Open letter to the Surrealism Newsgroup
Brandon J. Freels
the confusion of the mind rather than the freedom of it.
It all seems to me that more people are willing to destroy what the previous
surrealists have accomplished, more people on this newsgroup are tyring to
redefine it as something that accepts Taoism, Egyptian mythology, Buddhism,
etc.
Why is there the desire by these individuals to pursue negative actions
against surrealism? They are dealing with subjects and areas that have
already been dealt with and discarded by the surrealist of the past. Can we
not move on? Where is the fresh take on surrealism? Where are the true
searchers for freedom?
---BJF
______________________________________________
Who the Hell is Brandon Freels?
Search for "Freels" at http://www.amazon.com
"I still believe in the marvelous when it concerns love, I believe in the
reality of dreams, I believe in heroines of the night, in beauties of the
night, forcing their way into hearts and into beds."
---Robert Desnos, Liberty or Love!
Cadmium Flute
>It seems that on this newsgroup there are more people who are budding for
>the confusion of the mind rather than the freedom of it.
a surrealist act? freedom is confusing?
>
>It all seems to me that more people are willing to destroy what the previous
>surrealists have accomplished, more people on this newsgroup are tyring to
>redefine it as something that accepts Taoism, Egyptian mythology, Buddhism,
>etc.
why bother?
>
>Why is there the desire by these individuals to pursue negative actions
>against surrealism? They are dealing with subjects and areas that have
negative actions against the wind?
>already been dealt with and discarded by the surrealist of the past. Can we
>not move on? Where is the fresh take on surrealism? Where are the true
>searchers for freedom?
>
*doing* it rather than talking about it? is that a"fresh take"? is
that what a "true searcher for freedom" would do?
scot...@earthlink.net
>
> It seems that on this newsgroup there are more people who are budding for
> the confusion of the mind rather than the freedom of it.
>
> surrealists have accomplished, more people on this newsgroup are tyring to
> redefine it as something that accepts Taoism, Egyptian mythology, Buddhism,
> etc.
>
I personally would have it accept the experiments of self flagellants
and bottoms. I might rule out tops. (I have prejudices.) I'm not sure
about switches.
> Why is there the desire by these individuals to pursue negative actions
> against surrealism? They are dealing with subjects and areas that have
> already been dealt with and discarded by the surrealist of the past. Can we
> not move on? Where is the fresh take on surrealism? Where are the true
> searchers for freedom?
>
negative actions against surrealism ????
I define what freedom is differently on different days. I don't need a
flash light for that.
Ultimately what I'm really interested in is what it means to be a human
being. Where are the limits? In what ways can the limits be broken down
a bit and redefined? We are re-creating ourselves and the universe.
There is no escaping this task. All our actions are mated to the
universe. We are fucking it all the time. And it is fucking us. We and
it mutate from this joining. Sometimes we are slaves. Sometimes we are
masters. Sometimes we are both at once. Sometimes it hurts. Sometimes we
bleed. We may disappear. But there is dignity in
what we do. Every bit of it. bla bla bla
........................................
negative actions against surrealism... Surrealist eat children.
negative actions against surrealism... Surrealist don't reveal the
locations of the bodies.
negative actions against surrealism... Surrealist cremate the victims
and make candles from
the body fat. Surrealist burn heretics at the stake.
Surrealist envision ideological cleansing. Surrealist build
camps in the east. negative actions against surrealism... negative
actions against
surrealism...
elag
This is alt.surrealism. This is not the 1927 Surrealist International
Congress. Surrealism as a cohesive movement has been dead as a corpse since
WWII. Noone here (w/ 2 possible exceptions) is re-fighting the Surrealists
battles. We are negotiating our own treaties w/ ourselves. Surrealism is an
inspiration... nothing more.
"perfect freedom is reserved for the man who lives by his own work
and in that work does what he wants to do." - R.G Collingwood
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> It seems that on this newsgroup there are more people who are budding for
> the confusion of the mind rather than the freedom of it.
>
> It all seems to me that more people are willing to destroy what the previous
> surrealists have accomplished, more people on this newsgroup are tyring to
> redefine it as something that accepts Taoism, Egyptian mythology, Buddhism,
> etc.
>
> Why is there the desire by these individuals to pursue negative actions
> against surrealism? They are dealing with subjects and areas that have
> already been dealt with and discarded by the surrealist of the past. Can we
> not move on? Where is the fresh take on surrealism? Where are the true
> searchers for freedom?
>
barrett john erickson
>
> Hello:
>
> This is alt.surrealism. This is not the 1927 Surrealist International
> Congress. Surrealism as a cohesive movement has been dead as a corpse since
> WWII.
the cohesiveness of the surrealist movement (past and present) lies in the
historical continuity of surrealist's explorations among the community of
surrealists.
> Noone here (w/ 2 possible exceptions) is re-fighting the Surrealists
> battles.
if only it weren't so painfully necessary.
this isn't an attempt to enforce orthodoxy, but rather to reinforce
conclusions that should be blatantly obvious and already reached by anyone
familiar with surrealist history.
>We are negotiating our own treaties w/ ourselves. Surrealism is an
> inspiration... nothing more.
surrealism is a commitment to the liberation of the imagination -- all
imaginations -- and their integration into an enhanced poetic reality.
it looks outward, not inward.
-- 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
Aisys
>Why is there the desire by these individuals to pursue negative actions
>against surrealism? They are dealing with subjects and areas that have
>already been dealt with and discarded by the surrealist of the past. Can we
>not move on? Where is the fresh take on surrealism? Where are the true
>searchers for freedom?
>
>Europeanized Buddhism
>Americanized Buddhism
>Japanized Buddhism
>Chinesized Buddhism
>
>It all boils down to a paradox of fools
>You religious folk are all the same.
>
>Of course we are: we are all brilliant.
>
>Religion is just an unsuccessful search for lost intamacy.
>Priests should be spit on. Nuns sodomized. And followers excluded.
>
>It all seems to me that more people are willing to destroy what the previous
>surrealists have accomplished, more people on this newsgroup are tyring to
>redefine it as something that accepts Taoism, Egyptian mythology, Buddhism,
>etc.
How come you complain so much?
Three cheers for gods with animal heads, big statues of composite creatures in
the desert with missing noses, statues of a fat guy with a jewel in his belly
button, large gothic churches covered in small ghoulish creatures to chase away
evil, corrupt priests that make people ramble on about what this world is coming
to, statues of people twisted into weird positions so they look good from all
angles, written languages made from pictures, Aphex Twin (had to stick him in),
lost undersea civilizations that never really existed, a head god that throws
lightning bolts, a calendar/altar made of large stones assembled by slaves who
didn't have anything better to do, etc. etc. etc.
What an entertaining world we live in!!
Brandon J. Freels
I was born with complainoritus.
Here is my list for you:
gods with animal feet
big statues of electric creatures in the desert with missing toes
statues of a fat thigh with a jewel in its dimple
large romanesque chateaus covered in small buffalo to chase away manure
corrupt llamas that make people bark on about what this carcass is coming to
concrete people twisted into precise birdcages so they look good for all
pornos written haycarts made from snickers
Simese Twin (had to stick him in)
lost undercloud civilizations that never really non-existed
a head that throws lightning bolts from its eyebrows
a large stone used to assemble Christian slaves who didn't have anything
xister
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> It seems that on this newsgroup there are more people who are budding for
> the confusion of the mind rather than the freedom of it.
Yeah, that's why we all just spent the last few days trying to work out an
agreement between us all on definitions/beliefs of what surrealism is/etc.
(that's a sarcastic statement BTW)
>
>
> It all seems to me that more people are willing to destroy what the previous
> surrealists have accomplished,
NO- not destruction, modification; mutation; change....
> more people on this newsgroup are tyring to
> redefine it as something that accepts Taoism,
Look, let's get one thing straight- just cuz I happened to mention Taoism in one
post in relation to surrealism doesn't mean that I'm trying to equate the two,
it doesn't mean I'm trying to infuse the two- hell I'm not even a Taoist! You're
reading too much into what people say!
> Egyptian mythology, Buddhism,
> etc.
>
> Why is there the desire by these individuals to pursue negative actions
> against surrealism? They are dealing with subjects and areas that have
> already been dealt with and discarded by the surrealist of the past.
Yes, well- we in this group aren't the surrealists of the past and in order to
believe something is relevant or not to surrealism by definitions public and/or
private we must turn it and Taoism, and all the other things you've ranted about
over in our own minds and make our own decisions about those things, as opposed
to blindly accepting what someone has said or decided in the past.
Many people probably come to alt.sur thinking that surrealism is the way for
them to go, but then find out that it wasn't what they expected or wanted at
all, some probably feel right at home. Not all here are pure bred surrealists,
and some probably don't want to be, does that mean that they shouldn't be here?
I don't think so... I like to think there are possibilities. No surrealist is
surreal 24/7, I (personally) just can't see it working that way. Especially not
in this time/place. The demands on our lives by the bourgeois world in most
cases won't permit it ( thus the statement: The simplest surrealist act- etc.).
I believe that religion is a farce- but that doesn't mean that I'm right. I
don't believe that when I die I'm going to heaven/hell/nirvana/(insert favorite
otherworldly place here), BUT- on the other hand, I can't say 100% for sure that
I'm not... Anyone who does is a fool. Belief is never sure....
> Can we
> not move on? Where is the fresh take on surrealism?
And pithy little screeds like yours ARE a fresh take on surrealism?!? Name one
positive thing that you have contributed to the discussion of the past few
days... I dare you. But that's O.K. Brandon J., keep on spouting off, because in
the long run it furthers the cause that you rail against and that I'm for. Look
at how many people were incited to speak out in favor of a diverse surrealism
because of your post. You're breeding exactly what you seek to extinguish.
> Where are the true
> searchers for freedom?
Right here buddy, free to say what I want about surrealism, Taoism (and
*horrors!*) seeing similarities in the two, and people who can't see past their
own.....gods (read: old school surrealists).
--
Reply (sans hyphen) to the x-i...@earthlink.net
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothin' you can measure anymore
The Blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold
and it's overturned the order of the soul...
When they said, "Repent!" I wondered what they meant.
I've seen the future brother, it is murder...
-LEONARD COHEN-
Brandon J. Freels
>NO- not destruction, modification; mutation; change....
You LIE!
>Look, let's get one thing straight- just cuz I happened to mention Taoism
in one
>post in relation to surrealism doesn't mean that I'm trying to equate the
two,
>it doesn't mean I'm trying to infuse the two- hell I'm not even a Taoist!
You're
>reading too much into what people say!
"The Way" or "The Path" can never be seen in relation to surrealism. Taoism
can only be seen in conflict with Confucus thinkers, otherwise it doesn't
even exist.
>Yes, well- we in this group aren't the surrealists of the past and in order
to
>believe something is relevant or not to surrealism by definitions public
and/or
>private we must turn it and Taoism, and all the other things you've ranted
about
>over in our own minds and make our own decisions about those things, as
opposed
>to blindly accepting what someone has said or decided in the past.
The only Taoist I'll ever respect is a heretic Taoist!
>Many people probably come to alt.sur thinking that surrealism is the way
for
>them to go, but then find out that it wasn't what they expected or wanted
Is this an autobiographical account? Surrealism isn't for you?
>Not all here are pure bred surrealists, and some probably don't want to be,
does that mean that they shouldn't be here?
No, but they must wear name tags.
>No surrealist is surreal 24/7, I (personally) just can't see it working
that way.
Just because you're not a surrealist 24/7 what makes you think I'm not. The
bourgeois world must be battled 24/7. You have given in haven't you?! Shame
on you!
>I believe that religion is a farce- but that doesn't mean that I'm right.
But you are!
>And pithy little screeds like yours ARE a fresh take on surrealism?!? Name
one
>positive thing that you have contributed to the discussion of the past few
>days... I dare you. But that's O.K. Brandon J., keep on spouting off,
because in
>the long run it furthers the cause that you rail against and that I'm for.
Why are you against me?
Look
>at how many people were incited to speak out in favor of a diverse
surrealism
>because of your post. You're breeding exactly what you seek to extinguish.
Maybe, maybe not. The discussions I've read lately have been very
interesting. This newsgroup was getting very boring until I made my
comments.
>> Where are the true
>> searchers for freedom?
>Right here buddy, free to say what I want about surrealism, Taoism (and
>*horrors!*) seeing similarities in the two, and people who can't see past
their
>own.....gods (read: old school surrealists).
And I repeat: Where are the "TRUE" searchers for FREEDOM?
P.S. I still don't like Leonard Cohen.
Brandon J. Freels
Surrealism, but Taoism is paradoxical, and cryptic. If you knew anything
about Taoism you'd know that the Tao Te Ching was written as a meditation
text for the Chinese emperor on how to rule his country. It is a text that
is primarily on how to control others (what to do and what not to do).
The closest Taoism gets to Surrealism is in Chuang Tzu. This is the book
with the famous story that ends:
Once Chuang Chou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flirting and
fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't
know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and
unmistakable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had
dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou.
Between Chuang Chou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! The is
called the Transformation of Things. (from Discussion on Making All Things
Equal)
But these Taoist stories all have morals. They are all confined to a
pre-determined conclusion. They aren't Surreal. The above passage is the
closest it gets.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
take on surrealism?!? Name one positive thing that you have contributed to
the discussion of the past few days... I dare you. But that's O.K. Brandon
J., keep on spouting off, because in the long run it furthers the cause that
speak out in favor of a diverse surrealism because of your post. You're
breeding exactly what you seek to extinguish.
How many people were incited to speak out in favor of a diverse surrealism?
Dale Houstman said: "I for one think religion is hersey of conscience."
I believe Elag also said: "I am opposed to religion of all kinds."
How many others support these views?
I do.
I have not breeded anything I am against. And what gave you the idea that I
was against anything? I am not at war with religion. There is no winner or
loser. As a searcher I am looking for discourse. Discussion is important.
Maybe you, non-xister, do not like your ideas challanged for fear that they
are weak, but I for one quite enjoy it. Maybe I will change my position,
maybe I won't. It is all a matter of moving towards emancipation of the
mind, something you obviously know nothing about.
---BJF
I still don't like LEONARD COHEN-
Brandon J. Freels
2. How many times did your father spank you on your sixteenth birthday?
3. How many times have you read that awful dirty Bible?
4. Do you consider yourself at all?
5. Is you negativity towards me representative of your unconscious desire to
paint impressionist works of art? Renior? Monet?
6. Are you a Catholic?
7. Are you a Cathartic?
8. When was the last time you spoke to your mother?
9. What do you see when you think of the moon?
10. I am holding up a picture of a donkey. In you mind what is its name?
11. How has mysticism effected your life?
12. Do you consider yourself an object or a subject?
13. What kind of car do you drive and why?
14. What was the last cook book you read?
15. What happens when you lie?
Aisys
There we go! Much better!
sublight
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message <6uhsml$7mf$1...@news.eli.net>...
>I must admit that at one time I too saw a connection between Taoism and
>Surrealism, but Taoism is paradoxical, and cryptic. If you knew anything
>about Taoism you'd know that the Tao Te Ching was written as a meditation
>text for the Chinese emperor on how to rule his country. It is a text that
>is primarily on how to control others (what to do and what not to do).
Incorrect. No one knows who wrote it, when it was written or why. The
language is archaic and hard to fathom, each translation is but an
interpretation, and there is no agreement on its meaning.
qagi
<Fre...@ethergate.com> adds the following to the body of human wisdom,
>How come I complain so much?
Simplify.
>Here is my list for you:
>
>animals with animal feet
>big statues of big creatures
>statues of fat
>large romanesque chateaus covered in manure
>corrupt llamas that make people
>twisted concrete people
>pornos from snickers
>Twins (had to stick them both in)
>lost clouds that never existed
>a head that throws its eyebrows
>a large stone that must be used to assemble anything better
--
Dr G Reindeer
Foundation For Magical Gnome Research
qagi
Aliens
>2. How many times did your father spank you on your sixteenth birthday?
Buildings made of cheese
>3. How many times have you read that awful dirty Bible?
but sometimes pilots experience what is known as a red-out when they
don't pull enough g's
>4. Do you consider yourself at all?
It's the one with the blue door
>5. Is you negativity towards me representative of your unconscious desire to
>paint impressionist works of art? Renior? Monet?
Only if it's red and invisible
>6. Are you a Catholic?
squeezed
>7. Are you a Cathartic?
fields without wheat, hope without genetics
>8. When was the last time you spoke to your mother?
delicious from certain angles
>9. What do you see when you think of the moon?
phallic arrows which don't flip
>10. I am holding up a picture of a donkey. In you mind what is its name?
Ludwig Wittgenstein
>11. How has mysticism effected your life?
Alt-F4
>12. Do you consider yourself an object or a subject?
Slow down and flash your headlights so the pedestrian knows the truth
>13. What kind of car do you drive and why?
Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, and like earth has a solid rocky
surface with a fairly thin atmosphere.
>14. What was the last cook book you read?
Credit cards.
>15. What happens when you lie?
terminal 4
>
>
ilikequestionairres
Dale Houstman
Brandon wrote: i
the Tao Te Ching was written as a meditation text for the Chinese emperor on how to rule his country. It is a text that is primarily on how to control others (what to do and what not to do).
sublight wrote:
****
Like the Bible: is the Bible now surrealist? One can argue these points
back and forth; I have access to a text that supports what Brandon says,
but that is beside the point. By sublight's account the entire project
might be a con. Following any of these texts is counter to the very basic
notions of Surrealism. Knowing about them is of course not.
Jarry couldn't have written his great absurdist piece "Jesus' Crucifixtion
Considered as a Downhill Bicycle Race" (or somesuch) without at least having
an awareness of the text; but is he a Christian? The reading of a text,
just as in the writing of one, requires a certain degree of distancing;
from some texts one cannot get far enough!
It is not a far stretch (even in the face of lacking forensics) to claim that one Chinese text or another is about control: almost all are about duty and obligation. The rest are about shutting up and keeping your shirt on. The I Ching (for example) is a lot of fun, but essentially it is no different than a "white read" from a psychic, or a Ouija board. There is nothing mystical about its operations, and to believe there is so is to proclaim yourself a non-surrealist. To be vastly interested in the imagination that wolud create such a system, and to use its aleatory aspects in explorations of the human consciousness (keeping in mind that it is human) is of course scientific surrealism. To pooh-pooh you all as a twittering nest of maggots with bird-aspirations, is of course Dada. And Dada is tired...
Dale H
Talysman
2. Do you consider yourself a book you once read?
3. Are you a Cacti? Or the symbol of spirituality?
4. Do you paint impressionist works for decay of moral values?
5. When was the last time you fed on human blood?
6. What do you see when sheep breed specifically for your amusement?
7. Are Jesus and Christ elves, or designer lovers?
8. The planet Earth is a human being. How big is his penis?
9. Sexually, is it hermaphroditic, emitting antennae?
10. Why do blue radios count spokes on your mother?
11. Can you intermingle your members with ordinary people?
12. If you were god, what means or tools would you use to instigate
crime, greed, war, fratricide and decay of moral values?
13. How can you destroy others with the cellular systems of Jesus' body?
14. Why do blue radioactive robots want rabies?
15. How has mysticism eagerly eaten it all?
16. How many times did your father become divine?
17. Is Moses floating beside you like a vibration in your mother?
18. Are you a Catholic representative of your unconscious lusts?
19. Which human being comes with tools you would use as a solution to
extraterrestrials spitting out the existence of God?
20. Does Satan really exit from outer space to explain certain things?
21. How many times have you moaned extremely high vibrations of
insidious desire toys?
22. When you make angels keep vibrating like a bear, do you lick the
furniture?
23. When do you believe there is a "devil" or Santa, a counterpart of
the supreme of evolution?
--
"I don't suffer from insanity. My clothes do."
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
qagi
<taly...@softhome.net> adds the following to the body of human wisdom,
>1. Will you pee freely?
>
The truth value of "p", where p is any valid q
>2. Do you consider yourself a book you once read?
>
They came out of the hole in the wall, did their stuff and went back. I
never saw them again.
>3. Are you a Cacti? Or the symbol of spirituality?
>
Meow.
>4. Do you paint impressionist works for decay of moral values?
>
Moon beams are silver- the sun emits white light
>5. When was the last time you fed on human blood?
>
The magnetic polarity of the induced field
>6. What do you see when sheep breed specifically for your amusement?
>
continuing for three days, scattered fear
>7. Are Jesus and Christ elves, or designer lovers?
>
stolen from a second hand furniture shop
>8. The planet Earth is a human being. How big is his penis?
>
peace line
>9. Sexually, is it hermaphroditic, emitting antennae?
>
Trick question.
>10. Why do blue radios count spokes on your mother?
>
only my friends have this number
>11. Can you intermingle your members with ordinary people?
>
i have the king of all excuses
>12. If you were god, what means or tools would you use to instigate
> crime, greed, war, fratricide and decay of moral values?
>
17.2 pints of lager each, on the condition they are all drunk on
wednesday
>13. How can you destroy others with the cellular systems of Jesus' body?
>
drinking my coffee alone with the racist think tank
>14. Why do blue radioactive robots want rabies?
>
failures in the timing of it all. repeat until the week ends. then what
>15. How has mysticism eagerly eaten it all?
>
Yes
>16. How many times did your father become divine?
>
i've just been there and they told me to come here
>17. Is Moses floating beside you like a vibration in your mother?
>
She ran around looking for a pen to give me her number, but i'd already
memorised it
>18. Are you a Catholic representative of your unconscious lusts?
>
three or four times this week
>19. Which human being comes with tools you would use as a solution to
> extraterrestrials spitting out the existence of God?
>
only about an hour- it's still a mess
>20. Does Satan really exit from outer space to explain certain things?
>
Mandelbrot set
>21. How many times have you moaned extremely high vibrations of
> insidious desire toys?
>
Tsarovich Alexi
>22. When you make angels keep vibrating like a bear, do you lick the
> furniture?
>
galactic halos still need explaining
>23. When do you believe there is a "devil" or Santa, a counterpart of
> the supreme of evolution?
>
because of science, magic, philosophy or love.
Brandon J. Freels
>language is archaic and hard to fathom, each translation is but an
>interpretation, and there is no agreement on its meaning.
This is absurd. The truth of who wrote it, when, and why is rather obvious
since it is stated in the majority of translations. It was written around
600 bce by Lao Tsu (who it is attributed to by just about everybody). There
is some speculation that it was written by a group of government officials
of the time and that Lao Tsu was not an actually person, but there is also
some speculation that Lao Tsu was a friend of the first historical Buddha
too (which is a modern myth created by hippies trying to embrace eastern
thought as a whole). The meaning can seem a bit cryptic, but again we must
look at the military references that appear in many of the tracts. Example:
"A good soldier is not violent. A good fighter is not angry. A good winner
is not vengeful."
---BJF
elag
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> >Incorrect. No one knows who wrote it, when it was written or why. The
> >language is archaic and hard to fathom, each translation is but an
> >interpretation, and there is no agreement on its meaning.
>
> This is absurd. The truth of who wrote it, when, and why is rather obvious
> since it is stated in the majority of translations. It was written around
> 600 bce by Lao Tsu (who it is attributed to by just about everybody). There
> is some speculation that it was written by a group of government officials
> of the time and that Lao Tsu was not an actually person...
perceptor
Be extremely subtle, even to the
point of formlessness.
Be extremely mysterious, even to the
point of soundlessness.
Thereby you can be the director of the
opponents fate
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The best victory is when the
opponent surrenders of its own
accord before there are any actual
hostilities.... It is best to win
without fighting
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
sublight
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message <5TwP1.72$87.11...@news.eli.net>...
>This is absurd. The truth of who wrote it, when, and why is rather obvious
>since it is stated in the majority of translations.
So you're basing your information on secondary sources. I'd take a look at
the original text (or perhaps grouping of texts--it's not necessarily a
uniform, cohesive work by the same hand any more than the Old Testament is).
With the tools of textual analysis, archaeology etc., you're going to come
up with some tenable theories, but as to the -truth- , well...... I simply
don't think you're going to find it. The Tao teh Ching may very well have
been written by one historical figure named Lao Tsu c. 600 bce, but I don't
think you're ever going to prove it, any more than you could prove the
authorship of the I Ching or any of the five classics of ancient Chinese
literature. Even the writings of Kung Tsu (Confucius) at a much later date
present difficulties to scholars attempting to determine authorship.
>> It was written around 600 bce
That's probably in the range, give or take a couple of centuries.
>>by Lao Tsu (who it is attributed to by just about everybody).
And you're saying Lao Tsu was a historical figure? Do you have anything to
go on besides Chinese legends? Lao Tsu is the name given as the traditional
author but there's no evidence of a historical Lao Tzu. This is an idea that
comes from rather out-dated nineteenth-century scholarship.
> >There is some speculation that it was written by a group of government
officials of the time and that Lao Tsu was not an actually person, but here
is also some speculation that Lao Tsu was a friend of the first historical
Buddha too (which is a modern myth created by hippies trying to embrace
eastern thought as a whole).
So there isn't universal agreement on this, eh?
>>The meaning can seem a bit cryptic, but again we must look at the military
references that appear in many of the tracts. Example:
"A good soldier is not violent. A good fighter is not angry. A good winner
is not vengeful."
Certainly if it was written during the Warring States period (a little bit
later than the traditional date given), military allusions are going to be
plentiful. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can take it literally as a
military treatise. Can you say "metaphor"? And again, you're basing your
evidence on second-hand knowledge, i.e. translations. To use the western
analogy again, if you based your knowledge of the Old Testament on the King
James Version, you'd never know that it was actually at least two different
texts, widely varying and often contradictory.
My comments on the difficulty of translating it and interpreting it I can
only base on comments by Chinese friends concerning their attempts to
translate it and the difficulty of the task, and my own limited knowledge of
Chinese. Ancient Chinese, especially before some uniformity was imposed on
it during the Ch'in dynasty, was terse and abbreviated, hence cryptic. Take
the first six characters of the Tao teh Ching----how would you translate it?
elag
not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
-tao te ching LXXI (ln.173)
elag
thanx
elag
> Brandon responds: Although it can't be proven most
> scholars have come to believe the new testement is a collection of writings
> from various Christian tribes who existed around 100bce. There is no proof
> but it is highly probable."
Brandon J. Freels
sublight wrote: "So you're basing your information on secondary sources."
Brandon responds: "There is no use in me doing translations of a text I see
little importance in. I read the secondary sources of scholars who are
researching the text in question. I do no believe it acceptable to say that
we know not where or when the text came from due its abiguity. "
Sublight wrote: And you're saying Lao Tsu was a historical figure? Do you
have anything to go on besides Chinese legends? Lao Tsu is the name given as
the traditional author but there's no evidence of a historical Lao Tzu. This
is an idea that comes from rather out-dated nineteenth-century scholarship.
Brandon responds: "True, but you stated that there was no author, and
clearly there is an author(s) in question. Like I said there is some
speculation that it was written by a group of government officials of the
time and that Lao Tsu was not an actually person, but here is also some
speculation that Lao Tsu was a friend of the first historical Buddha too
(which is a modern myth created by hippies trying to embrace eastern thought
as a whole)."
Sublight wrote: So there isn't universal agreement on this, eh?
Brandon responds: "There is never universal agreement on anything. But I
refuse to hold the text in question or even the Bible as authorless texts
since clearly some fool wrote them. Although it can't be proven most
scholars have come to believe the new testement is a collection of writings
from various Christian tribes who existed around 100bce. There is no proof
but it is highly probable."
Sublight wrote: Certainly if it was written during the Warring States period
(a little bit later than the traditional date given), military allusions are
going to be plentiful. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can take it
literally as a military treatise. Can you say "metaphor"? And again, you're
basing your evidence on second-hand knowledge, i.e. translations. To use the
western analogy again, if you based your knowledge of the Old Testament on
the King James Version, you'd never know that it was actually at least two
different texts, widely varying and often contradictory.
Brandon responds: "I am against metaphors. Say what you mean. I am not a
symbolist or a romantic. Obviously you are connecting yourself the Warring
States period to the war reference giving a probable conclusion of the date
of the texts production."
Sublight wrote: My comments on the difficulty of translating it and
interpreting it I can only base on comments by Chinese friends concerning
their attempts to translate it and the difficulty of the task, and my own
limited knowledge of Chinese. Ancient Chinese, especially before some
uniformity was imposed on it during the Ch'in dynasty, was terse and
abbreviated, hence cryptic. Take the first six characters of the Tao teh
Ching----how would you translate it?
Brandon responds: I have no interest in the Chinese language, or translating
the text in question. I have read many different translations of the text
and a majority of these follow the same lines. Your friend should find
something new to translate. There are way to many translations of the Tao
teh Ching and such time it takes to translate a text should not be waisted
on it.
Brandon J. Freels
I wrote: "Although it can't be proven most
>scholars have come to believe the new testement is a collection of writings
>from various Christian tribes who existed around 100bce. There is no proof
>but it is highly probable."
Of course I meant 100ce.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
Read anything about the origins of the Bible.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
They are all cons.
If I found a four thousand year old text speaking of how to knit and sweater
should I hold it as valuble just because:
a) it is cryptically written
b) there is no known author
c) we have no exact date to its creation
Since when did ambiguity equal brilliance?
I refuse to speak anymore on the subject since it is entirely anti-surreal.
---BJF
Talysman
Taoism, which I mostly ignored when they first appeared, and I have
to say I was surprised.
but I can't say what I was more surprised about:
the claim that we know exactly who wrote the Tao te Ching,
when it was written, and why;
Brandon making a few gods;
the inherently self-contradictory claim that surrealism
isn't about following a set of rules, it's about
making sure that modern surrealist see "obvious"
truths already decided upon by previous surrealists;
the confusion about where religion comes from.
I won't go into the religious question anymore, since it seems few
people are agnostic enough to understand what I'm getting at... come
over to alt.slack, where we frequently argue about religious questions,
if you want.
I don't know if I should get into the "no surrealist rules, just
surrealist obvious truths" issue, since I think even here, you need
a certain grounding in philosophy to realize it's just the same
thing with a new name. if a truth is obvious, everyone would accept
it without being told. there is probably no such thing as an obvious
truth.
I'll mention, though, that most translations of the Tao te Ching
point out that "Lao Tzu" means "Old Man" and isn't anyone's name.
--
"I might touch myself during that annoying time between naps."
Brandon J. Freels
Ching point out that "Lao Tzu" means "Old Man" and isn't anyone's name.
We don't know who "Pauline Reage" is either but that doesn't mean we should
look to "The Story of O" for spiritual guidance either, nor does it mean
that we don't know who the author "is" since its "Pauline Reage." We just
don't know who she is.
Understand?
---Brandon Freels
Brandon J. Freels
Talysman wrote a list of surprises (i.e. god):
>
> the claim that we know exactly who wrote the Tao te Ching,
> when it was written, and why;
Okay that was mine.
> Brandon making a few gods;
I never!!!
> the inherently self-contradictory claim that surrealism
> isn't about following a set of rules, it's about
> making sure that modern surrealist see "obvious"
> truths already decided upon by previous surrealists;
"Decided" is a bad word. Noticed is more like it.
> the confusion about where religion comes from.
This was yours buddy! You're the one who made up stories about the creation
of religion to support your own argument. The cave man thing about cave men
seeing spirits, and the Greek thing about Greeks creating Zeus. That was all
yours buddy.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
seems few people are agnostic enough to understand what I'm getting at...
come over to alt.slack, where we frequently argue about religious questions,
if you want.
What are you getting at? And besides, don't judge the alt.surrealism
newsgroup by my anti-godism. I am sure there are many agnostics on this
newsgroup, but maybe they feel you are so poorly representing them that they
refuse to speak up.
You sound so sad and hopeless in this post. Have you lost your faith?
Poor Talysman.
---BJF
Talysman
[ message-ID: <SMXR1.196$YW2.1...@news.eli.net> ]
[ quoting me: ]
"> the confusion about where religion comes from.
"This was yours buddy! You're the one who made up stories about the
"creation of religion to support your own argument. The cave man thing
"about cave men seeing spirits, and the Greek thing about Greeks
"creating Zeus. That was all yours buddy.
if you want to think it's made up, go right ahead, but I find your
attitude entirely too... RELIGIOUS. if the Greeks didn't invent
Zeus, are you suggesting that Zeus was pre-existent? did Zeus invent
the Greeks? sorry, I didn't realize you worshipped him.
or maybe you were offended when I said a sky and lightning god was
a personification of the sky and lightning. I can see how you you,
a worshipper of Zeus, would find this an outright lie.
[ message-ID: <6IXR1.195$YW2.1...@news.eli.net> ]
"Understand?
I'm afraid you don't.
my comment on Lao Tzu had nothing to do with seeking guidance. point
to where I said otherwise, if you doubt me.
what I said was that you lied when you said we know who wrote the
Tao te Ching. although I assume you were lying mainly to yourself,
that you intended no malice by spreading this falsehood.
[ message-ID: <xUXR1.197$YW2.1...@news.eli.net> ]
"Talysman wrote: I won't go into the religious question anymore, since
"it seems few people are agnostic enough to understand what I'm getting
"at... come over to alt.slack, where we frequently argue about
"religious questions, if you want.
"What are you getting at?
as I said: come over to alt.slack and find out.
incidentally, I never said I represented agnosticism, as you later
mistakenly claim. I only said few people are agnostic enough to
understand. if you want a label for the attitude I have towards
religion and reality, call it "Pyrrhonism":
"Pyrrhonism's distinguishing feature lay in its
application of scepticism to itself: not only
could we not know anything, but we could not
even know that we could not know anything ...
Pyrrho advocated complete suspension of judgment
and hoped to obtain a tranquil peace thereby"
[ Jennifer Bothamley, _Dictionary_of_Theories_ ]
perhaps the best known modern advocate of this sort of attitude
is Robert Anton Wilson, especially in _Right_Where_You_Are_Sitting
Now_.
for more on this, again I say: come to alt.slack ...
--
MEANWHILE ... a 200-foot Oriental continues shouting.
Brandon J. Freels
Talysman wrote:
>if you want to think it's made up, go right ahead, but I find your
>attitude entirely too... RELIGIOUS. if the Greeks didn't invent
>Zeus, are you suggesting that Zeus was pre-existent? did Zeus invent
>the Greeks? sorry, I didn't realize you worshipped him.
Brandon: you are missing the point! Is there any historical evidence to show
"how" the Greeks created Zues, or that Neolithic man saw "spirits"?
Absolutely not! If you want to understand Neolithic man more read Bataille's
book on the cave paintings in southern France. Like I have been saying you
"assume" that they did these things but THERE IS NO PROOF. I have never met
a caveman who said he saw a spirit.
>what I said was that you lied when you said we know who wrote the
>Tao te Ching. although I assume you were lying mainly to yourself,
>that you intended no malice by spreading this falsehood.
Brandon is Brandon. Lao Tzu is Lao Tzu. Lord Auch is Lord Auch. Pauline
Reage is Pauline Reage. Hans Bellmer is Hans Bellmer.
Brandon: Supprisingly when I asked "What are you getting at?" you point me
to the alt.slack newsgroup ("as I said: come over to alt.slack and find
out"). This supports my theory that you are not a surrealist. If you were a
surrealist you would have said "alt.surrealism" or some fictional newsgroup
made up in your unconcious.
Brandon J. Freels
>>if you want to think it's made up, go right ahead, but I find your
>>attitude entirely too... RELIGIOUS. if the Greeks didn't invent
>>Zeus, are you suggesting that Zeus was pre-existent? did Zeus invent
>>the Greeks? sorry, I didn't realize you worshipped him.
Brandon: I would like to hear your definition of RELIGIOUS ...
elag
I have never met a caveman who said he saw a spirit.
elag: true but the study of pre historic times demands some theoretical basis
upon which to proceed. Man invented religion... and religions of the
animistic or pantheistic type had to come from somewhere in pre-history. It
is reasonable to theorize about the mystical way that pre-historic man saw his
world. We can relate it to the ways that societies such as the African
Bushmen and Australian Aborigines see their world today. Not to mention
modern day UFO believers and supersticious folk of all sorts...
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
Lord Auch is Lord Auch.
elag: Lord Auch is Georges Bataille.
Brandon J. Freels
elag wrote in message <361B51ED...@concentric.net>...
true but the study of pre historic times demands some theoretical basis
>upon which to proceed. Man invented religion... and religions of the
>animistic or pantheistic type had to come from somewhere in pre-history.
It
>is reasonable to theorize about the mystical way that pre-historic man saw
his
>world. We can relate it to the ways that societies such as the African
>Bushmen and Australian Aborigines see their world today. Not to mention
>modern day UFO believers and supersticious folk of all sorts...
Brandon: I agree with your statement, but it seems that the idea of religion
and "spirits" did not come until later, the civilized time for religion, and
"spirits" much later. What I disagreed with so much about Taysman's comments
is that he was acting as if there is somesort of difinitive knowledge of
neolithic culture when all we know is "very little."
>elag: Lord Auch is Georges Bataille.
Brandon: Yes, but Lord Auch is also Lord Auch, and if you asked Bataille he
is not Lord Auch (when the identity of Lord Auch was revealed to be Bataille
he was uspet, because Lord Auch was Lord Auch). I'll admit that I don't know
how to explain what I am saying very clear on this subject.