If
surrealism is to continue to evolve then it's those who "don't know the
answers" who are the key. And it's an easily observed fact that the
really important steps in liberation are often those things which
frighten us and anger us. I don't care how much someone knows or has
done; when that person consistently (basing their opinion on authority)
says that everything they dislike is "wrong" without taking time to
figure out what the other is trying to say, you have a rigid being in
opposition to "surrealism" as a living movement. All of us are going to
react angrily and closed mindedly at times; but simply skimming a few
posts here and there I find case after case where certain individuals
distort and blindly attack ALL statements from those they dislike.
You Chenno (like that name) are at a disasdvantage when it comes to
this type of game. The reason (I think) is the tender soft (Taoist
living) shoot pushing itself out of the earth (your being) yet this very
vulnerability is what makes you IMO a representation of what
"surrealism" or "art" (remember virtually all surrealist goals hav been
shared by other artists and movements.) For someone to say you are
WRONG WRONG WRONG (as they have done with Nik and others) is an attempt
to squash this (potentially flashing colors yet unknown) flower. To do
it in the name of surrealism is to mouth the dogma; but betray the
spirit. If this be surrealism; then let it die.
Surrealism if it were to mean anything isn't primarily about icons,
traditions and all the rest (though these can have value). There is
something more important. That is indeed YOUR imagination and YOUR
being which is supposed to be liberated by all this. And this
liberation doesn't mean that it take the form that I or anyone else
declare or know; but something unique which perhaps causes us unease.
Sorry if the words flounder. I'm in a hurry; but (and this may make me
unfair) when someone like Nik tries to expose his frustration and pain
at the art world; and someone like Dale blithely responds (roughly)
"it's all because you have not talent" it is cruel. Admittedly I have
called into question the abilities of those who methodically do this but
I at least know that they did it first isn't a good excuse (I openly
admit my cruelity) and I also tried (in many cases) to show examples.
Still i have played their game.
I hope you find a way to escape this; but since I have not; so I will
say (with some evidence) that your imagination while perhaps fragile is
LIVING while their (while perhaps once capable of great accomplishments)
is nearly dead and merely a reactionary scold at all that is different.
Do trust yourself and keep to your way.
Talysman
:)perceptor writes>I find Brandons question to randm axis on 1/25/99
:)telling to say the least for these are the very people I feel he
:)would like to drive from this group:
:)"Do you have any relations to Talysman, Nikolas Maaaacke, or
:)Andrea Chen?"
:)I am scratching my head at the issues mentioned here?(scratch)
you aren't the only one...
note Brandon's response:
:)Actually, I find these individuals the most likely to drive "Surrealism"
:)from this group.
I have to ask "why"? so far, I seem to be more of
a surrealist than Brandon, since I actually write
surreal stuff using surreal techniques, plus, as an
anarchist, I support much of the original surrealist
political agenda (at least the principles.)
what has Brandon done for surrealism? spit on his
friend. this may seem harsh, but keep in mind this
is the best *he* has offered.
Barrett did little better in his response to you:
:)the problem is that our reasons are not compatible.
:)a few of us are here because we have a passion for the surrealist
:)project, while some here are clearly hostile to it, and others don't
:)think they should have to face any challenges to their understanding
:)of it even if they insist on posting materials which are (by informed
:)opinion) in direct conflict with that project.
I can't think of *anyone* here who is "clearly hostile"
to the surrealist project, unless Barrett means people
who pop in, post a one-liner equivalent to "you all
suck!" then disappear. I think he threw that in to drum
up sympathy for his cause.
what is his cause? clearly not the surrealist project.
Barrett insists on being overly scholarly, quoting the
letter of the law as layed down by history. this is why
he is opposed to NiK, who once said something equivalent
to "surrealism is whatever you think is surreal" and has
been brandoned as a "personalist" (or: "others who don't
think they should have to face any challenges to their
understanding [of surrealism]".)
what Barrett has missed is that true surrealism may not
be the loose hippy-like definition attributed to Nik, but
it *certainly* isn't the legalism he espouses. it seems
to me we should take the original definition of the goals
of surrealism (liberation of desire, incorporation of the
imagination into everyday life, opposition to the fascism
of both governments and individuals who try to destroy our
enjoyment of life) ... and *anything* that meets that goal
is surrealist, and *anything* that hinders that goal is
NOT surrealist, regardless of whether historical surrealists
agreed or not.
do Barret's long scholarly quibbles contribute to the
liberation of desire, or the deadening of intellect?
does his pedantism free the imagination from fascist
imprisonment and bring it into our lives? does casuistry
really define the surrealist project, or is it more
fascism?
:)Out of this stream of posts, I found Randmaxess had some very interesting
:)points! and as far as openess and acceptance of things to the
:)group,Andrea Chen seems to comment with respect and knowledge,,, She
:)addresses the issues at hand and offers workable terms, unlike a few
:)posters...I mean really, we are all here for a reason...... It seems
:)some are attacked for there opinions and minimzed to child-like cat
:)fights..and all the issues get lost!
I didn't read the RandmAxess posts, since by the time I
got to it, it looked like the same old endless war.
Andrea Chen, I will say again, likes to metatroll: she
writes something that is basically true, but gets people
to disagree violently by her choice of words.
the best way to find out who is surrealist and who isn't
is to write a surreal poem, throwing in one or two buzzwords
on the "banned" list. don't defend any position, just use
them for their sound or imagery. those who say "good poem"
or offer one of their own are surrealists; those who start
another argument are not.
--
warm sins howl in our dreams.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Brandon J. Freels
>so far, I seem to be more of a surrealist than Brandon, since I >actually
write surreal stuff using surreal techniques
Brandon:
Read my book yet?
Here is a Surreal experience I had yesterday:
Read Frued's article on "The Uncanny" and was puzzled by the epilepsy part.
Got on bus. Guy sitting next to me had an epileptic fit. Spooky?!!!
Here is another one from today: Know this girl who I kinda like. Found out
she was married. Wish her husband was out of the way. Today I learned he
died in a car accident a week ago! Spooky!!!
>what has Brandon done for surrealism?
Brandon:
Read my book yet?
Brandon J. Freels
This morning I was riding the bus when I thought to myself "This bus sounds
like a coffee machine," and the next thing I know the lady across from me
had spilt coffee all over the damn place. I didn't even know she had a cup
of coffee with her. Gosh. That was odd.
The experience I had about spitting on my friend (which I have received
criticism for by both Nik and Talysman) is a prime example of George
Bataille's theory of the formless. So fuck off.
Have I given you enough to chew on yet Talysman? Remember that when I am
really upset I post more than three replies. You want another one? By
claiming I am not an "artist" or "surrealist" you have definitely, as Chen
would claim, pushed my button. And what makes you think you can be "more
surrealist" than someone? I am no more Surrealist than Barrett or Dale.
In the past I have posted at least one collage of mine at alt.surrealism
("Creation Myth") and unfortunately I am unable to post more do to a lack of
a scanner. Today I have given you many examples of recent Surrealist
experiences from within the last few days. I have at one point in the past
even posted my idea for a Surrealist object in response to an inquiry. The
object I concieved, again while riding the bus, was a microwave made out of
hyena skin. This object eventually made its way into a short fiction piece
of mine.
I find your ignorance towards my artistic value rather pathetic. Do you just
flip through posts ignoring peoples Surrealist art and qualities? Speaking
of which I must have ignored your Surrealist art as you have ignored mine.
Did you post it? Are we supposed to imagine it ourselves? How creative of
you for making a piece of art that the viewers must construct themselves.
You are either a genius, or a conceptualist (neither of which I have any
respect for).
As for you recently slam of Barrett I find it rather silly since he give
people on ever one of his posts the opportunity to go to his
www.MagneticFields.org and view his and others Surrealist art (it should be
noted that by "art" I mean both written material and the plastic arts), and
since when does philosophy not count as Surrealist art? I personally find
Barrett's posts rather poetic, and it is this complexity in his poetic
language that causes people like Nik to call for him to be "clearer." In my
opinion Barrett should be as poetic as he wants to be, for its all in the
process of reaching "pure thought." He is making a Surrealist use of
language. Words are becoming free. Words are "making love" (Breton).
---BJF
CHENNO
post!
It was something(as weird as it sounds) I was looking for.
Thank you:)
CHENNO
Talysman writes>the best way to find out who is surrealist and
on the "banned" list. don't defend any position, just use
them for their sound or imagery. those who say "good poem"
or offer one of their own are surrealists; those who start another argument are
not.
<<
Thank you for the post talysman, I think I am getting the rose colored stains
off my glasses,and I really like your idea above..
.
It seems one can get lost in the overwhelming maddness that runs rampid in the
posts,It seems if "some" do not agree the whole discussion is lost! in a sea of
ego
Thanks again
barrett john erickson
>[... the usual "pissing" as CHENNO might say.]
>Barrett did little better in his response to you:
oh, so now i have to contribute my salted water i suppose.
>
>:)the problem is that our reasons are not compatible.
>
>:)a few of us are here because we have a passion for the surrealist
>:)project, while some here are clearly hostile to it, and others don't
>:)think they should have to face any challenges to their understanding
>:)of it even if they insist on posting materials which are (by informed
>:)opinion) in direct conflict with that project.
>
>I can't think of *anyone* here who is "clearly hostile"
>to the surrealist project,
you haven't read "RandmAxess"? a clear example if ever there was.
>what is his cause? clearly not the surrealist project.
>Barrett insists on being overly scholarly, quoting the
>letter of the law as layed down by history.
look, either get off this trickless mule, or offer some examples to support
your repetitiously empty assertions that i seek some sort of orthodoxy. if
they're not too laughable i'll make one more attempt to clarify things for
you.
i'm bored by my answers to your spitballs and i'm bored by having to ignore
them.
>this is why
>he is opposed to NiK,
of course, it was Nik who proclaimed his opposition to me (via personal
insult) after i contested some of his positions (respectfully, i might add).
i merely return the favor rather than seem ungrateful.
>[...]
>enjoyment of life) ... and *anything* that meets that goal
>is surrealist, and *anything* that hinders that goal is
>NOT surrealist, regardless of whether historical surrealists
>agreed or not.
your problem isn't with "historical" surrealists but current surrealists.
it's very simple. if you want to have an opinion about "surrealism" and/or
surrealists _and_ spill it among surrealists, you have to be willing to
defend that opinion from within the context of "surrealism" _both historical
and current_. to ignore that context is to _proclaim yourself_ outside of
"surrealism" and uninterested in "surrealism" as it exists.
you render yourself irrelevant, i don't have to do it to you.
>do Barret's long scholarly quibbles contribute to the
>liberation of desire, or the deadening of intellect?
>does his pedantism free the imagination from fascist
>imprisonment and bring it into our lives? does casuistry
>really define the surrealist project, or is it more
>fascism?
oh, get real. what deadens the intellect is the repeated and deliberate
inversions and mutilations of my positions that i'm forced to respond to
even as they put me to sleep.
again, get the mule off or offer the supporting examples of my fascism and
i'll make one more effort to explain things to you.
>:)Out of this stream of posts, I found Randmaxess had some very interesting
>:)points! and as far as openess and acceptance of things to the
>:)group,Andrea Chen seems to comment with respect and knowledge,,, She
>:)addresses the issues at hand and offers workable terms, unlike a few
>:)posters...I mean really, we are all here for a reason...... It seems
>:)some are attacked for there opinions and minimzed to child-like cat
>:)fights..and all the issues get lost!
>
>I didn't read the RandmAxess posts, since by the time I
oh, i see. you haven't even been paying attention to the thread you are
commenting on.
so when you said above that you couldn't "think of *anyone* here who is
'clearly hostile' to the surrealist project", that was just another blindly
reactionary and groundless provocation?
[who's _really_ doing the pissing, CHENNO?]
Perceptor
You may now add my name to the "banned surrealists" list.
don wheeler-mings
"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but
the silence of our friends. "
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
Perceptor
> Talysman wrote
> >so far, I seem to be more of a surrealist than Brandon, since I >actually
> write surreal stuff using surreal techniques
>
> Brandon:
> Read my book yet?
>
> Here is a Surreal experience I had yesterday:
>
> Read Frued's article on "The Uncanny" and was puzzled by the epilepsy part.
> Got on bus. Guy sitting next to me had an epileptic fit. Spooky?!!!
It's called
Synchronicity
Synchronicity
Web pages of Synchronicity
http://www.unm.edu/~pbarlow/sylist.htm
experencies of synchronicity
http://www.artfolio.com/pete/PassingThoughts/Wizardry.html
http://www.technosophy.com/22enigma.htm
http://www.mcs.com/~cdonahue/html/your_story.html
http://lifematters.com/lm/synchronicity.html
Discriptions of Synchronicity
http://www.unm.edu/~pbarlow/megs/frm4big.htm
http://www.unm.edu/~pbarlow/synch2.htm
http://lightlink.com/vic/chall.html
http://pad.cis.temple.edu/conference/cpr/nosek/
http://www.angelfire.com/pages1/EOS/index.html
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/mlv_paper.html
links to synchronicity
http://www.unm.edu/~pbarlow/syrefs.htm
http://www.unm.edu/~pbarlow/sylist.htm
http://www.xnet.com/~arkiver/synchro.shtml
http://sunsite.unc.edu/usenet-i/groups-html/alt.psychology.synchronicity.html
book on synchro
http://www.cgjung.com/books.html
http://www.gamblersbook.com/peat.htm
http://www.mtnmath.com/book/node30.html
http://www.he.net/~syncstud/index.html
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/story.html
http://sunrisemag.com/Sunrise_Magazine/sunrisemay96/bookreview.html
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/contents.html
http://www.lightlink.com/vic/sss.html
http://www.resourcesconnect.com/synch.htm
search for synchronicity
http://search.dogpile.com/?start=4&q=synchronicity&fs=web&ss=stop&tl=26&to=forty
http://www.infoseek.com/Titles?qt=synchronicity&col=UG&nh=10&sv=IS&lk=noframes
http://search.dogpile.com/?q=synchronicity&fs=web&ss=stop&to=forty
http://www.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?q=synchronicity&what=web&fmt=d&pg=q
Perceptor
get along ?
I mean by this, why can't we write what we know and feel in this NG with out
others wanting to tear us to shreds for it.
In my opinion every one mentioned in this thread Barrett, (even Brandon), Elag ,
Talysman, chenno, nik, dale, andrea, and myself included have all tried to add
to the education and or entertainment of the readers here in alt.surrealism.
All contributions and points of view should be welcome here.
If someone says something stupid or mistaken then so what ?
It is from their own hand and they put it here for the world to see with out
shame so why beat on them for making a fool out of themselves ?
Now if someone takes issue with a point of history or facts about surrealism
then by all means respond with your view and start a discussion, we all can
benefit from that.
I do feel it is pointless to personally attack someone in the NG and flame them
just because one disagrees or doesn't like the others personality. It poisons
the atmosphere when it's done publicly (it can be done privately to better
effect)
I look at some of the other NGs and they laugh at us for this stupidity.
Let us all please continue posting and make this a place that is stimulating,
fun and exciting by keeping the personal attacks
confined to personal posts and the disagreements can become constructive
responses back and forth for us all to share our views with each other (even the
unpopular ones)
I will not be driven out of here. I value this place and the people here . I
mean all of you ( even the ones I disagree with).
I won't give up. This is MY group, this is the land of free speech, and I am
even willing to tolerate some drivel or occasional stupidity in a post in the
hopes that art can survive here,
Thank you all for the enrichment that I have received here, now shape up ,
PLEASE.
don........................
Brandon J. Freels
>It's called Synchronicity
For Jung maybe, but not to Freud who called it the "uncanny" or the
Surrealists who called it "objective chance." I don't believe there is any
difference between the three of these, but I could be wrong. Any comments?
Thank you, Preceptor, for all the websites.
Here is another one I had a few weeks ago that I recently remembered: My
mother had a possibly cancerous growth removed from the left side of her
chest. The next morning I had a bug bite on the left side of my chest.
---BJF
CHENNO
can't we all just
get along ?<
Don..... Your post is perfect, I take my hat off to you! I for one feel the
same, I am not leaving, and I appreciate all you said...It had become an attack
ritual...instead of "stimulating" as you said...Bravo don! From this post of
yours, I move on from the trenches and forward to absorb all i can from people,
and leave the snide tactics behind! Knowing very well I will not agree or like
some posts..But you are write public bashing is shameful....
Thanks don! You are indeed an assett to this group.
Perceptor
> Preceptor wrote
> >It's called Synchronicity
>
> For Jung maybe, but not to Freud who called it the "uncanny" or the
> Surrealists who called it "objective chance." I don't believe there is any
> difference between the three of these, but I could be wrong. Any comments?
I agree that the three are all probably different interpretations
of the same phenomena. There are some that call these events "surreal" or just
weird. I call them pre- interpreted messages from the cosmos, or as I like to
say "Precognitive Cosmology"
> Thank you, Preceptor, for all the websites.
Cool, after all that's what I am here for.
> Here is another one I had a few weeks ago that I recently remembered: My
> mother had a possibly cancerous growth removed from the left side of her
> chest. The next morning I had a bug bite on the left side of my chest.
>
> ---BJF
Ouch, that hurts !
lets hope that she remains in good health.
Perceptor
AS are you and EVERYONE else here.
I am very sincere in this.
Even the trolls have something to offer. We can laugh at them or we can use their
baited posts as a springboard or excuse for creative writing if we wish. Personally
I find it easier to be creative when I have the foil or catalyst of a post to
respond to.
But getting back to the issue at hand , I see that people are responding in a very
positive way. This pleases me because it is infinitely more constructive than just
saying this place sucks or is just filled with drivel. I would like to share some
of my thoughts with all of you on this.
If we all could make an experiment and pretend that so and so
did not say those hurtful things to us a while back , or just be willing to let it
pass as dirty water down the drain then we could read and write to anyone here with
a fresh new perspective. I don't know how long it will last but I am willing to try
it.
I have already seen some very positive results today in the posts of a few
individuals here. I am very heartened by this. It is OUR group and we are all lucky
to have such a diverse range of opinions and personalities over here.
We are in a rather unique position for NGs in that our subject matter allows us to
address numerous issues and examine many fields of endeavor from differing
surrealist perspectives.
YES, I believe there are several definitions or schools of Surrealism and I enjoy
examining all of them with an open mind (as least as open as I can pry it)
Like I said before, I for one intend to practice tolerance. I believe one can be
critical and even aggressive to others in a way that combines humor and
intelligence to make ones point instead of a personalized attack on the others
intelligence , experience, or interpretation of our subject matter Surrealism.
don wheeler-mings aka "perceptor"
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Read my book yet?
listened to my tape or cd yet?
:)Here is a Surreal experience I had yesterday:
[ snip three examples of synchronicity, followed
by whining about the spitting incident and how
big his beret is ]
:) Do you just flip through posts ignoring peoples Surrealist art
:) and qualities?
looking into my folder of posts from alt.surrealism that
I saved because I liked them, I find posts from:
elag
Cadmium Flute
Aisys
perceptor
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman
Clayton Francis
"scot...@earthlink.net"
xepera
... hell, there's too many; and there were a few others
I liked, but felt no need to save. I seem to even have
a few in there I considered "invaders", but thought they
said something interesting. I even have some of Barrett's
posts, because although I dislike his pedantry, he is
sometimes informative, once his posts are stripped of his
opinions.
I even have a few of yours, Brandon, but they all involve
you fighting. funny, that seems to be you at your most
surreal: mouth open, veins popping, beret spinning on
a pillar of steam.
:)Speaking of which I must have ignored your Surrealist art as you
:)have ignored mine. Did you post it?
yep. and I got some good feedback from it, which I am
thankful for. have you had the same?
as for websites, I've visited Barrett's (found it dry),
xepera's (found it too sparse) and the hyperreal site
(Aisys's?) which I really liked.
:)Words are becoming free. Words are "making love" (Breton).
my verbs have penises, my nouns have vaginas.
--
cemeteries adamantly reunited pigs in the cloth infirmary.
Talysman
<bar...@magneticfields.org> write in alt.surrealism:
:)Talysman wrote in message ...
:)>I can't think of *anyone* here who is "clearly hostile"
:)>to the surrealist project,
:)you haven't read "RandmAxess"? a clear example if ever there was.
from what I saw, RandmAxess wanted everyone to check out
its website, and the usual people attacked it, making it
mad. since only the usual people called RandmAxess
"clearly hostile to the surrealist project", we must then
assume that there are only two or three real surrealists
here and everyone else is a fraud.
:)>what is his cause? clearly not the surrealist project.
:)>Barrett insists on being overly scholarly, quoting the
:)>letter of the law as layed down by history.
:)look, either get off this trickless mule, or offer some examples to support
:)your repetitiously empty assertions that i seek some sort of orthodoxy. if
:)they're not too laughable i'll make one more attempt to clarify things for
:)you.
every single one of your endlessly-repeated "definitions"
of surrealism, "neu surrealism", "personalist", &c, &c.
every single one of your endless rants about only allowing
concepts approved in the historical record of the surrealist
project.
come on. those words sound familiar, don't they?
:)>this is why
:)>he is opposed to NiK,
:)of course, it was Nik who proclaimed his opposition to me (via
:)personal insult) after i contested some of his positions
:)(respectfully, i might add).
:)i merely return the favor rather than seem ungrateful.
I'm not talking about your insult-fest. you snipped the part
about your pet theory of the heavenly war between personalists
and surrealists. but of course: that would have been one of
those examples of your call for orthodoxy, wouldn't it? the
same as this quote is another call for orthodoxy:
:)your problem isn't with "historical" surrealists but current surrealists.
:)it's very simple. if you want to have an opinion about "surrealism" and/or
:)surrealists _and_ spill it among surrealists, you have to be willing to
:)defend that opinion from within the context of "surrealism" _both
:)historical and current_. to ignore that context is to _proclaim
:)yourself_ outside of "surrealism" and uninterested in "surrealism" as it
:)exists.
... except that I have challenged this by saying "the goals of
surrealism have been defined simply. judge whether a thing
furthers the surrealist project by whether it meets or fails
those goals, not by historical precedent or group conformity."
what you say above, and have said over and over, is that we
should all conform, all follow historical precedent ... which,
obviously, goes against the stated goal. IT WILL NOT FREE
DESIRE, IT WILL NOT LIBERATE THE IMAGINATION. historical
precedent and group conformity are *what we fight against*.
remember that post you made in another thread, recently, about
how we all, despite our differences, agree on the enemy as
tyranny, government, organized religion, archaic social mores,
&c? all of those use the tools of historical precedent and
group conformity (and group violence, if need be) to enforce
their iron will.
:)[who's _really_ doing the pissing, CHENNO?]
seeing as I came in at the very end of this thread,
OBVIOUSLY I am the one doing the pissing. I take
the blame for the entire thread!
--
apes await at our atavistic edge.
Perceptor
Yes your points are valid ones that a lot of us, myself included (seem to share)
about surrealism. But I wish to point out (not necessarily for you ) that
Barrett's perspective is valid as well.
It his tone , I think that we find objectionable rather than the specifics of his
arguments.
The surrealist project as defined by breton and others has found a champion in
Barrett. The fact that we find him over zealous in championing the cause only
speaks to his rhetorical style or academic stiffness but not to the validity of
most of his points.
I do not think that he fabricates on overstates his facts. He is too careful a
scholar to do that. It appears however, and this is only a perception, that he
seems to deny anyone else an opinion when it relates to Surrealism in a way that
deviates from the party line. I say that this is only a perception because he has
stated many times that what he is referring to is "the Surrealist Project" and
that other forms or interpretations of surrealism are in the eye of the beholder
, and indeed these can also be called
surrealist just as long as people do not confuse them with the "project".
I personally feel that all of our perspectives and Ideas are valid to surrealism
. That surrealism can have a historic, clearly defined definition and purpose,
and at the same time a new and continually evolving manifestation of it can
coexist alongside it , complementing and enriching it.
That's about all I wanted to say, but in closing I wanted to point out the recent
changes or modifications that have been undertaken by several of the regular
posters in regards to their tone and presentation of their viewpoints. They are
to be commended for their effort and foresight in seeing the damage the old ways
were causing to the group as a whole. I include myself in this latter group and
hope that this positive step forward will not be forgotten or given up on in a
few days or weeks time. It can permanently change things here in a positive and
healthy way, for after all are we not all interested in the betterment of our
selves and our NG ?
Perceptor
> cemeteries adamantly reunited pigs in the cloth infirmary.
> His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Keep on comming you Leaden winged , dung pushing, sysiphus
kind of beatle , you
I love it
don
Brandon J. Freels
newsgroup?
As Preceptor and I have discussed on another post synchronicity and
objective chance are very similar and possibly the same thing. I feel that
both can lead to the Marvelous, or the Uncanny, but that's another post.
Your notebook does not validate or invalidate my position as an artist or as
a Surrealist.
The "conservative Surrealist" position taken by Barrett, Dale, and myself is
due to the critic's tendency to include misinformation into their books on
Surrealism. A good example is Rudolf Kuenzli's article "Misogyny and
Surrealism" in Surrealism and Women (ed. Caws, Kuenzli, Raaberg). I do not
want any sort of misinformation to be taken as fact as many critics have
subscribed to do.
I have received positive feedback for my collage "Creation Myth" which I, as
you are of your feedback, am very thankful for.
Let us please recap our flaming arguments, shall we, in hopes to put an end
to them once and for all:
1. Lao Tzu was either a person, or not a person. We will never know.
2. You use the word god, I use the word nature, and Spinoza uses the words
"god, or nature."
And I might as well come to somesort of conclusion with Nik also:
Taoism and Surrealism are to a point similar, but are also to a point very
different. Can you agree with this Nik?
---BJF
barrett john erickson
there's not much new here, just one last effort at clarifying things for
Talysman (and any of the other "personalists" who are reading) as i offered
...
[perhaps apologies are due if this "old business" seems contrary to the new
tone of the group that Don applauds. i really do hope this is the last one
of these boringly reflexive posts i feel the need to make in response to
Talysman (or anyone else). i'll gladly stop when _my_ positions are no
longer being misrepresented.
but of course, i will continue to challenge any blatant misrepresentations
of "surrealism" as it exists among surrealists. i can only hope that such
challenges will be better understood after this (final?) explanation, as
attempts to achieve a reality based common understanding (not necessarily
agreement) from which we can continue discourse.]
i wrote:
>:)look, either get off this trickless mule, or offer some examples to
support
>:)your repetitiously empty assertions that i seek some sort of orthodoxy.
if
>:)they're not too laughable i'll make one more attempt to clarify things
for
>:)you.
to which T answered:
>every single one of your endlessly-repeated "definitions"
>of surrealism, "neu surrealism", "personalist", &c, &c.
>
>every single one of your endless rants about only allowing
>concepts approved in the historical record of the surrealist
>project.
>
>come on. those words sound familiar, don't they?
only because they are the same unspecified assertions which misrepresent my
position. but you do offer a couple of opportunities to examine that:
T makes a comment about my coining of the term "personalist" and since he
said above that "every single one of your endlessly-repeated 'definitions'
of surrealism, 'neu surrealism', 'personalist', &c, &c." were representative
of my "call for orthodoxy" i'll examine "personalist":
this was a way to group (for referential convenience) those who had long
previously expressed their disdain for the existing context of "surrealism",
proclaiming that it was just a word that had no meaning, beyond their own
usage, that they had to recognize in conversations with surrealists.
[and i do believe the definition came after Nik had begun insulting me --
but there was no causative link.]
i should note that while these definitions _were indeed_ a jab, they were
primarily intended to provide information and context (for prior and
subsequent discussions).
so, point by point:
personalist (n.)
one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing matters
of theory -- particularly surrealist theory.
[is this the call for orthodoxy? asserting that we are not entitled to
ignore reality and context in our discussions? seems to me the very act of
"discussing" anything (even here) creates and acknowledges a social context
for that discussion and carries an implied acceptance that the views of the
other will be considered -- not _agreed to_, _considered_.]
The personalist believes, for
example, that it is sufficient for him/her to declare some belief or
position compatible with "surrealism" for it to be so (e.g. religion) and
that the disagreement (even universal disagreement) of surrealists past and
present is irrelevant.
[is this the call for orthodoxy? an simple restating of the position
already taken by those i'm presuming to 'define'? if it's misstated, show
me where, but i'm not insisting anyone take that position -- i'm arguing
against it.]
Consequently, the personalist is often found in a
defensive posture, hopelessly outnumbered by those he/she claims are trying
to enforce some orthodoxy,
[is this the call for orthodoxy? an observation (accurate or not) that the
"personalist" is "often found in a defensive posture" (it certainly seemed
to be the case at the time)? is it a call for orthodoxy to accurately
observe that they are claiming that i am "trying to enforce some
orthodoxy"?]
but who are in reality only insisting that they
have no obligation to accept the personalist's unilateral redefinitions, and
will continue to challenge them as incompatible with that theory as it
already exists.
[thus ends the definition, so this must be where the call for orthodoxy
lies -- in an assessment of _my own intent and purpose_ in countering the
"personalist" perspective (as opposed to _their_ assessment of what my
intent is)? does they see any "challenge" to their position as a "call for
orthodoxy" (all i've said is that i will continue to _challenge_ the
personalists' "unilateral redefinitions")?
more likely T objects to the phrase "as it already exists" which is just a
restating of the principle included in the first line.
yes, i have a clear idea of what _i_ mean when i say "as it already exists",
but that isn't even in play here. it _never was_ in play during the
"personalist" discussions, because we never got past the argument over the
relevance of social context, shared reality and even the most basic
principles of communication.
i've always been willing to defend _my_ perspective on "surrealism's"
reality against anyone else's (and believe it or not, i'm open to being
convinced i'm wrong about anything) -- but _any_ discussion presumes the
acceptance of the basic elements of communication (i.e., that we have a
common understanding of certain words that cannot be ignored).
this particular discussion would also require acceptance of the fact that we
are talking about something that "already exists" conceptually in millions
of people (that is, that "surrealism" already has a meaning -- not a
_specific_ meaning, just _a_ meaning -- that no single person can dictate or
enforce -- especially someone claiming their usage has no relevance to
others). such discussion would also require a common sense acceptance that
when one is talking about matters pertaining to "surrealism", the conceptual
understanding of _surrealists_ carries more weight than the conceptual
understanding of newscasters, professors, art critics or Grolier's
encyclopedia.
the point of the definition is that the "personalist" refuses (by their own
statements) to accept that there is _any_ "as it already exists", or
principles of communication that need to be considered when defining
"surrealism".]
i wrote:
>:)your problem isn't with "historical" surrealists but current surrealists.
>:)it's very simple. if you want to have an opinion about "surrealism"
and/or
>:)surrealists _and_ spill it among surrealists, you have to be willing to
>:)defend that opinion from within the context of "surrealism" _both
>:)historical and current_. to ignore that context is to _proclaim
>:)yourself_ outside of "surrealism" and uninterested in "surrealism" as it
>:)exists.
to which T answered:
>... except that I have challenged this by saying "the goals of
>surrealism have been defined simply. judge whether a thing
>furthers the surrealist project by whether it meets or fails
>those goals, not by historical precedent or group conformity."
>what you say above, and have said over and over, is that we
>should all conform, all follow historical precedent ... which,
>obviously, goes against the stated goal. IT WILL NOT FREE
>DESIRE, IT WILL NOT LIBERATE THE IMAGINATION. historical
>precedent and group conformity are *what we fight against*.
>remember that post you made in another thread, recently, about
>how we all, despite our differences, agree on the enemy as
>tyranny, government, organized religion, archaic social mores,
>&c? all of those use the tools of historical precedent and
>group conformity (and group violence, if need be) to enforce
>their iron will.
T's position in this on-going but hopefully dying dispute has always been
based on transpositions like this. he insists that the statement "you must
be willing to defend that opinion from within the context of 'surrealism'
_both historical and current_" is equivalent to "we should all conform, all
follow historical precedent."
he then shifts his argument to attack positions i haven't taken while
claiming for himself positions and arguments i might offer against myself --
_if i'd actually said what he claims i said_.
i'll try to say this clearly: the statement you object to isn't even about
"surrealism", it's about communication. it does not call for "conformance",
it calls for intellectual honesty and personal integrity.
so, unless there is some specific position or statement T would like me to
further clarify, i'll close with a golden oldie:
from the AESTHETIC AUTOMATIST polemic of 1995 [barrett john erickson, wm.
dubin and celine myers]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We allow no place for the stagnating orthodoxy of tsetse flies breeding in
encephalitic pools, or proxy pontification, permitting and encouraging the
masquerading marauders of all hallows eve — the ghosts of religion, now
shamelessly visible in public spaces meant to attract living organisms.
The very fact that such toxic banality goes unchallenged is evidence of a
dangerously creeping catatonic gangrene.
This passivity enrages us, while excuses inspire our disgust.
A posture of victimization demands aggressive attack.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
the primary original "target" of this passage was the vacuous and flattening
"philosophy" and cross-posting strategy of the "neu's", and the complicities
of the "dangerously creeping catatonic gangrene" that i now call the
"personalist" attitude.
the only way in which i've (somewhat regretfully) backed away from this
recently (in the hope of finding common purpose here) is by attempting to
continuously challenge and provoke the "personalists" into confronting the
limitations of their position rather than simply allowing rage and disgust
to become manifest in spasms of aggressive attack.
i still think common purpose can be found.
but as challenge and provocation are consistently misinterpreted by some as
a "call for orthodoxy" i begin to lean toward much more satisfying, but less
"productive" responses to those individuals.
hopefully this period has passed.
Aisys
<taly...@softhome.net> wrote:
> as for websites, I've visited Barrett's (found it dry),
> xepera's (found it too sparse) and the hyperreal site
> (Aisys's?) which I really liked.
Why thank you Talysman :)
Short experience: In December, I was riding on a bus through Harlem. On
the 12th floor or so of an apartment building, I saw a message written
on a window facing outward. It said "Chances Chloe, Daddy's Girl",
written with wet toilet paper stuck to the window...
Brandon J. Freels
To define the word "definition" is to take part in that orthodoxy
If you avoid taking part in the orthodoxy of definitions communication would
be impossible
***
Is the orthodoxy of definitions really that bad? Is this really the type of
orthodoxy that the Surrealists of the past were revolting against?
Besides, didn't Breton attempt to define Surrealism? Would he not then be
taking part in the orthodoxy of definitions? Can we openly define such
theories as Objective Chance, Black Humor, Fumage, Frottage, Decalcomania,
Convulsive Beauty, just as some have openly attempted to defined Surrealism?
---BJF
Perceptor
Chances chloe decalcomania
daddys girl all frotted up with festive plumeage
spotted frumpage in convulsive humor
shiny new orthodoxy driping expectations
Brandon J. Freels
>daddys girl all frotted up with festive plumeage
>spotted frumpage in convulsive humor
>shiny new orthodoxy driping expectations
Brandon:
See what I mean.
Perceptor
yup, yup, yup
Andrea Chen
>
> As Preceptor and I have discussed on another post synchronicity and
> objective chance are very similar and possibly the same thing. I feel that
> both can lead to the Marvelous, or the Uncanny, but that's another post.
>
Then why do you have no interest in exploring them on the net? As Bill
Cleere can attest, creating clusters of energy can somehow draw
(strangely attract) some amazing coincidences.
Dale Houstman
> >
> > As Preceptor and I have discussed on another post synchronicity and
> > objective chance are very similar and possibly the same thing. I feel that
> > both can lead to the Marvelous, or the Uncanny, but that's another post.
> >
>
> Then why do you have no interest in exploring them on the net? As Bill
> Cleere can attest, creating clusters of energy can somehow draw
> (strangely attract) some amazing coincidences.
And shit attracts flies, Andrea. What we are talking about though
(and what you refuse to understand or pretend not to grasp) is the
nature and the quality of that shit. It's all the same to you; if a bitchy
word here or there upsets the horseapple cart, you think something
has been accomplished, but it's all merely brouhaha and empty
effort unless the igniting factor is a positive flame. It is easy to create
a very chaotic (speaking of strange attractors) eddy of coincidence
and vector simply by shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, but
the person who does it has merely created a potentially dangerous
scene and a legal problem for himself. Afterwards the bones will
mend, the bruises fade, and your jail time will end. Net gain? Zero.
Chaos theory is in much too early a stage to be useful in human
consciousness, and is still used mainly for stock market trends
and (its originating point in Lorenzo) weather-prediction. Just
to observe what the correctly placed "nudge" can accomplish
in a potential state is to be a voyeur, and a socio-pathic one at
that. For all your sophistications and obvious brightness you still
come off sounding most like that sort of child who would call
in a bomb scare at school just to catch the reaction.
This makes you a criminal, and not much of anything else.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
Andrea Chen wrote in message <36B119...@earthlink.net>...
>Brandon J. Freels wrote:
>>
>> As Preceptor and I have discussed on another post synchronicity and
>> objective chance are very similar and possibly the same thing. I feel
that
>> both can lead to the Marvelous, or the Uncanny, but that's another post.
>>
>
>Cleere can attest, creating clusters of energy can somehow draw
>(strangely attract) some amazing coincidences.
>
>
hmmmm.
b-a-{n}a-{n}a-
axl
rea...@internet-ici.com
Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
> > Talysman wrote
> > >so far, I seem to be more of a surrealist than Brandon, since I >actually
> > write surreal stuff using surreal techniques
> >
> > Brandon:
> > Read my book yet?
> >
> >
VINce "PRICE" died I think day before Halloween.
Many other death coincidences.
Maybe you are controlling everything?...
Surrealistic writing:
Glittering Nousnaut wirkende craft spiraled around Noos. Noos is a thinKING
PLANiT. The land in SynchroniCity, capitol of coincidences.
Thought police joined the kinship connection and at the border between
CC land (Collective Conscious) and UC seas they questionned other inhabitants.
In Noospeak they demanded:
Watt India Bagdad, Uzno Watt Amin, Andropev Stalin...
US? ME?
Uzno Watt Amin 007 Soul Core Watt India Bagdad Uzno Watt Amin.
Cologne
Bonn
Oman Omen Assad Amman Damaskus Sirius...
White House Speakes Wright Nunn Tower Sununu
Webster Gates Sessions
Argent.. Menem
Moreland...
Glittering nousnaut wirkende craft zoomed up beyond the ark types. In and
out logging coincidences. Nousnaut journals categorized synchronicity.
Nousnaut academy graduates picked for missions. Did some jobs for the Due.
The Due (Duex Ex Mechanica) and Demiurge called for job openings. Ark types
echoed and the muses tingled jingled jangled wingle wells.
And the glitterning nousnaut wirkende craft passed elan vital...
And the Sy koids were saved!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:) Yes your points are valid ones that a lot of us, myself included
:)(seem to share) about surrealism. But I wish to point out (not
:)necessarily for you ) that Barrett's perspective is valid as well.
:)It his tone , I think that we find objectionable rather than the
:)specifics of his arguments. The surrealist project as defined by
:)breton and others has found a champion in Barrett. The fact that we
:)find him over zealous in championing the cause only speaks to his
:)rhetorical style or academic stiffness but not to the validity of
:)most of his points.
thanks, Don.. I agree with this. as I have said (at times
back-handedly,) I think Barrett is informative, both on the
subject of surrealism and in some of his posts about cognition.
his posts are too verbose for my tastes, but I can live with
that, I suppose.
I suppose every field has its followers who stick closely
to historical precedent and group approval, and others who
only take these as a suggestion rather than a command, and
each group has its purpose: the strict "conservatives",
because of their devotion to history and to the group as
a whole, help to preserve the memory of what the movement
has done and is doing, while the "radicals" stretch the
boundaries of what that memory can contain, and keep the
movement alive.
I can accept Barrett and his conception of the surrealist
project, as long as I interpret it only as the sum of all
actions that support the original goals of surrealism,
without worrying about what any or all surrealists would
think about those actions.
I can even accept Brandon, although I'll probably keep
teasing him every time he trolls. we have to have our
fun somewhere.
but I agree with your desire for less hostility in the
NG, and believe me, I *am* trying. "back in the day",
I posted a couple messages a day; now, I post maybe two
times to any "argument" thread, near the end of its
course. and an occasional poem.
--
our brains flog each other in a maritime hell.
Bill Cleere
>
> > Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> > >
> > > objective chance are very similar and possibly the same thing. I feel that
> > > both can lead to the Marvelous, or the Uncanny, but that's another post.
> > >
> > Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
>
> > Then why do you have no interest in exploring them on the net? As Bill
> > Cleere can attest, creating clusters of energy can somehow draw
> > (strangely attract) some amazing coincidences.
>
> (and what you refuse to understand or pretend not to grasp) is the
> nature and the quality of that shit.
Geez, what a grouch, talking about my coincidences that way...and he
doesn't even know what they are.
> It's all the same to you; if a bitchy
> word here or there upsets the horseapple cart, you think something
> has been accomplished, but it's all merely brouhaha and empty
> effort unless the igniting factor is a positive flame.
Gosh, what a sorehead!
> It is easy to create
> a very chaotic (speaking of strange attractors) eddy of coincidence
> and vector simply by shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, but
> the person who does it has merely created a potentially dangerous
> scene and a legal problem for himself. Afterwards the bones will
> mend, the bruises fade, and your jail time will end. Net gain? Zero.
Some people could use to just lighten up a bit.
> Chaos theory is in much too early a stage to be useful in human
> consciousness, and is still used mainly for stock market trends
> and (its originating point in Lorenzo) weather-prediction. Just
> to observe what the correctly placed "nudge" can accomplish
> in a potential state is to be a voyeur, and a socio-pathic one at
> that. For all your sophistications and obvious brightness you still
> come off sounding most like that sort of child who would call
> in a bomb scare at school just to catch the reaction.
Sounds like somebody had his cranky flakes this morning.
-- Bill Cleere
barrett john erickson
Dale Houstman wrote in message <78s5q8$5jm$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>
> Chaos theory is in much too early a stage to be useful in human
>consciousness, and is still used mainly for stock market trends
>and (its originating point in Lorenzo) weather-prediction.
have to disagree here.
i think we're seeing a very interesting convergence right now between
"surrealism" and Chaos theory, Autopoietic theory, Quantum theory, etc. and
we may even be close to a recognition among surrealists that that is where
Breton's "certain point of the mind" may best be sought.
as i put it elsewhere:
The poetry to be found in the most imaginative scientific research of our
day, when extended, converges on paths long walked by Surrealists.
the work of Prigogine, in particular, is very significant relative to your
criticism that:
>Just
>to observe what the correctly placed "nudge" can accomplish
>in a potential state is to be a voyeur, and a socio-pathic one at
>that.
i'll quote a couple of bits from a previous post concerning one of my
favorite
passages from _Order From Chaos_ by Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers,
commenting on how feedback loops act to maintain stability, but may also
reinforce disturbances that destabilize, which is quite enlightening when
considered from the surrealist or situationist view of the existing order:
"From a physicist's point of view, this involves a distinction between
states of the system in which all individual initiative is doomed to
insignificance on the one hand, and on the other, bifurcation regions in
which an individual, an idea, or a new behavior can upset the global
state. Even in those regions, amplification obviously does not occur
with just any individual, idea or behavior, but only with those that are
"dangerous" -- that is, those that can exploit to their advantage the
nonlinear relations guaranteeing the stability of the preceding regime."
[... and ...]
[the situationists] recognized the power of the individual imagination to
confront The Spectacle's paradoxical fragility and vulnerability to even
minor disturbances which reveal and exploit the "appalling contrast
between the possible constructions of life and it's present poverty"
(also derived from surrealist text).
Their concept of "reversible coherence" recognized that, all efforts at
reform (which by definition aim too low) and all revolutions (which
either betray or fall short of their aim) only serve to strengthen The
Spectacle. But also that [the existing order] is inherently a process very
far from
equilibrium and might be provoked into chaos at any time by a very minor
perturbance.
[... end quote]
i would argue that if the situationists' analysis is right (as i think it
is), and Prigogine's science is right (as a nobel prize would indicate), we
might well look at revolutions -- that is _true revolutions_ which
actually transform the existing order into something very different
"structurally" -- as a process which begins with destabilization, a nudge
into a
pre-bifurcation chaos which leads eventually to the emergence of a new
stability.
then we have the problem that one can never predict what that
post-bifurcation stability will be like.
this leads to the conclusion that the "end" is irrelevant -- the act must be
its own justification -- so the value of any action or context can only be
assessed by the person acting (or experiencing the acts of others) relative
to his/her own project (of daily living).
[which was the essence of the concerns i raised over Nik's comments that
various attitudes and/or activities were "useful" toward some future "goal"
he had in mind.]
at its most basic, our "project" is to construct the situations of living.
because i believe we do before we are, and that what we "are" emerges
from our actions in the pursuit of desire, only the spontaneous act in the
pursuit
of intuitive (as opposed to falsified) desire, or the exploration of such
acts can
carry this justification/value for me, or be accepted as a
justification/value offered
by others in support of their actions.
so of course, you're quite right about "Andrea". but, i would argue, not
because her project offers nothing better than a nudge into chaos, but
because her actions are empty of any support for a living project based in
the pursuit of desire.
and worse (think of the diluting effect of the irrelevant threads she
habitually
scatters) her actions tend to flatten, homogenize and diminish the scope of
living by displacing desire and passion with something cold, abstract and
irrelevant to living.
Dale Houstman
> have to disagree here.
I won't allow you to!
> i think we're seeing a very interesting convergence right now between
> "surrealism" and Chaos theory, Autopoietic theory, Quantum theory, etc. and
> we may even be close to a recognition among surrealists that that is where
> Breton's "certain point of the mind" may best be sought.
I'll admit this is a bit beyond me, and defer to your understanding of
this subject as of now. I must state that I tend to envision the conscience
as an asymptote, a constantly receding perimeter (or as I call it in a
poem; The Straying Edge) and don't quite believe in convergence
as necessarily a postive state. We all converge in death of course,
but before that... It's uncertainty (the old-fashioned kind, not the
chaotic manifestation) that strikes me as most useful in regard to
my actions (and lack of), so (even though I began my collegiate
years in mathematics and science) I am wary of measurements
or systems that purport to measure the immeasurable. To be perfectly
honest (or rather imperfectly dishonest) the only aspect of Chaos
theory and related fractal notions I embrace without flinching are
all those pretty pictures. The ones you can see in steam rising
from a cup of Oolong tea on a cold morning, etc.
I read with interest the remainder of your post, but am not at all
clear on how it applied to my statement about the voyeuristic; all
I am saying there is that systems which purport to put in motion
certain stimuli so as to observe the response are (since they must
assume the viewing point is superior to the viewed) inherently
fascistic; this point is made in Poe's "...Valdemar" in which the
cool rationalist's observation of a horror that he has set in motion
upon another is the true horror. That text is one long justification
of a very modern type of scientific evil. To claim that one is merely
an observor of human phenomenon in the service of either
"higher knowledge" (dishonest voyeurism) or "personal titillation"
(honest voyeurism) or "psychological revolution" (inane voyeurism)
is to place yourself in the role of torturer disguised as passionless
on-looker, and it is that passionlessness which creates the crime.
Anyway, as far as mathematics go, I always preferred topology.
Dale
Perceptor
Your moral responsibility as a writer is only overshadowed by your
driving wit which is rendered as almost inconsequential by your artistic
merit and intellectual accomplishments.
don wheeler-mings
Dale Houstman
An oily and shadowed moray drives Joyce DeWit to the rendering
plant. His unconscious and autistic marriage to the intellectual Ms DeWit
was an accomplishment.
Dale
Dale Houstman
>
> > > Your moral responsibility as a writer is only overshadowed by your
> > > driving wit which is rendered as almost inconsequential by your artistic
> > > merit and intellectual accomplishments.
> > > don wheeler-mings
> > An oily and shadowed moray drives Joyce DeWit to the rendering
> > plant. His unconscious and autistic marriage to the intellectual Ms DeWit
> > was an accomplishment.
> >
> > Dale
>
> Perceptor wroted again:
> I said "allmost".
> Wadda want ?
I want:
A genital emollient that smells of antelope blood.
A war on rodeo Drive between shopkeepers and teenagers.
An orchestra covered with honeybees.
Policemen in tutus patrolling Harlem.
A fire that starts in the mayor's socks and spreads to the president's
pillow.
Diamonds in place of gallstones.
Vampires in football uniforms.
Che Guevara on TV advertising Nikes by shooting cops in the foot.
Michael Jordan dead in a jungle.
Betty Boop naked on a ham and rye sandwich.
& a few other things!
Dale "Not Satisfied" Houstman
Perceptor
> Perceptor wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > Your moral responsibility as a writer is only overshadowed by your
> > driving wit which is rendered as almost inconsequential by your artistic
> > merit and intellectual accomplishments.
> > don wheeler-mings
>
> An oily and shadowed moray drives Joyce DeWit to the rendering
> plant. His unconscious and autistic marriage to the intellectual Ms DeWit
> was an accomplishment.
>
> Dale
I said "allmost".
Wadda want ?
barrett john erickson
Dale Houstman wrote in message <78ve6b$cjp$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>barrett john erickson wrote:
>
>> have to disagree here.
>
> I won't allow you to!
oh, crap, i never get to do anything i want.
>this subject as of now. I must state that I tend to envision the conscience
>as an asymptote, a constantly receding perimeter (or as I call it in a
>poem; The Straying Edge) and don't quite believe in convergence
>as necessarily a postive state. We all converge in death of course,
i'm not insisting on a "positive" evaluation of convergence (i actually see
it as "beyond good and evil" as some syphilitic once put it). i'm also not
thinking of a personal convergence but a species convergence on more complex
consensus understandings.
much as we now have a simple consensus understanding of such phenomena as
electricity: not everyone thinks about electricity, but when it is
explained by those who do, there is almost no variation in the concepts as
they explain them because at a basic level, all understanding converges.
i think we are developing (it may take a hundred years -- but i think the
direction is clear now) a more complex understanding of "reality" than we
currently have.
>but before that... It's uncertainty (the old-fashioned kind, not the
>chaotic manifestation) that strikes me as most useful in regard to
>my actions (and lack of), so (even though I began my collegiate
>years in mathematics and science) I am wary of measurements
>or systems that purport to measure the immeasurable. To be perfectly
>honest (or rather imperfectly dishonest) the only aspect of Chaos
>theory and related fractal notions I embrace without flinching are
>all those pretty pictures. The ones you can see in steam rising
>from a cup of Oolong tea on a cold morning, etc.
it's the meta-perspective being formed through such studies -- the way Chaos
Theory can be found applicable to so many seemingly unrelated phenomena,
from the weather to social activity to ...
i'm not talking about measurements or predictions but a more complex
understanding of such "systems" and how they function and how that might
relate to the struggle for the liberation of the imagination.
this concept of feedback loops and chaos theory (self-regulatory
sub-processes) is i think critical to this struggle for at least two
reasons:
1) it can help us understand why "reform" and piecemeal "progress"
strengthens the existing order and is actually detrimental to the larger
effort.
2) it can help us understand why, if we are truly committed to this
struggle, we must be constantly alert to, and exploit all opportunities to
counteract the pervasive flattening of desire found in everyday living, and
why even the smallest acts of rebellion have the potential to produce
enormous consequences in that system.
> I read with interest the remainder of your post, but am not at all
>clear on how it applied to my statement about the voyeuristic; all
>I am saying there is that systems which purport to put in motion
>certain stimuli so as to observe the response are (since they must
>assume the viewing point is superior to the viewed) inherently
>fascistic; this point is made in Poe's "...Valdemar" in which the
>cool rationalist's observation of a horror that he has set in motion
>upon another is the true horror. That text is one long justification
>of a very modern type of scientific evil. To claim that one is merely
>an observer of human phenomenon in the service of either
>"higher knowledge" (dishonest voyeurism) or "personal titillation"
>(honest voyeurism) or "psychological revolution" (inane voyeurism)
>is to place yourself in the role of torturer disguised as passionless
>on-looker, and it is that passionlessness which creates the crime.
yes, i certainly agree with this assessment, and only meant to offer a
different route to the same conclusion (itself an indication of the kind of
convergence i sense all around).
and this follow-up was only intended to further explain my position to
anyone who might be interested, rather than an argument that it's important
for you or anyone else to see it that way also.
elag
> I want:
> Diamonds in place of gallstones.
Give your girlfriend some charcoal briquets
and a 1 ton weight
to test her patience.
Dale Houstman
>Give your girlfriend some charcoal briquets
>and a 1 ton weight
>to test her patience.
My girlfriend's the robot in Perceptor's head.
She has a little red train.
She only comes out to predict the weather:
Let's watch her turn pink!
Dale "Carol Danvers" Houstman