Screaming on All Sides
Nikolaus Maack
I was talking to a Buddhist pal of mine over the weekend...
(And I agree with Fascinan, btw, to say someone is a "buddhist" is a
dangerous proposition. But in this case, it's okay, I think, because
people are constantly telling my friend that he ain't no Buddhist. Much
like people in here telling me I ain't no surrealist. Fine by me. Btw,
my friend also would call himself a Christian, a solipsist, and a whole
truck load of other things. We are all many things. That's what makes us
all so nifty.)
Anyhow, my buddhist bud and I were comparing notes. I'm going to explain
some ideas we came up with for no apparent reason. It gives me pleasure.
My understanding of surrealism is that you take all the irrational things
in your life and analyse them, see where they come from, and seek out the
true Freudian/Jungian/Whateverian reasons for why you do what you do. If
you achieve a real understanding as to where your motivation comes from,
you can remove the irrational and make yourself sane, while at the same
time playing at being insane.
A semi-ridiculous example. Say you're obsessed with bananas. All day
long, that's all you wanna do, eat bananas. You smear bananas on your
face, your naked chest, your groin... After much introspection, and
perhaps with the help of a therapist, the use of mind altering drugs, and
some dream analysis, you discover that the reason you are so hot for
bananas is because you're repressing your homosexual tendencies. Bananas
are replacing the phallus in your mind, and smearing banana on yourself is
like jerking off the banana.
(This assumes you're male. Women with banana problems will have to find
some other answer.)
Over time you grow to accept this about yourself. Okay, I have gay
tendencies, you think. I can deal with this. Freud said everyone is
bisexual. You explore your gayness for a bit, and decide that while it is
interesting, for some reason you're going to be heterosexual. But knowing
this banana/gay thing has proved useful. Now you no longer need to do
the banana thing, and you have a greater understanding of yourself.
In my mind, a surrealist tries to break down personal and societal symbols
in order to understand the underlying meaning. Why bananas? Repressed
homosexuality. A surrealist might explore such a link by painting erotic
bananas, writing pornographic banana stories, or by putting up posters in
their neighborhood that read "Every Banana Split is a Blowjob." Or
whatever.
What is the natural conclusion, if you somehow, given enough time, come to
understand all the symbols and irrationality in your own life? (I suspect
that such a thing is impossible, but let's pretend it is possible.) You
remove all the bias from your perception of reality. Now, when you see a
banana, it is simply a banana. When you talk to a woman, you see her as
one woman, and not as all women. She is not your mother, not your
ex-girlfriend, not your big sister who used to beat you up. She's just
one woman. All your irrationality is removed.
Now you respond to reality directly, without getting lost in your own
dreams. But who are you? What makes up your own personality? Is your
very nature, your personality, who you are, made up of all the prejudices,
biases, and experiences that you've had in your life? If you remove all
these things, what remains?
Nothing?
A Buddhist is supposed to be trying to reach such a state, a state of
nothingness. Or at least, that's one interpretation of what Buddhism is
all about.
Frankly, the idea of achieving such a state, of becoming nothingness, of
letting go of self, scares the snot out of me. I love me; hanging out
with me is great fun. I would hate to lose me. So when Brandon quacks
like a rabid duck about how Buddhists want to destroy the self and
surrealists want to to liberate the self, I become concerned. Because
maybe liberating the self *IS* destroying the self. What's the difference?
Desire?
If we eliminate our irrationality and our prejudices and our illusions,
would we not naturally eliminate our desire? Why do we want to own TVs,
VCRs, computers, cars, nice apartments? Why do these things matter? Do
we really want them, or have we been programmed by society to want them?
Perhaps if we understood, truly, where our desires come from, then the
desire would die. Maybe even sex would lose its appeal. Why do we want
sex? Pleasure, comfort, warmth, something to cling to in the dark,
animalistic desire to reproduce, an attempt at immortality... None of
these things are permanent. None of them truly matter. If we understood
the desire fully, would the desire die?
This is why I've said in the past if we succeed in tearing down the
curtain that blinds us, that curtain made up of all our illusions and
prejudices and dreams, maybe we would find out that NOTHING is on the
other side of the curtain. Maybe once all our illusions are shredded,
nothing remains. Maybe this is why it's so damn difficult to tear it
down.
-----
I do not consider myself a Buddhist. I do consider myself a Taoist. Some
weasel asked me to define Taoism, to explain it, to show that I know what
I'm talking about. Okay, which Taoism do you want me to explain? Tribal
village Chinese Taoism? Philosophical Taoism?
The Tao Teh Ching says that the Taoism you can point at and talk about is
not the real Tao. And you want me to explain it to you? This might be a
problem. Let's just say I like Taoism and have a personal understanding
of it that might not mesh with your own. In truth, that's all we can say
about anything.
"I have a personal understanding of X that might not mesh with your own."
And it's true, as x-ister said: I am not trying to convert anyone, only
start up conversation. Running around converting people to Taoism is
silly. Tao is the flow of the universe. I don't have to convert you.
You're already in it. *snicker*
N.
PS.
This was my favorite piece of Brandon thought:
> Your right I am a
> fool --- for responded to such moronic bullshit as yours!
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, AND invective! Cool. I wonder if
he actually hears anything I say. Oh well.
--
I'm trying to teach deaf, dumb, and blind dogs how to bark up the right
tree in a forest full of identical saplings.
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
P.S.
You claim you are not trying to "convert" anyone, but end your message with
a line about teaching deaf, dumb, and blind dogs how to bark up the right
tree. Er. Converting the dogs to your idea of "the right tree?"
Nikolaus Maack
Brandon's latest response is quite a disappointment. I was hoping he
would comment on the tearing away of the veil of lies, and how there might
be nothing behind the curtain. Buddhists say once the illusions are gone,
nothing remains. Brandon, please tell me if you have an alternative
perspective.
Instead, Brandon pops a cog:
> P.S.
> You claim you are not trying to "convert" anyone, but end your message with
> a line about teaching deaf, dumb, and blind dogs how to bark up the right
> tree. Er. Converting the dogs to your idea of "the right tree?"
Of course you ignore the fact that I said all the saplings look exactly
the same. Which means you missed the fact that I am making fun of myself.
Of all the trees in the forest, I've decided I know which one is the
right one. But they're all the same. Which means telling deaf, dumb, and
blind dogs to bark up that one particular tree is a rather silly act.
So you missed that I was poking fun. Which isn't surprising, because
you're such a self-righteous weasel and can't allow anyone to have any
fun. Or at least, any fun that you don't like the taste of.
Brandon said [square brackets are mine]:
>all I am objecting to is a intertwining of Surrealism
>with these elements [Taoism, Buddhism, Jewishness] and the dispurse
>of that intertwining here.
Which translates to:
"All I'm saying is that I want to be in charge of defining surrealism and
what's get talked about in this newsgroup."
Which is a point that Brandon ignores every time someone raises it. Who
says you get to define surrealism, Brandon? "We have to stick to the old
line." Why Brandon? No room for growth? "Oh, there's room for growth,
it's just that there's no room for religion in surrealism." Why Brandon?
"Because we have to stick to the old line..."
And so on. I am told that when someone repeats themselves endlessly,
never really touching upon the heart of the argument, that there's some
kind of psychic knot of irrationality in the person's head. Brandon's
words dance around this knot, never touching it.
"Why no room for religion in surrealism, Brandon?"
"Because religion is a sham and the purpose of surrealism is to rid us of
all shams."
"The purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate all illusions. Maybe Buddhism
and surrealism have something in common."
"NO! Because Buddhism is a religion, it is a sham. You say it's out to
eliminate shams, but it can't be, because it is a sham."
Is this Brandon's position? Will I ever find out?
End of petty bickering, for the nonce.
The real reason for the signature file: I'm active on a poetry newsgroup
that only local Freenet types can use. (It's called ncf.sigs.art.poems,
in case you're curious.) For the past few months I have been trying to
teach people what a good poem is, and what a bad poem is. They're all
angst-riddled teenagers, so you can guess what kind of poetry they write.
Something like:
I go to school every day.
Everyone wants to make me pay.
When I get home I have to cry.
Maybe I'll slit my wrists and just fucking die.
Not the best poetry in the world. As I suggest they try new things, they
get angrier and angrier.
"I don't care if my poetry sucks!" they yell. "I just wanna express
myself, dude!"
And I say, fine. Express yourselves. But know that while you might be
tapping the cesspool in your head and letting out all your rage, you're
not expressing yourself well. Your pain doesn't come across to another
human being and get felt by them. And so they continue to write poetry
like the above. And I continue telling them how to write better poetry.
It's all rather silly.
(Much like the debate here, in alt.surrealism. What are we debating?
Nothing really. Bradon just wants us not to talk about religion in the
surrealism newsgroup, even if the religious ideas being expressed are
directly connected to principles of surrealism. It's all very sad.)
If you're really curious, the specific advice I've been handing out
about poetry is as follows:
1) Less usage of first person.
2) Concrete physical details and/or interesting metaphor as opposed to
bald statements (ie. show not tell).
3) Expressing emotions in a more complex manner (how many different
kinds of "sad" are there?).
4) Avoid ABAB and AABB rhyme patterns, as they make everything sound
goofy.
5) Save the swearing for when you really need it (ie. FUCK on every line
adds nothing).
Nik
Dale Houstman
> "Buddhists say once the illusions are gone,
> nothing remains."
**
This is quite the opposite of Surrealism, though: once the illusions are
gone,
everything remains.
Dale Houstman
"Once the pickle is gone, the hamburger remains"
Brandon J. Freels
1. Everything you said on your last post --- the one I dissapointingly
didn't comment much on --- was a joke, right?
2. You make fun of yourself, because that's all that can be done.
3. You said in my voice: "All I'm saying is that I want to be in charge of
defining surrealism and what's get talked about in this newsgroup." Well,
its about time that you figured that out buddy! Actually I am not defining
Surrealism any different than any other modern Surrealists --- just go to
www.users.wineasy.se/vertsurr/scissors.html where the Surrealists group of
Sweden has obviously picked up on the same ideas I have. Read article XV
especially. As for the movement of Surrealism, I will greatly accept any new
idea THAT'S GOOD! Your idea is shit.
4. I wish you would learn about things before talking about them. Its good
to start where others have left off. Your lack of knowledge in the history
of Surrealism, Buddhism, and Taoism is at fault for this entire thread
(along with my irrepressible desire to respond to you).
5. Another mistake. Don't tell anyone how to write poetry. Your activity and
know-it-all attitude is pathetic. There is no good or bad poem, and
teenagers don't need to be told anything. Let them find their own way (duh?
Let them follow the "WAY" you know the Tao --- another joke). You are trying
to "convert" them to your "way" of writing you sick pious pervert! Don't go
molesting any children in the name of Buddha please! its not really a good
idea to have you working at a daycare is it? Surrealism is not about
formulas and is in fact against formulas, but you jump around talking about
how there is a perfect formula to write a perfect poem. You are the ignorant
one. I call for more use of first person (and try never to use anything
but)! God is a bald statement! Emotion is the only thing that matters! Use
FUCK and SHIT when you feel like it. Pathetic Nik, these are teenagers, who
cares?! Why are you hanging out with them anyway? What are the chances that
they are going to end up being such great poets like yourself (that was a
joke, fool)?
---BJF
Nikolaus Maack
I said:
>> "Buddhists say once the illusions are gone,
>> nothing remains."
Dale says:
> This is quite the opposite of Surrealism, though: once the illusions are
> gone, everything remains.
I'm tempted to leap into a profound philosophical discussion on how there
is no real difference between "everything" and "nothing" in the above
statements, but shit, people, why bother? While Dale's point might be a
useful place to leap into further discussion, I get the impression that
anything I say, from this point on, will only be met with, "Yeah right,
Religion Boy."
So I'm going to shut up Please keep your cheering down. I might try to
nap later.
N.
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
[among other things, he suggests I'm a child molestor, that I believe I
know what the perfect poem is, etc.]
It's kinda difficult to have a rational conversation with someone like
you, Brandon. Can you figure out why that might be?
N
--
"Did you read that bit in the paper about a whole new cluster of galaxies
some wise-ass discovered? A billion new worlds to choose from? Anything
you can imagine will be out there, any game you can possibly play."
--Janwillem Van de Wetering, _Hard_Rain_
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <72b1c8$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
Dale Houstman
Buddhism, and a computer is the same as a mackerel; how can you post to a
discussion group?
Why do you bother to bother if any one thing can be called any other thing? If
your face is a car why don't you drive it to work?
I didn't call you Religion Boy, but if "nothing" is the same as "everything" why
don't you redefine "Religion Boy" as "Boy Genius" and consider yourself
complimented?
Why do you need to nap? Is napping an illusion? If you get tired, why not stay
awake three months straight, since fatigue is an illusion also? Food is nothing.
Nothing is clothing; go out in the snow naked. Eat dirt for a living. Turn into a
pterodactyl and fly off your roof.
The problem with all this actually, is that you don't take your own "everything
is everything else" rhetoric seriously yourself: you know full well when you get
up in the morning in your illusory bed and brush your illusory teeth with your
illusory toothbrush and put on your illusory clothes to go to your illusory job,
that it is not at all an illusion.
But if you can't tell the difference between "nothing" and "everything" what point
is there to anyone talking to you? You're not even a "Holy" fool...
When Christ says "render unto Caesar..." he is quite aware that there is a real
world of options and pain, and a price to be paid. At least he knew the
difference between nothing and everything. Your notions are pure escapism, and
exactly the sort of "it isn't really happening" crap that leads to being a "Good
German" as they cart off your next door neighbor. What's the dif? He didn't exist
anyway.
Now, where did I leave my navel?
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) starts screaming:
> If nothing is the same as everything for you, and Surrealism is the same as
> Buddhism, and a computer is the same as a mackerel; how can you post to a
> discussion group?
No one actually reads what I write. This is the conclusion I have
reached. My words are skimmed over, and then the reader starts screaming
"WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"
1) I said I wasn't going to bother explaining how everything and nothing
are not all that different. You've decided to argue with me anyway, which
is pointless, because I haven't actually said anything. You're now having
an argument with yourself. Which is fine. Have fun.
Mathematically speaking, infinity and zero aren't all that different. I
was going to go on from there. The complete abscence of something, and
the entire universe consisting of one thing, seem nearly identical. But
why bother saying this? You'd only find some reason to yell insults at
me. I can't tell if anyone else would be interested in thinking of these
matters, so why bother writing about them anymore?
2) I never said Buddhism = surrealism. I never said Taoism = surrealism.
I said they have things in common. All I ever wanted to do was compare
elements in each. That's it.
"Look," I said, "isn't it interesting that Buddhism and surrealism and
Taoism have all these elements in common?"
And then you and Brandon started shrieking WRONG WRONG WRONG, saying you
can't put religion into surrealism. Like even comparing elements of each
is going to cause the world to blow up. None of you have actually looked at
what I've said. Several people yelled that I obviously don't know what
surrealism is, what Taoism is, what Buddhism is, what time and space are,
what Wednesday is, etc. They didn't read what I wrote either.
So I'll try again. Back to the beginning... And this time, let me say
quite openly, with force, holding a rabid squid to your head, that when I
speak of Taoism and Buddhism, I mean the philosophies with these names,
not the religions. There. Now shut up about religon and consider the
following:
Taoism says there is an underlying pattern and flow to the universe. This
seems similar to surrealism, don't it?
Buddhism says everything is illusion and we should scrape away all
illusion and achieve a purity known as enlightenment. Sounds similar to
surrealism, don't it?
That's all I've ever tried to say. You make it sound like I'm planning on
opening a Buddhist temple in my back yard and calling it Surrealist Land.
If you hate religion so much, why don't you go out and burn down some
churches and call it a surrealist act? You'll be saving the "dupes" from
the evil priests, right?
Bleh.
N.
barrett john erickson
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> No one actually reads what I write. This is the conclusion I have
> reached. My words are skimmed over, and then the reader starts screaming
> "WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"
>
Well, i did try to address your points on mysticism directly in my last post (7
Nov) to the "Question: Supernaturalism" thread. I haven't seen any response to
that.
I'm not saying you had an obligation to respond, i just mention this because your
3 Nov post didn't arrive on my ISP's server until 9 Nov, so either one of us may
be unaware of the other's attempt to further engage this issue.
> 1) I said I wasn't going to bother explaining how everything and nothing
> are not all that different. You've decided to argue with me anyway, which
> is pointless, because I haven't actually said anything. You're now having
> an argument with yourself. Which is fine. Have fun.
>
> Mathematically speaking, infinity and zero aren't all that different. I
> was going to go on from there. The complete abscence of something, and
> the entire universe consisting of one thing, seem nearly identical.
I believe this is quite true and useful poetically, but within the argument it
simply renders both terms superfluous.
The point i wanted to engage is that mysticism, though popularly associated with
"surrealism", is in fact counter-surrealist in that it distances us from reality
rather than enhances it.
You did appear to be defending, or perhaps only trying to explain mysticism,
while implying compatibility with the surrealist project.
> Taoism says there is an underlying pattern and flow to the universe. This
> seems similar to surrealism, don't it?
>
I think this is defensible in surrealist terms, but i disagree. The "pattern" i
would argue is chaos, and the "flow" is simply our perception of continuity.
So it isn't a pattern and flow to the universe as much as its a pattern and flow
to our experience.
> Buddhism says everything is illusion and we should scrape away all
> illusion and achieve a purity known as enlightenment. Sounds similar to
> surrealism, don't it?
>
It only sounds similar to the diminished popularized "surrealism" (heavily
influenced by post-modern theory, which gets everything ass backwards in my
opinion).
I would certainly never accept the statement that "everything is illusion". I
think this concept results from a false assumption about the cognitive process
(or in the case of the post-modern social theory, the abdication of creative
responsibility).
What we experience is reality. It is enacted in a creative engagement with that
"underlying" chaos.
To paraphrase (invert?) Neitzsche: there are no illusions only cognitive
processes.
-- 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
Cadmium Flute
lisping:
>
>Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) starts screaming:
>> If nothing is the same as everything for you, and Surrealism is the same as
>> Buddhism, and a computer is the same as a mackerel; how can you post to a
>> discussion group?
>
>No one actually reads what I write. This is the conclusion I have
>reached. My words are skimmed over, and then the reader starts screaming
>"WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"
>
>1) I said I wasn't going to bother explaining how everything and nothing
>are not all that different. You've decided to argue with me anyway, which
>is pointless, because I haven't actually said anything. You're now having
>an argument with yourself. Which is fine. Have fun.
>
>Mathematically speaking, infinity and zero aren't all that different. I
>was going to go on from there. The complete abscence of something, and
>the entire universe consisting of one thing, seem nearly identical. But
>why bother saying this? You'd only find some reason to yell insults at
>me. I can't tell if anyone else would be interested in thinking of these
>matters, so why bother writing about them anymore?
>
>2) I never said Buddhism = surrealism. I never said Taoism = surrealism.
>I said they have things in common. All I ever wanted to do was compare
>elements in each. That's it.
>
>"Look," I said, "isn't it interesting that Buddhism and surrealism and
>Taoism have all these elements in common?"
>
>And then you and Brandon started shrieking WRONG WRONG WRONG, saying you
>can't put religion into surrealism. Like even comparing elements of each
>is going to cause the world to blow up. None of you have actually looked at
>what I've said. Several people yelled that I obviously don't know what
>surrealism is, what Taoism is, what Buddhism is, what time and space are,
>what Wednesday is, etc. They didn't read what I wrote either.
>
>So I'll try again. Back to the beginning... And this time, let me say
>quite openly, with force, holding a rabid squid to your head, that when I
>speak of Taoism and Buddhism, I mean the philosophies with these names,
>not the religions. There. Now shut up about religon and consider the
>following:
>
>Taoism says there is an underlying pattern and flow to the universe. This
>seems similar to surrealism, don't it?
>
>Buddhism says everything is illusion and we should scrape away all
>illusion and achieve a purity known as enlightenment. Sounds similar to
>surrealism, don't it?
>
>That's all I've ever tried to say. You make it sound like I'm planning on
>opening a Buddhist temple in my back yard and calling it Surrealist Land.
>If you hate religion so much, why don't you go out and burn down some
>churches and call it a surrealist act? You'll be saving the "dupes" from
>the evil priests, right?
>
>Bleh.
>
> N.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
Nikolaus Maack
barrett john erickson (bar...@MagneticFields.org) writes:
> So it isn't a pattern and flow to the universe as much as its a pattern
>and flow to our experience.
What's the difference? We human beings will never be the universe; we'll
only experience it. Perception equals reality, because until the day we
die, that's the only way we have of understanding the world: perception
and experience. Talking about what reality or the universe REALLY is, is
pointless. We are forced, by being human, to perceive patterns forever,
and have no access to real reality.
Are you suggesting that surrealism is an attempt to get beyond our
biologically based senses to something else?
> I would certainly never accept the statement that "everything is illusion".
Would you accept the statement that everything is "perception"? And does
it logically follow that perception is inherently flawed? Eyeballs only
see within a certain spectrum of light and the human brain is designed to
pick out patterns even when there are no patterns. Are we not doomed to
see ghosts no matter where we look, if all random stimulus can be seen, by
the human brain, as meaningful?
> What we experience is reality. It is enacted in a creative engagement
> with that "underlying" chaos.
Okay... Now would you say that the pattern is ONLY in our heads, or is it
also OUT THERE in the universe? (Is talking about there even a reasonable
thing to do, seeing as how we can never experience OUT THERE in its pure
form?) And more importantly, does it matter if the pattern is in our head
or in the world?
> To paraphrase (invert?) Neitzsche: there are no illusions only cognitive
> processes.
What's the difference, really, seeing as how it's our cognitive processes
that create illusions and that no matter what we do, our cognitive
processes remain beyond our complete control?
Dale Houstman
These are good points, (I am tired of the religion in Surrealism question myself, but I'll be glad to pick up again if you want!), yet I don't believe that "everything is perception" even though to accept that probably makes little difference to most. I firmly believe that there is a universe that both pre-exists and will post-exist any perception (human or otherwise) of its presence. Knowing this does make a difference in life; I am less likely to become a navel-gazer (or a tyrant) if I realize that I am a small (if exotic) portion of the pie. I don't accept any notion of deity, but I do accept the universe's genuine lack of need for my perceptions. This colors my perceptions, no doubt. Too often the phrase "reality is perception" is used to justify a rather numb approach to existence itself. The universe acts upon me whether or not I perceive it doing so. I don't know why generations of humans would spend so much time attempting to improve their perception (spiritually, philosophically, and physically) unless they felt that there was something quite (or sometimes just) beyond our perception.
To say "perception equals human reality" might be acceptable, although it seems not to be worth saying. And if (say) a madman "perceives" of me as a Chippendale chair, and I then a Chippendale chair? You could say "yes, for his reality" but then you admit reality is multi-form, and the phrase "perception is reality" is itself emptied. Which perception? What reality? I believe there is one reality that underpins all perception, whether we perceive it or not.
"Are you suggesting that surrealism is an attempt to get beyond our biologically based senses to something else?"
I'd say that art and religion and philosophy are exactly that, and the failure of each attempt is the saving grace in some ways. All these processes are dedicated to generally escaping or explaining or ornamenting the bare fact of "thereness" and (of course) the eventual "un-thereness" thereof. That there may be no success finally is the reason the attempts continue. It seems to me.
"Okay... Now would you say that the pattern is ONLY in our heads, or is it also OUT THERE in the universe? (Is talking about there even a reasonable thing to do, seeing as how we can never experience OUT THERE in its pure form?) And more importantly, does it matter if the pattern is in our head or in the world?"
This reiterates Baudelaire's notions about "correspondences": that the signs and symbols that surround us are "objective corollaries" of some great reality. In other words it is both; a certain appropriate ratio between what we create and what pre-exists our perceptions is a part of the feeling (often inchoate) that a piece of art, or a ritual is successful. As I said, I think it is "affective" to consider such things; to believe (as some do, from personal experience) that the Universe is either all in the head, or all in some God-head (who is all in the head) can form the basis for some shocking actions. In some sense, this Universe that is independent of our perception of it is a sort of moral base, with rather vague lessons to be learned no doubt.
Dale Houstman
barrett john erickson
clarity where it is near impossible.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> barrett john erickson (bar...@MagneticFields.org) writes:
> > So it isn't a pattern and flow to the universe as much as its a pattern
> >and flow to our experience.
>
> What's the difference? We human beings will never be the universe; we'll
> only experience it. Perception equals reality, because until the day we
> die, that's the only way we have of understanding the world: perception
> and experience. Talking about what reality or the universe REALLY is, is
> pointless. We are forced, by being human, to perceive patterns forever,
> and have no access to real reality.
We have very different perspectives on this. Mine is rooted in a model of
enactive cognition, which attempts to integrate the latest understanding of brain
function, physics, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, autopoiesis, etc. and owes
much to Varela and Prigogine.
[Call it the search for the "grand unified theory of realty" perhaps, if you want
to make fun of my reach. And it ain't easy to explain clearly since all our
prior learning is an obstacle to the fundamental but subtle conceptual shift it
requires. But once it is understood this is actually a much simpler,
"scientifically beautiful" and intuitively smooth explanation than we've
previously had.
Consider for instance, all the absurdly counter-intuitive concepts of what
"reality" might be like that have come from quantum physicists. Take as an
example the "many worlds" solution, where it was asserted that at _each_ quantum
measurement _all_ potential outcomes are realized and multiple parallel
universes branch off and continue on, one for each of the outcomes. That's
billions and billions of universes as Carl might have said.]
We might explain my model like this:
What we call reality (reality-as-experienced) is "assembled" from perceptions.
Perceptions are "assembled" from the various structural changes the brain
undergoes during cognitive activity.
Cognitive action, at its lowest level of complexity, is a sensori-motor
"coupling" with _"latent reality"_ (the same "latent reality" for all).
This "coupling" is much like a quantum measurement, wherein _some_ latent
characteristics are made manifest, while others are left latent, or rendered
unknowable by virtue of our action. Conversely, this measurement produces
changes in the "equipment" doing the measuring -- i.e., our cognitive processes
-- which is how we "register" this experience in the brain.
Important: the "latent reality" is like pre-measured quanta in that it has _no_
finite characteristics until it is engaged via the sensori-motor process.
Shared "experiential reality" is at the top of the complexity chain, the product
of all our biological and intellectual processes in interaction, while "latent
reality" at its bottom, nothing but unstructured potential waiting to be realized
(like chaos in need of an attractor -- i.e. cognition).
You might say this theory accepts the most troublesome discovery of quantum
physics as it's fundamental premise and rethinks and re-explains our intuitive
understanding of reality in that light.
Note that many of these terms, "assembled" and "registered" particularly, are
only conveniently understandable words for something which actually has no
"subjects" or "objects" but consists entirely of processes and sub-processes,
emergent and enactive, which cannot be isolated from the over all system.
Also there is no need to distinguish between "mental" and "physical" experience,
or "real" and "imagined" experience, because all are essentially the same
cognitive process which senses and creates structural changes interactively and
seamlessly.
And perhaps most importantly, note that differences in the cognitive process
yields differences in reality-as-experienced.
The flow and pattern we detect in our experience (indeed, the very "we" which
detects it) emerges from this cognitive process.
> Are you suggesting that surrealism is an attempt to get beyond our
> biologically based senses to something else?
No. Surrealism is about enhancing reality (as experienced).
With reference to the model above, it seems obvious to me (i'm sorry if i haven't
made it this obvious in my explanation, but this is a difficult concept to
convey), that "reality-as-experienced" is as much a product of our imaginations
as it is the product of what we usually refer to as our senses. In fact, i would
say that it is our imaginations (sitting at the very top of the bio-complexity
chain) which do the "assembly". So to enrich experiential reality to its fullest
potential requires a fully extended and operational imagination as well as fully
extended and operational senses, so as to extract as much experience from, to
realize as much of the "latent reality" as possible.
And it should be obvious to anyone reading this that it is our imaginations which
are the most likely restriction in this process since it is the one we have most
control over.
> > I would certainly never accept the statement that "everything is illusion".
>
> Would you accept the statement that everything is "perception"?
No, for the reasons above.
> And does
> it logically follow that perception is inherently flawed? Eyeballs only
> see within a certain spectrum of light and the human brain is designed to
> pick out patterns even when there are no patterns. Are we not doomed to
> see ghosts no matter where we look, if all random stimulus can be seen, by
> the human brain, as meaningful?
No, there are no errors in our encounter with "latent reality", only differences
in the cognitive processes (which include the imagination) which yield
differences in the structural changes and differences in perception, etc. finally
ending in differences in the _personal_ reality-as-experienced which then affects
the degree to which we can enter into a _shared_ reality-as-experienced.
These differences are most obvious, of course, from species to species, but also
vary within species.
So ultimately, reality-as-experienced is both personal and shared:
Personal in that we all "assemble" our own from our interaction with the same
"latent reality".
Shared because to the degree our cognitive processes are identical, our
reality-as-experienced will be identical because we are encountering the same
"latent reality" (producing the same raw materials for "assembly").
> > What we experience is reality. It is enacted in a creative engagement
> > with that "underlying" chaos.
>
> Okay... Now would you say that the pattern is ONLY in our heads, or is it
> also OUT THERE in the universe? (Is talking about there even a reasonable
> thing to do, seeing as how we can never experience OUT THERE in its pure
> form?) And more importantly, does it matter if the pattern is in our head
> or in the world?
The question of "in our heads" or "out there" becomes an arbitrary matter of
where one places the line, and therefore ultimately meaningless, since it is all
one seamless process.
> > To paraphrase (invert?) Neitzsche: there are no illusions only cognitive
> > processes.
>
> What's the difference, really, seeing as how it's our cognitive processes
> that create illusions and that no matter what we do, our cognitive
> processes remain beyond our complete control?
The difference is that our cognitive processes are producing our
reality-as-experienced flawlessly. Any discrepancies between our personal
reality-as-experienced and that of others may result in a more limited shared
reality, or it may not. Either way, it is no longer a matter of comparison to
some given standard, but to a common experience which can be altered, certainly
by evolution, but perhaps even by enlightened direct action.
The real question is no longer "illusion or reality?" but "to what degree can we
share that reality-as-experienced with others?" And that is a simply a matter of
how much agreement there is between _our_ personal reality-as-experienced and
that of all others.
The big question for surrealism then becomes: to what degree can we integrate
everyone's imagination into an enhanced shared reality.
Dale Houstman
Yeah. Me too. What he said.
Dale Houstman
barrett john erickson
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Yeah. Me too. What he said.
>
> Dale Houstman
yeah, yeah, yeah, i know.
as i just wrote in answer to Nik (off list):
"grand ideas should be expressed poetically. i see the poetry in this
cognitive model, but i still haven't found a way to convey it."
i was attempting no poetry, just trying to explain how _i_ came to
some conclusions re: mysticism.
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> > "Buddhists say once the illusions are gone,
> > nothing remains."
>
> This is quite the opposite of Surrealism, though: once the illusions are
> gone, everything remains.
"nothing", "everything"... big deal. same thing. HAHAHAHHAA.
I was going to reply to your previous post, but your funky 90-col
line-wrap screwed me up. Suffice it to say that I don't think much
of your self-righteous assumption that your definition of "religion"
is the only one.
Not all "religions" are out to sterilize the cosmos.
Oh well.
_
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> I was not going to respond, but I am a fool and so I continue...
> 5. Another mistake. Don't tell anyone how to write poetry. Your activity and
> know-it-all attitude is pathetic. There is no good or bad poem, and
> teenagers don't need to be told anything. Let them find their own way (duh?
> Let them follow the "WAY" you know the Tao --- another joke). You are trying
> to "convert" them to your "way" of writing you sick pious pervert! Don't go
> molesting any children in the name of Buddha please! its not really a good
> idea to have you working at a daycare is it? Surrealism is not about
> formulas and is in fact against formulas, but you jump around talking about
> how there is a perfect formula to write a perfect poem. You are the ignorant
> one. I call for more use of first person (and try never to use anything
> but)! God is a bald statement! Emotion is the only thing that matters! Use
> FUCK and SHIT when you feel like it. Pathetic Nik, these are teenagers, who
> cares?! Why are you hanging out with them anyway? What are the chances that
> they are going to end up being such great poets like yourself (that was a
> joke, fool)?
That was beautiful, man. In a twisted kind of way.
_
perceptor
perceptor
One side is coated black. It prevents sight of what is in or beyond it's surface.
The other side is clear. It allows no sight of the black coating or what lies
beyond it, but instead proffers the illusion of that which
is before it.
Clayton Francis
> where one places the line, and therefore ultimately meaningless, since it is all
> one seamless process.
Barrett,
always on the ball, but you are a worrying me: I think you know why.
Talysman
in amazement, I beheld Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Nikolaus Maack wrote:
:)
:)> "Buddhists say once the illusions are gone,
:)> nothing remains."
:) This is quite the opposite of Surrealism, though: once the
:)illusions are gone, everything remains.
depends on what kind of buddhism you're talking about.
the zen masters would agree with you and not Nikolas.
for example, in _Dropping Ashes on the Buddha_, a book
about a currently-living korean zen master (don't ask
me his name,) the zen master states several times that
the goal od enlightenment is to realize that the world
is "just like this". based on his description of the
stages of zen enlightenment, the answers to the question
"what is an apple?" are:
1) "this apple is red"
2) (point to an apple)
3) "the statue of the stone girl dances"
4) "the apple is red, the grass is green"
it's a very old idea. '60s hippie pop singer Donovan,
when he started getting into zen, sang a song based on
an old zen master's statement that went "first there is
a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is".
the first "mountain" is naive realism, the second is
mainstream buddhism, the third is zen.
--
dogs break all our leashes and some of our heels.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Dale Houstman
> "depends on what kind of buddhism you're talking about."
**
True enough, but I'm not really the one making general statements
about Buddhism and Surrealism, just a tired responder mayhaps.
In fact, earlier on I spoke of the two main levels of Buddhism
as an example of how there is an oppressive Buddha for the poor
("tamp your desires and get back to the paddy") and a playful
Buddha for the intellectual elite, so it's as corrupt in that regard
as any other religious system: let's not even get into it! I am as
tired of this Religion/Surrealism argument as anyone. To me it
is as plain as the kitchenette in Jack Lord's dead head that Surrealism
exists to defeat such systems. I don't care if someone wants to
take them up, I just want them to take them up a different bridle
path. But it literally has no effect on my life is Nick joins a
traveling
Christian Rock Band Cult called "Perets and Prays" it all comes
down to zed for this old head.
Donovan? Oh yeah... him. "First there was a recording artist /
Then there was no recording artist / Then there was."
> 1) "this Donocan is a bead curtain"
> 2) (point to a Donovan)
> 3) "the state of Wisconsin dances the hully gully"
> 4) "this Donovan is mojo, the grass is an investment"
I've read a lot of Oriental wisdom (even went through my Buddhist
stage, right before my Existentialist stage and just before
slipping into a middle-age coma) and for my money their
glorious wisdom sounds pretty dumbass. "Peace is the absence
of desire" "If you need to pee, look at a ant and tremble."
Still, interesting letter. Thank you!
Dale "Season of the Itch" Houstman
B.S. I actually have some Donovan recordings!
perceptor
> [ catching up on old material ]
>
> in amazement, I beheld Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
> write in alt.surrealism:
> the zen master states several times that
> the goal od enlightenment is to realize that the world
> is "just like this". based on his description of the
> stages of zen enlightenment, the answers to the question
> "what is an apple?" are:
>
> 1) "this apple is red"
> 2) (point to an apple)
> 3) "the statue of the stone girl dances"
> 4) "the apple is red, the grass is green"
>
Once someone asked me "what is the sound of
one hand clapping?" I responded by gently
slapping their face and saying "It's like the sound
of one hand slapping"
Back in the old days , If asked that question about
the apple I would have promptly stood on my head.
Today my answer would be to just eat the apple.
don.......
Treeclimbr
modern pop-sentiment, like maybe
Goth rock, or Subgenius stuff, and they
try to put Surrealism in that light. They
don't understand the positive life-affirming
nature of Breton's message, and can't
understand Dada outside of something
negative and pessimistic. Such people
can't see the beauty of the either movement.
Brandon J. Freels
P Kinsler
> it's a very old idea. '60s hippie pop singer Donovan,
> when he started getting into zen, sang a song based on
> an old zen master's statement that went "first there is
> a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is".
> the first "mountain" is naive realism, the second is
> mainstream buddhism, the third is zen.
The body is a bhodi tree,
the mind a mirror bright,
take much care to keep both clean,
lest on them dust alight.
[from somewheer of other]
#Paul.
P Kinsler
> [...]
> Buddha for the intellectual elite, so it's as corrupt in that regard
> as any other religious system: let's not even get into it! I am as
> tired of this Religion/Surrealism argument as anyone. To me it
> is as plain as the kitchenette in Jack Lord's dead head that
> Surrealism exists to defeat such systems.
Hmm. Subvert such systems, perhaps? Defeating them seems
a little too much traditional behaviour for surealism...
#Paul.
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Can't argue with this post.
[ then quoting Treeclimbr ]
are you sure?
I've come to the conclusion that you argue with everyone... and when
no one is arguing, you postion things like "question about spirituality".
anyways, I thought Treeclimbr was your sock-puppet, until I saw that
other post (which, predictably, offended you.) so now, I suppose
that can'tbe your sock-puppet, unless it's also your straw man.
have fun.
--
apes await at our atavistic edge.
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Talysman wrote in message ...