Question for Cythera
Nikolaus Maack
sit down and talk about extremely personal sexual matters on a regular
basis? What connection would such personal information have with the
surrealist movement? Do you think such exploration served any purpose, or
do you think they went off track, and that this area of exploration is
best forgotten?
Nik
--
Blank, meaningless stares from people long dead.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Why do you think Andre Breton and the other surrealists felt the need
> to sit down and talk about extremely personal sexual matters on a
> regular basis?
A "regular basis"? You're trying to hard, Nik, and making stuff up. As
far as we know they did this a dozen times or so as an experiment. The
transcripts are in "Investingating Sex". As far as I remember that book
isn't even two hundred pages long. You would think that something done
on a regular basis from the 1920's to the present would fill up more
pages than that!
> What connection would such personal information have with the
> surrealist movement?
The questions asked provided a psychological POINT OF DEPARTURE. As I
see it, it really had nothing to do with "confessing" to others, but
more with YOU looking into yourself.
> Do you think such exploration served any purpose, or do you think
> they went off track, and that this area of exploration is best
> forgotten?
Sitting around playing games with friends is always a good way to spend
the afternoon [or evening].
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8egbqf$a14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > Why do you think Andre Breton and the other surrealists felt the need
> > to sit down and talk about extremely personal sexual matters on a
> > regular basis?
>
> A "regular basis"? You're trying to hard, Nik, and making stuff up. As
> far as we know they did this a dozen times or so as an experiment. The
> transcripts are in "Investingating Sex". As far as I remember that book
> isn't even two hundred pages long. You would think that something done
> on a regular basis from the 1920's to the present would fill up more
> pages than that!
>
> > What connection would such personal information have with the
> > surrealist movement?
>
> The questions asked provided a psychological POINT OF DEPARTURE. As I
> see it, it really had nothing to do with "confessing" to others, but
> more with YOU looking into yourself.
Exactly, and - though some think surrealists "worship" Breton - these
sessions reveal that Breton is rather a "sticky biscuit" when it comes to
matters of sexuality. It is Artaud's infrequent interruptions that provide
the freshest note. He is obviously a little dismayed by the process. In many
ways I find these sessions to be rather pathetic, but worth doing at that.
But it is obvious to those of us who can read that these "experiments" in no
way are intended to be mere "psycho-sexual" circle jerks (to apprehend
Brenda's lamely retort), or biographical weep meetings, but (as you rightly
claim) are conducted in the hopes of discovering new starting points. In
this regard they are no different from - and certainly no more central -
than their somnambulism and street walking experiments, their seances, or
their investigations into chance. None of it would have been worth the
effort if the surrealists had been less interested in freeing the
imagination from whatever restraints might contain it. That they took this
moment in stride and moved on to other things almost immediately to other
things should tell those of us who can see beyond our own shallow
habituations that there was more to look for than these stupid biographical
issues that so crowd the minds of people unable to vary their attack.
>
> > Do you think such exploration served any purpose, or do you think
> > they went off track, and that this area of exploration is best
> > forgotten?
>
> Sitting around playing games with friends is always a good way to spend
> the afternoon [or evening].
Surely: and let us remember that they did this willingly, and were luckily
imbued with plenty of imagination already to be prompted. If Breton had then
spent years - or even months - constantly begging each of them for
biographical details that he then utilized poorly or not at all, today the
surrealists might be known as merely a sidewing of an Ottawan psychobabble
crew. And quite hated. Or - as is more usual now - ignored for being a
one-track dullard.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
[The confession sessions were STOOPID]
Sounds like both you and Brandon are rationalizing to me.
"Yes, the surrealists did this, but it was minor, and somewhat pathetic,
and although they were looking to liberate the imagination, it wasn't a
constant shallow pursuit for biographical material blah blah blah...
Breton's sexual prudery made manifest, and besides, they only did twelve
sessions -- which is hardly regular -- blah blah blah..."
Any excuse not to talk about anything personal, right guys?
Intellectuals! I swear to gawd. Always explaining why it makes sense,
logically, that they can't do those things they're scared to do. Silly,
silly, silly boys.
"I mentioned I was from Minnesota!"
Yes, and that is intensely personal and private, is it not?
I hope you realize that my "requests" -- and Brenda's comment as well --
aren't so much a desperate attempt to get you to talk about personal
things, so much as pointing out that the overall theme of this newsgroup
is impersonal, "cool", and detached word play. You both immediately
assume that the world is kicking at your door, demanding you spill some
vital information.
Yes, I banged on Dale's head once upon a time until it cracked open and
some personal material spilled out. It was worth it. I'd do it again, if
I thought it would get me anywhere. And I originally did it just to prove
a point -- look how much effort it takes just to get Dale to spill a
little bit of information!
> If Breton had then
> spent years - or even months - constantly begging each of them for
> biographical details that he then utilized poorly or not at all,
Dale -- you keep saying that this biographical material needs to be
"utilized". What on earth are you talking about? How would one USE this
information in the first place, let alone use it properly? In my mind,
such material is inherently useful on its own. Sharing personal
experience in regards to surrealism is merely another form of
communication.
As I recall, when you gave out some biographical material, I did some
analysis of it -- made use of it -- which made you so uncomfortable that
you regularly ignored it, even as I repeated it over and over again,
trying to get some feedback from you. I think what I said scared you.
Specifically, it was when I pointed out the connection between your
missing biological father, your wishy-washy step-father, and your atheism.
Remember?
Now that we have some distance from the original moment of exposure, do
you feel any more willing to discuss this? Or are you still going to
pretend that my theorizing that we form our opinions of God on our
fathers is utterly ridiculous, despite the amazing coincidence that you, a
vocal atheist, just happened to have an absent father? I'm curious as to
whether or not you've given this idea any more thought.
You admit, do you not, that human beings are rationalizing, not rational?
If so, isn't it possible that you're rationalizing your atheism?
"I reached it through intellectual deducation."
How do you know for sure? Isn't it possible that, in truth, your atheism
is little nothing more than the angst for your missing biological father
manifesting in a socially acceptable way? How do we know where our
beliefs actually come from? Do we not tend to "logically deduce" those
things that are most convenient to us?
Parry
> How do you know for sure? Isn't it possible that, in truth, your atheism
> is little nothing more than the angst for your missing biological father
> manifesting in a socially acceptable way? How do we know where our
> beliefs actually come from? Do we not tend to "logically deduce" those
> things that are most convenient to us?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.... What was that about intellectuals and "word salad"?
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:390C4D...@zxOMITmail.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > How do you know for sure? Isn't it possible that, in truth, your
atheism
> > is little nothing more than the angst for your missing biological father
> > manifesting in a socially acceptable way? How do we know where our
> > beliefs actually come from? Do we not tend to "logically deduce" those
> > things that are most convenient to us?
>
>
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.... What was that about intellectuals and "word salad"?
>
> -- Parry
Someone's been pushing this "atheism is just sublimated father-loss" for a
loooong time now, and it doesn't (somehow) get any more intriguing with the
pasage of time. We are told we cannot know where our beliefs come from (I
simply don't care), but then we are treated to endless guesses at it, all of
which are very similiar. IF we can't tell, why all the conjecture? If we can
tell, then I'm telling you that someone that my atheism comes from a lengthy
consideration of the problems and fallacies and contradictions and general
perceived superfluousness of divinity topped by a "ephiphany" (a sudden
coming together of those inchoate wonderings into a physical release) which
I can locate precisely in time and memory. This has been gone over already,
and should suffice, but someone only has one idea and so MUST hawk it at a
cheaper and cheaper price, hoping to sell it to a passing stranger who won't
kick their butt for being aggravating.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> We are told we cannot know where our beliefs come from (I
> simply don't care), but then we are treated to endless guesses at it, all of
> which are very similiar. IF we can't tell, why all the conjecture?
Interesting question, actually. And it ties in with my considerations
about "the grey blanket". Providing "logical" and "rational" explanations
for our behavior limits our behavior. Doing so means that we believe all
our behavior must be "rational". And it is quite surprising how often
"rational" means ordinary, conforming, flat, and without beauty.
So Dale might be right: if all logical deductions are merely
rationalizations, why ask why? Or maybe this isn't the right approach at
all. The actual conclusion should be, ALWAYS ask why, because no answer
is ever true. Never assume that you have found The Truth.
Working from this, it follows that...
> If we can
> tell, then I'm telling you that someone that my atheism comes from a lengthy
> consideration of the problems and fallacies and contradictions and general
> perceived superfluousness of divinity topped by a "ephiphany" (a sudden
> coming together of those inchoate wonderings into a physical release) which
> I can locate precisely in time and memory.
...this sounds suspiciously like mythology, as opposed to reason.
Dale, you can point tho this lengthy run on sentence as an explanation,
but in truth, isn't it just a snapshot in time that you can use to explain
an idea that has become concrete? A sort of talisman for a belief? "Once
I thought, had an epiphany, and now I have AN ANSWER"? You sound so
certain, even as you say "if we can tell". Do you think we can tell?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> "Yes, the surrealists did this, but it was minor, and somewhat
Try re-reading my post Nik. I never said it was pathetic. Stop
stretching the truth.
> Any excuse not to talk about anything personal, right guys?
Shit! What have you told us about yourself that's personal? Tell us
about: the first time you fell in love, the first time you had your
heart broken, when you lost your virginity, any fetishes, any sexual
abuse issues, your views on love, your views on freedom, etc. Come on,
Nik, lets REALLY talk about YOU.
> "I mentioned I was from Minnesota!"
> Yes, and that is intensely personal and private, is it not?
And all I know about you is that you baby sit for some Canadian, and
like to analyze other people to avoid analyzing YOURSELF.
> As I recall, when you gave out some biographical material, I did some
> analysis of it -- made use of it -- which made you so uncomfortable
> that you regularly ignored it...
Actually, I don't recall any analysis in the group discussion the
Surrealist put together, and everyone with any intellegence knows that
the analysis says more about the analyzer than it does the person being
analyzed. Besides, your little trip on Dale's father was pathetic and
cliche. Come up with something original the next time you try to
analyze someone. Use your IMAGINATION.
syn
>> Any excuse not to talk about anything personal, right guys?
>
>Shit! What have you told us about yourself that's personal? Tell us
>about: the first time you fell in love, the first time you had your
>heart broken, when you lost your virginity, any fetishes, any sexual
>abuse issues, your views on love, your views on freedom, etc. Come on,
>Nik, lets REALLY talk about YOU.
>
just in case anyone feels the need, i've provided a questionnaire:
1) name, sex and brief physical description-
2) preferred underwear-
3) description of home and environs-
4) the first time you fell in love-
5) your first broken heart-
6) first erection/dampness-
7) when did you lose your virginity (note species)-
8) fetishes (with explanation if required)-
9) sexual abuse/unsettling events with weird uncle-
10) love (& sex) questions:
a) is love real?
b) can one love inanimate objects?
c) what is the difference between love and sex?
d) can one love without sex?
e) do wildlife programmes arouse you?
11) freedom: good or bad?
12) number of insects you tortured with a magnifying glass when young-
13) favourite film (or 'movie', if you prefer)-
14) how do you take your tea?
15) how much alcohol can you drink before collapsing?
16) member of any weird cults/ masonic lodges?
17) are you sure?
18) last time you sacrificed a goat-
19) who do you secretly love on this newsgroup?
20) your confession (open up and confess, we won't make fun of you..;-) )
syn
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ej4p9$5e7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > "Yes, the surrealists did this, but it was minor, and somewhat
> > pathetic... blah blah blah..."
>
> Try re-reading my post Nik. I never said it was pathetic. Stop
> stretching the truth.
The thing is some people are confused. I said that I considered the sexual
talk somewhat pathetic, and some people think all surrealists are the same
person. A flaw in their consciousness no doubt that no amount of loving
attention can heal.
>
> > "I mentioned I was from Minnesota!"
> > Yes, and that is intensely personal and private, is it not?
Someone is being coy without intelligence. I actually gave this pale someone
the facts of my entire life, which they had been loutishly demanding for
months. Why did I do it? To show what I was confident was the truth: that
this someone was in fact a hypocrite who hadn't the intelligence or the
imagination to drop anything better than weasel spoor with such info.
Though his blindness may persist, there can be no doubt to a thinking human
that he failed miserably to come up to his own boorish program.
> >
> > As I recall, when you gave out some biographical material, I did some
> > analysis of it -- made use of it -- which made you so uncomfortable
> > that you regularly ignored it...
Totally untrue, but somehow revealing. I didn't ignore it, but discovered
this someone's use of it so drastically inept that I was unable - try as I
might - to respond to its depth of idiocy. I admit, some paralysis of the
imagination is difficult to find answers to. Actually - though - all of this
someone's analysis came before the "revelation" of my life details: a dismal
(really embarrassing!) "theory" of atheism as father regret. Truly hideous,
and stupidly presented.
dmh
Antonin Artaud
--
In your face Space Coyote!
ICQ 35484641
www.vhemt.org :-)
The body's four elements: bone, pure will, movement, scream.
syn <s...@nospamsyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:957173252.7292.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> 1) name, sex and brief physical description-
>
see above, male, dead and rotten.
> 2) preferred underwear-
worms.
>
> 3) description of home and environs-
packed in soil, neighbours dead friendly.
>
> 4) the first time you fell in love-
before the second time.
>
> 5) your first broken heart-
I keep in a box for when I find a heart-repair shop.
>
> 6) first erection/dampness-
that would have been a lego house.
>
> 7) when did you lose your virginity (note species)-
didn't realise virginity had different species...
>
> 8) fetishes (with explanation if required)-
nuns. ;-)
>
> 9) sexual abuse/unsettling events with weird uncle-
no weird uncles - I'm a weird nephew.
>
> 10) love (& sex) questions:
> a) is love real?
love is a dog from hell.
> b) can one love inanimate objects?
spiritually or physically?
> c) what is the difference between love and sex?
the spelling.
> d) can one love without sex?
sadly, yes.
> e) do wildlife programmes arouse you?
only when I use them as an alarm clock.
>
> 11) freedom: good or bad?
freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
>
> 12) number of insects you tortured with a magnifying glass when young-
none. except self.
>
> 13) favourite film (or 'movie', if you prefer)-
Barfly / Seven Samurai
>
> 14) how do you take your tea?
I don't.
>
> 15) how much alcohol can you drink before collapsing?
I don't.
>
> 16) member of any weird cults/ masonic lodges?
Yes, thank you.
>
> 17) are you sure?
Reality is what you can get away with. Nothing is certain.
>
> 18) last time you sacrificed a goat-
that wasn't the last time.
>
> 19) who do you secretly love on this newsgroup?
myself.
>
> 20) your confession (open up and confess, we won't make fun of you..;-) )
>
>
I was that masked man.
>
>
> syn
>
>
Aeon
>
Laura, lots of it, hot and heavy.
>
>2) preferred underwear-
velvet.
>3) description of home and environs-
little house, nice porch, white with blue everything in the middle
of cowtown in Alberta, Canada.
>4) the first time you fell in love-
I fell in love when I was in grade eleven with the most beautiful
stylish man (boy) I had seen to that date. He was charming, witty,
sexy, and gorgeous. We dated for 9 months. I feel apart when he
left me. We had changed.
>5) your first broken heart-
The boy above. He broke me gently.
>6) first erection/dampness-
about grade six when I discovered what a clit was.
>7) when did you lose your virginity (note species)-
age 15, June at the end of grade 10, species: skid/hippy/rocker
>8) fetishes (with explanation if required)-
men's wrists, good cologne (shiver), nice bums, bondage,
and more.
>9) sexual abuse/unsettling events with weird uncle-
rofl. My friend's Dad wanted me as a birthday present. He
didn't get too far.
>10) love (& sex) questions:
> a) is love real?
yes.
> b) can one love inanimate objects?
scary but yes.
> c) what is the difference between love and sex?
sex does not equate love and love does not always
result in sex. Sex with love is the most incredible
and powerful thing.
> d) can one love without sex?
most definately.
> e) do wildlife programmes arouse you?
nope.
>
>11) freedom: good or bad?
good good.
>
>12) number of insects you tortured with a magnifying glass when young-
zero.
>
>13) favourite film (or 'movie', if you prefer)-
Eraserhead.
>
>14) how do you take your tea?
hot, with a lot of sugar.
>
>15) how much alcohol can you drink before collapsing?
I always puke before I get that far.
>
>16) member of any weird cults/ masonic lodges?
nope.
>17) are you sure?
>
I've been sworn to secrecy.
>18) last time you sacrificed a goat-
goat? tsk tsk, they are not holy at all.
>
>19) who do you secretly love on this newsgroup?
Dale. (pant pant)
>20) your confession (open up and confess, we won't make fun of you..;-) )
I confess that my life is a mess.
orlan
--
--Joan of Ark heard voices too--
laura transforms
http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
Nikolaus Maack
> What have you told us about yourself that's personal?
As often as I can, I talk about whatever particular art project I am
currently working on -- such as the detailing of the teddy bear
crucifixion, and painting Big Pink Gun, just to name two recent events.
Also, I've talked about events in my life in here on more than one
occasion.
> Tell us
> about: the first time you fell in love
I'll talk. Some reciprocation would be nice -- but who am I to expect
such things?
Her name was Andrea Grogotzen (or something like that). She was a
beautiful red-headed girl in my first grade class. I was crazy about
her. I couldn't stop thinking about her, even though I had no idea why
she excited me so much. I remember telling my next door neighbour that I
thought she was amazing and he laughed at me -- "How can you like someone
with a stupid last name like that?"
I pined for her from a distance for a number of years. Then I switched
schools. Eventually, I saw her again -- her red hair had turned brown.
It was enough for me to lose interest in her.
> the first time you had your
> heart broken
In a game of truth or dare, Jenny Kirk was dared to kiss me on the lips,
sort of. We were playing the game in the schoolyard, after school ended
for the day. My friends thought it would be funny if they made it look
like she was going to kiss my friend Gavin, but then I stepped forward so
she could kiss me. When I stepped forward, she said, "EW, GROSS!" or the
equivalent. I burst into furious tears.
"Don't you know I'm in love with you?" I howled miserably, and ran off,
crying all the way home, my entire body aching with pain.
Pretty damn embarrassing. I didn't know what to do, the next day at
school. She sat next to me in a couple of classes -- we were friends, of
a sort. It was grade 6, I think. Maybe grade 5? Me memory is a bit
blurry, here.
The next day, she was especially kind towards me. Friendly. I remember
later that year she confessed she was dating some guy -- though he was in
grade six, he was well over six feet tall. An early bloomer jock. Jenny
showed me her hickeys, which she'd been hiding with a scarf. She asked me
not to tell anyone. I promptly did, which of course upset her.
Many moons later, in first year university, I saw her again. She was
taking the same philosophy class as me. Things were very different, sort
of. She tried to speak to me, and I was too embarrassed to do so. I got
the impression that if I asked her out, she'd have said yes, but with the
tortured past we had -- even if it was from the playground -- I couldn't
bring myself to do it. We barely spoke to one another.
Then, one day, I met her on the street. I was biking to class, she was
walking a puppy. I pet her dog, we talked about the dog for a bit, she
smiled, I smiled, and that was the last time I spoke to her. Closure, in
a weird sort of way.
>when you lost your virginity
I lost my virginity to a single mother named Syl, that I met at a
Halloween party. I think I was 21 when I lost my virginity. I was
convinced that sex was supposed to last a long time, so while fucking her,
I thought about my worst nightmares -- blood and gore and death -- to make
my erection last longer. Which is very funny and disturbing at the same
time.
Syl was convinced I was dating her simply to get sexual experience. I
denied this accusation frequently, knowing that it was absolutely true. I
was 21, she was 28. We dated for 8 months. At one point I was
practically living with her. I forget why we broke up, exactly. At first
she said we needed space, and so we semi-broke up. Then she insisted we
get back together -- she missed me. I didn't want to get back together --
I didn't miss her. We had sex for the last time knowing we were broken
up. It was the best sex we'd had together.
The actual time I lost my virginity? We did it on the couch, downstairs.
I don't even remember much of it. We had to wait a month before finally
doing it, because she'd had some kind of surgery done on her vagina, and
she wasn't supposed to have sex for a month. I quite patiently insisted
we wait until the alotted time was over. This impressed her. She thought
I was mature and responsible. I wanted to wait partly because I wanted to
follow doctor's orders, partly because I was nervous.
I remember that sex the first time was pretty boring. In fact, I remember
telling a friend that masturbation was far more satisfying. This shocked
me, because sex was "supposed to be" the most exciting thing ever. It
wasn't. *gasp!*
>any fetishes
Sadism, to a certain extent. Tying someone up, spanking them, whipping
them, abusing them. Fun stuff. I'm not adverse to being tied up, either.
For some reason the sight of a woman crying arouses me a great deal,
especially if she wants me to comfort her.
>any sexual
> abuse issues
None that I'm aware of. Once, a boy a few years older than me locked me
in a tree house and demanded that we fool around. I was terrified, and he
could tell. He said, "What the hell am I doing?" and let me go. That's
as close to anything like that that I've gotten.
>your views on love
It's addictive. It's overrated. I am in love with falling in love. The
day to day stuff, I have more difficulty with. I think that most people
who are in love with each other don't actually experience any real passion
-- they just sort of do things together. I like to talk a lot in a
relationship, over-analyzing everything. Conversations about feelings
thrill me.
Although I've been in over fifteen relationships -- but who's counting? --
I think I've been in love four times in my life. Each time, it was in a
relationship that lasted longer than six months. It seems that time is
necessary for real love to grow. Syl, Gabrielle, Marjorie, Michelle.
I feel nothing for Syl, now, as I haven't seen her in over 8 years. Kind
of curious where she landed. Gabrielle drove me totally insane, and for
the longest time I wished she was dead. I got over that, and don't talk
to her much now. Every two years or so I get an email out of the blue. I
lived with Marjorie for a year in Wyoming. We both did stupid things and
broke up. I still talk to her, get postcards from her, etc.
Michelle is who I am currently dating. We've been seeing each other for a
year and a half. It's been a rocky road. I think we've broken up and
gotten back together four times. She's learning to talk to me, and I'm
learning to be less of a jerk with her. It's very fun and painful.
>your
>views on freedom
I like freedom.
> Besides, your little trip on Dale's father was pathetic and
> cliche.
That's absolutely true, but I still find it oddly compelling. I mean,
come on -- Dale says he's a rabid atheist, and has been since he was a
kid. I say, "You know, kids form their opinion of God on their parents.
You've been an atheist since you were a youngster. Is it possible your
relationship with your father has something to do with this?" Dale got
extremely irritated and says I'm full of shit. Later, when dishing out
some biographical material, it turns out that Dale's biological father was
in fact absent, and that his feelings for his step-father are of disgust.
I'm sure Dale would say this is just a coincidence. While the facts don't
prove anything, I'd argue that this is an interesting coincidence. Isn't
it remotely possible that his relationship with his dad(s) is, at the very
least, a contributing factor to Dale's atheism?
brandon...@my-deja.com
name was, I was 10, etc], I am much more interested in your FEELINGS.
Stop being so CLINICAL. I don't care what's happening in your life. I
have no interest in the story or plot. What I want is the EMOTION, the
FEELING, the DRIVE. Stop throwing out empty cans, and give us something
to digest.
And as for you talking about your art projects, that's as unpersonal as
it gets --- and just as unpersonal as Barrett, Dale, and myself
discussing Surrealist theory. Besides, all your time here at this
newsgroup is devoted to you pushing your THEORY.
Anyway, I've had enough of this crap for now. I have to do my laundry.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> As often as I can, I talk about whatever particular art project I am
> currently working on -- such as the detailing of the teddy bear
> crucifixion, and painting Big Pink Gun, just to name two recent
> events. Also, I've talked about events in my life in here on more
> than one occasion.
el...@concentric.net
> 1) name, sex and brief physical description-
5'7" Hair: black, Eyes: hazel; very pale.
>
> 2) preferred underwear-
none
>
> 3) description of home and environs-
Walls grey, or brick, furniture black; black blinds; blue windows; red,
blue, violet doors; kitchen red, yellow, blue, black & violet.
Across the street I see 1850's Italianate row houses; down the block is
St. Mark's Church (1799).
>
> 4) the first time you fell in love-
Morticia Addams
>
> 5) your first broken heart-
You mean cartoon charachters aren't real?!!!
>
> 6) first erection/dampness-
Climbing a rope.
>
> 7) when did you lose your virginity (note species)-
My, first month of college... finally escaped from the depths of
Catholic school.
>
> 8) fetishes (with explanation if required)-
Cat faces on human beings; pyjamas.
>
> 9) sexual abuse/unsettling events with weird uncle-
Not really.
>
> 10) love (& sex) questions:
> a) is love real?
We think that it is, so it is.
We think that it exists in 3 forms:
EROS - physical
AGAPE - friendship
FILIAS - parental/familial
(eros c'est la vie)
> b) can one love inanimate objects?
We tend to anthropomorphize everything... a three prong electrical
outlet is a little face.
> c) what is the difference between love and sex?
Semantics, ability to see through genetic programming/instinct.
> d) can one love without sex?
AGAPE - as above
> e) do wildlife programmes arouse you?
S-s-s-sometimes.
>
> 11) freedom: good or bad?
More important than life.
>
> 12) number of insects you tortured with a magnifying glass when young-
Several, as well as salt slug torture & electrocution. Luckily (for the
world) I soon learned better behavior.
>
> 13) favourite film (or 'movie', if you prefer)-
Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
>
> 14) how do you take your tea?
When asleep, w/ honey
When awake Chrysanthemum w/ honey (lots)
>
> 15) how much alcohol can you drink before collapsing?
1 bottle Ruby Port according to available experimental data.
>
> 16) member of any weird cults/ masonic lodges?
Usenet?
>
> 17) are you sure?
You talkin' ta me?
>
> 18) last time you sacrificed a goat-
Does goat cheese count? If so, last week.
>
> 19) who do you secretly love on this newsgroup?
I love the zeros but I also have a special fondness for the ones.
>
> 20) your confession (open up and confess, we won't make fun of
you.
I am not a Surrealist.
Nikolaus Maack
> Anyway, I've had enough of this crap for now. I have to do my laundry.
Yes, but how do you FEEL about your laundry?
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:390C4D...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > > How do you know for sure? Isn't it possible that, in truth, your
> atheism
> > > is little nothing more than the angst for your missing biological father
> > > manifesting in a socially acceptable way? How do we know where our
> > > beliefs actually come from? Do we not tend to "logically deduce" those
> > > things that are most convenient to us?
> >
> > Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.... What was that about intellectuals and "word salad"?
> >
> > -- Parry
>
> Someone's been pushing this "atheism is just sublimated father-loss" for a
> loooong time now, and it doesn't (somehow) get any more intriguing with the
> pasage of time.
It is old. I believe the last time I saw it floated was when Pat
Buchanan wrote a book a decade ago. I can even tell you when this angle
was first introduced: it was right after it was first pointed out to a
believer that the monotheistic god is just an imagined space daddy.
> We are told we cannot know where our beliefs come from (I
> simply don't care), but then we are treated to endless guesses at it, all of
> which are very similiar. IF we can't tell, why all the conjecture? If we can
> tell, then I'm telling you that someone that my atheism comes from a lengthy
> consideration of the problems and fallacies and contradictions and general
> perceived superfluousness of divinity topped by a "ephiphany" (a sudden
> coming together of those inchoate wonderings into a physical release) which
> I can locate precisely in time and memory. This has been gone over already,
> and should suffice, but someone only has one idea and so MUST hawk it at a
> cheaper and cheaper price, hoping to sell it to a passing stranger who won't
> kick their butt for being aggravating.
When I first came to this group 3 months ago, Nik was stinking up the
place with god talk. He went away for a while and returned as the “new
Nik,” picking up exactly where he left off. What’s his problem? Is he
actually a believer? He seems to have the believer routine down pat.
Already he’s veering to the desperate “how can anyone know anything
about anything” gambit which is the believer’s last hope for
stupefaction. His posts do raise a question, just not the one he’s
claiming. The question is: why does he persist in being a jerk towards
you? In another post, he conceded his attack was pathetic, then
proceeded to repeat it. Perhaps he is just pressing the old buttons to
see which ones still work. He wrote that you call yourself a “rabid
atheist.” I don’t understand what that is. Someone who rabidly does not
believe in gods? Let’s leave Nik behind and consider the nature of
religious discussions in general.
To your question, “why all the conjecture?” In my view, it’s a minor
battle won by the rotten racket whenever atheists are lured into
discussing the religion without a sneer. Religionists have nothing
invested in the arguments they throw at atheists; they are just tacks in
the road. It’s as if the Jewish, wherever they gathered, were forced to
consider the merits of Martin Luther’s racism -- they would be
successfully inhibited of following their own thoughts.
The sophistries of religionists are like little machines which the
non-believer is obliged to dismantle -- a process which is not difficult
(none of these arguments being new) just time consuming. After the
argument is taken apart, the religionist simply sends out another
machine. The non-believer ends up doing all the work; the religionist
doesn’t even have to make the machines, they’re all pre-fabricated for
him. Discourse is effectively log-jammed, and the non-believer spends
all his energy on reactive work, when he could have been directing it to
creative work. It’s a little crushing of the active spirit. Even
engaging in this sort of argument is to play the game that the
religionist’s belief is special, deserving of more serious consideration
than, say, a belief that super-intelligent unicorns on Neptune control
the galaxy.
So I maintain that when someone shows up wanting to talk about religion,
he should be summarily sent on his way with a sock on his nose. He
should go to a priest instead of bothering decent people. Or he could
take it to alt.atheism.moderated -- they love it when a believer drags
in a dead horse for them to beat.
No, I take it all back. Belief and lack of belief really are the same
thing, just as having gangrene is the same as not having gangrene. This
discussion has shocked me to introspection, and so I’ve started a list
of some of the things which I rabidly do not believe exist, and the
reasons why:
DON’T BELIEVE IN THE
EXISTENCE OF... BECAUSE...
Yahweh = absence of father
Isis = absence of mother
alien abductions = absence of uncle
telekinesis = absence of sister-in-law
faeries = was not close to my fifth cousin
levitation = absence of milkman
reincarnation = absence of elevator operator
ghosts = absence of absinthe
precognition = the clerk at 7-11 gave me the wrong cigarettes
faith healing = absence of gullibility
guardian angels = absence of severe head injury
telepathy = never met Uri Geller
Santa Claus = absence of evidence of a housing complex at the North
Pole
pyramid power = absence of a working dowsing wand
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
>
> It is old. I believe the last time I saw it floated was when Pat
> Buchanan wrote a book a decade ago. I can even tell you when this angle
> was first introduced: it was right after it was first pointed out to a
> believer that the monotheistic god is just an imagined space daddy.
If true, I wish this particular imagined one would take off his imagined
space helmet and step out into his imagined vacuum. Or maybe this is what
Nietzsche was talking about?
VERY visionary that...
>
>
> > We are told we cannot know where our beliefs come from (I
> > simply don't care), but then we are treated to endless guesses at it,
all of
> > which are very similiar. IF we can't tell, why all the conjecture? If we
can
> > tell, then I'm telling you that someone that my atheism comes from a
lengthy
> > consideration of the problems and fallacies and contradictions and
general
> > perceived superfluousness of divinity topped by a "ephiphany" (a sudden
> > coming together of those inchoate wonderings into a physical release)
which
> > I can locate precisely in time and memory. This has been gone over
already,
> > and should suffice, but someone only has one idea and so MUST hawk it at
a
> > cheaper and cheaper price, hoping to sell it to a passing stranger who
won't
> > kick their butt for being aggravating.
>
> When I first came to this group 3 months ago, Nik was stinking up the
> place with god talk. He went away for a while and returned as the "new
> Nik," picking up exactly where he left off. What's his problem? Is he
> actually a believer?
I don't sense that he believes in much of anything. But this wouldn't be a
problem for me, as I have issues with belief (as presuppositions) anyway.
But he is so adamant about his mimesis of belief that he puts me to sleep.
>He wrote that you call yourself a "rabid atheist." I don't understand what
that is.
It's what is colloquially called a "lie." I never said anything of the sort.
In fact, I have gone to lengths to tell people that I am as bored by the
polemics of organized atheism as I am by the sentimental hallucinations of
organized (or even disorganized) religiosity. I don't like proselytizers of
any stripe, but prefer a rather private and intimate relationship with the
matters of the world, including the imagniation. I am not certain whether
the N word knows that he keeps spreading the same bag of gecko manure on the
same small mine field, or whether it is a blind spot in his deaf
imagination. And - frankly - I couldn't care less. I am through talking to
him, because I have found he is beyond discourse.
>
> To your question, "why all the conjecture?" In my view, it's a minor
> battle won by the rotten racket whenever atheists are lured into
> discussing the religion without a sneer. Religionists have nothing
> invested in the arguments they throw at atheists; they are just tacks in
> the road. It's as if the Jewish, wherever they gathered, were forced to
> consider the merits of Martin Luther's racism -- they would be
> successfully inhibited of following their own thoughts.
Well, it all comes down to atheists supposedly having nothing else to talk
about when in conversation with other avowed atheists or theists. It is
little different from a black person always being asked to comment on
basketball. The fact is that most atheists are content in their thoughts,
and don't want to talk about God, or lack of same. I certainly do not! For
me it's a settled issue with nothing on the other side (or even the same
side of THAT issue) to engage the mind.
>
> The sophistries of religionists are like little machines which the
> non-believer is obliged to dismantle -- a process which is not difficult
> (none of these arguments being new) just time consuming. After the
> argument is taken apart, the religionist simply sends out another
> machine.
The religious side will always "win" the arguments. I long ago gave up the
idea of arguing the point, a point for which no sufficient proof can be
formulated. I just started telling the theists that my belief in a godless
universe was a matter of faith. That's the bottom line at any rate.
>
> No, I take it all back. Belief and lack of belief really are the same
> thing, just as having gangrene is the same as not having gangrene.
I think it lies in the very concept of belief itself, and this is something
I discussed with Barrett to some degree of surprise. He had come to
understand a basis for agnosticism (which we atheists tend to dismiss as
dumbass fence-sitting) in the notions of suspended observation. In other
words, belief is the disease itself: being forced to state a position on
unobservable phenomenon. Barrett is much better at explicating matters of
cognition than I am. I am rather intuitive on such concerns. But it did
strike me as useful, and relates back to the originator of the word
"agnostic" aka Thomas Huxley, who found it the perfect attitude for a
scientist. It is the impermeable adamancy on either side that polarizes what
might otherwise an elegant discussion. But then, whenever I see an issue
reduced to two sides, I am suspicious.
> DON'T BELIEVE IN THE
> EXISTENCE OF... BECAUSE...
> Yahweh = absence of father
> Isis = absence of mother
> alien abductions = absence of uncle
Uncle Fester from Bohunk Flats, no doubt!
> telekinesis = absence of sister-in-law
> faeries = was not close to my fifth cousin
I have a friend who professes to believe in "the little people" but he's a
very subtle and persistent kidder.
> levitation = absence of milkman
And a shortage of Levis.
> reincarnation = absence of elevator operator
Reincarnation is the great trousseau chest that has replaced the hope for
heaven, even in a lot of Christians I meet! Odd, I think.
> ghosts = absence of absinthe
But there are a lot of great ghost stories, aren't there? I think ghosts are
interesting psychologically and aestheically, because they ring (in
literature) so many changes on issues of displacement, revenge, regret,
exile, etc.
> precognition = the clerk at 7-11 gave me the wrong cigarettes
You'll have to explicate this: What is "wrong" about the cigarettes? Do you
feel a vague horror because they were originally designed for women, as a
daintier version of the too gross male cigar?
> faith healing = absence of gullibility
Laying on of hands can be quite exciting though if they know where to press!
> guardian angels = absence of severe head injury
> telepathy = never met Uri Geller
He's too busy bending his "private spoon."
> Santa Claus = absence of evidence of a housing complex at the North
> Pole
Santa Claus! Now you're making me mad!
> pyramid power = absence of a working dowsing wand
I wish they'd make all office buildings into masoleums for CEOs. And bury
them alive with their stockholders. Then imagine all the great tourist spots
a few thousand years from now.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> When I first came to this group 3 months ago, Nik was stinking up the
> place with god talk. He went away for a while and returned as the “new
> Nik,” picking up exactly where he left off. What’s his problem? Is he
> actually a believer? He seems to have the believer routine down pat.
Do you really want answers to these questions?
Let me put it this way -- from my perspective, a surrealist should be able
to believe in anything and nothing. Minds so open our brains fall out,
that's my ideal. I suppose you could call me a "liberal" -- I believe
what I want to believe, you believe what you want to believe. Even the
most ridiculous system can be met with a "Hmm, could be."
So when a surrealist says, "If you are going to be a surrealist, you must
be an atheist," I shake my head and feel sad. It seems like a limitation
of the imagination to me. Why can't there be gods? They're fun to play
with. Like any other toy, I can build 'em up and tear 'em down on my
whim.
Ah, says the surrealist atheist -- I believe you said this yourself? --
then that is not a God. A real God is an authority figure you cannot tear
down. Like there's some sort of REAL definition of what a God has to be?
Isn't insisting on this definition of "God" rather limiting in itself?
What's interesting is, the atheist surrealist claims that believing in a
god is a limitation of the imagination. You're giving your power to a
force outside of yourself, ergo, you're limiting your own power.
I can understand that perspective, I just don't happen to agree with it.
> Already he’s veering to the desperate “how can anyone know anything
> about anything” gambit which is the believer’s last hope for
> stupefaction.
Admitting that anything is possible is not an excuse for the existence of
God. It's an idea that allows for all sorts of imaginings and pleasures.
If one of those imaginings happens to be God -- for one particular
person's kink -- then so be it. Who am I to say they're wrong? I may
find their religion silly -- say a $cientologist for example -- and may
feel compelled to comment. But if it gives them pleasure, and if they
don't preach it to me...
> In another post, he conceded his attack was pathetic, then
> proceeded to repeat it.
I admitted that it was flawed and somewhat cliche. Does that mean the
idea shouldn't be entertained?
> The sophistries of religionists are like little machines which the
> non-believer is obliged to dismantle -- a process which is not difficult
> (none of these arguments being new) just time consuming.
What I find depressing is anyone -- be they religious lunatic, or "rabid
atheist" -- who expresses something they claim to be The Truth. The
Christian who preaches that Christ is the only way is just as ignorant as
the atheist who insists that anyone who holds a religious belief is an
idiot at worst, and at best "misguided".
Call me a unitarian, I suppose. I would have no difficulty listening to
an atheist sermon, so long as they were willing to ackowledge that their
"certainty" is just as much based on faith as the "certainty" of the
religious.
The following is funny. Anything can be excused if it provides
entertainment. Christianity directly led to the movie "Life of Brian".
How can we knock it, when it's brought us such a good thing?
> DON’T BELIEVE IN THE
> EXISTENCE OF... BECAUSE...
> Yahweh = absence of father
> Isis = absence of mother
> alien abductions = absence of uncle
> telekinesis = absence of sister-in-law
> faeries = was not close to my fifth cousin
[snip]
Aeon
>Let me put it this way -- from my perspective, a surrealist should be able
>to believe in anything and nothing. Minds so open our brains fall out,
>that's my ideal. I suppose you could call me a "liberal" -- I believe
>what I want to believe, you believe what you want to believe. Even the
>most ridiculous system can be met with a "Hmm, could be."
I think everything should be like this, not just surrealism.
>What's interesting is, the atheist surrealist claims that believing in a
>god is a limitation of the imagination. You're giving your power to a
>force outside of yourself, ergo, you're limiting your own power.
I find that believing in a god could certainly be limiting in the
imagination in that it could be much more imaginative to think of how
intricate things are without a god to create them... it's simply
amazing.
Yet on the same hand, I find that the belief in a god could be
equally mind expanding in that a god in itself is so complicated and
incredible... it's simply amazing.
>Admitting that anything is possible is not an excuse for the existence of
>God. It's an idea that allows for all sorts of imaginings and pleasures.
>If one of those imaginings happens to be God -- for one particular
>person's kink -- then so be it. Who am I to say they're wrong? I may
>find their religion silly -- say a $cientologist for example -- and may
>feel compelled to comment. But if it gives them pleasure, and if they
>don't preach it to me...
For me, religion has nothing to do with surrealism. I feel religion is
highly personal and whether it is part of another person's surrealism
or not has no effect on me whatsoever.
>What I find depressing is anyone -- be they religious lunatic, or "rabid
>atheist" -- who expresses something they claim to be The Truth. The
>Christian who preaches that Christ is the only way is just as ignorant as
>the atheist who insists that anyone who holds a religious belief is an
>idiot at worst, and at best "misguided".
Maybe they are misguided. What matters is whether we spend great amounts
of energy trying to tell people so. I think it should be kept to
ourselves in most situations.
>The following is funny. Anything can be excused if it provides
>entertainment. Christianity directly led to the movie "Life of Brian".
>How can we knock it, when it's brought us such a good thing?
>
>> DON’T BELIEVE IN THE
>> EXISTENCE OF... BECAUSE...
>> Yahweh = absence of father
>> Isis = absence of mother
>> alien abductions = absence of uncle
>> telekinesis = absence of sister-in-law
>> faeries = was not close to my fifth cousin
>[snip]
>
> Nik
One thing I must admit, is that in a cheesy way I think it's rather easy
to see the link between an absent father and a vehement disbelief in a
male xian god. This could be a very weak link, and I don't tend to think
it is necessarily true, but I can certainly see the connection.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8eoe60$vgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8eo47v$48u$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> >
> > Let me put it this way -- from my perspective, a surrealist should be
> > able to believe in anything and nothing.
> >
point of the words that he is utilizing that you can only wonder why he
simply doesn't stop using the words all together. He is a living tautology,
and so he is pointless.
If you are going to profess a belief in eveything AND nothing (which to the
N word - as he once said quite lamely - are the same thing), then why call
it belief? Why not - instead of fronting these lame sub-zen vapors - call
into question the notion of belief at its core?
The N words appears to only have one idea, which isn't an idea. The same
"vapid voodoo" was pulled on the concept of deity: instead of allowing an
adult investigation into the very basis of the concept, its history, its
psychology (because he professes a distrust of intellect) we are treated to
the dumbass notion that he "uses" god as an imaginary toy of some kind.
But - at this point - why in Moloch's name call it "god"? Why won't he just
call it an imaginative construct, although one with little merit, since ALL
gods are already imaginative constructions.
It just goes on, this lame dangling between fundamentals, the parsing and
slicing of ideas that were too small to be handled in the first place, the
high school psychologies, the trite "experiments" with predestined results,
the furtive and clumsy struggles toward tic-porn,
the post card salesmanship, etc. etc. etc.
Crikey!
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> I think everything should be like this, not just surrealism.
Me too. But I am a soft-headed liberal who refuses to recognize the
fundemental truths of reality, and therefore I am evil. If you agree with
me, you are evil too. Cool, huh? It's fun being evil. You get to wear a
big black cowboy hat, and say in a growling voice, "Your time has come,
young Jedi. Feel the dark side sucking at your genitalia. It yearns for
your essence, and when you finally ejaculate..."
Sorry, I just slipped off into a fantasy, there.
> For me, religion has nothing to do with surrealism. I feel religion is
> highly personal and whether it is part of another person's surrealism
> or not has no effect on me whatsoever.
Hmmm. But what if surrealism is your religion?
But I see your point. I like the idea of religion being personal, in the
sense that I can't really explain my religion to you, even if I tried. I
can't really convert you to it, because I can't really explain it in a way
that makes sense. Sometimes it's fun to try, but usually it's a waste of
time.
On the topic of religion being private -- I believe the Christian bible
says that if you pray in public, you already got your reward. That is,
you've gotten the reward of everyone "knowing" how pious you supposedly
are. I have a friend who growls the specific bible verse that says this
whenever we encounter someone preaching in the street.
> One thing I must admit, is that in a cheesy way I think it's rather easy
> to see the link between an absent father and a vehement disbelief in a
> male xian god. This could be a very weak link, and I don't tend to think
> it is necessarily true, but I can certainly see the connection.
It's fun to play with silly ideas. When someone refuses to play with an
idea because it is silly -- or weak -- that's no fun at all. Shouldn't
all ideas be played with?
The whole oedipal complex thing is extremely silly -- but what an
enchanting idea! And there is some truth to it. Boys do compete with
their fathers, and girls with their mothers -- only not just in a sexual
way. Parents want us to excel, but when we excel BEYOND our parents, it
pisses them off.
That day when little Timmy finally beats his dad at chess or basketball is
the day that dad starts to feel a little older, a little closer to death.
So dad sometimes struggles never to let that day come. I have one friend
whose father would literally throw the chessboard across the room, should
it be obvious that his son was close to beating him.
Or to be even sillier, if someone suggested to me that the number of
rainbows over Fort Knox in a year controls the price of gold on the stock
market, why not consider it? It could be true. If butterfly wings can
start hurricaines -- and vice-versa -- surely rainbows can control the
stock market.
Nikolaus Maack
> I suppose it's time to ask you to please define the term "Surrealist."
Oh dear God, no, please don't make me do this. It only leads to horrible,
horrible things. Blood will be spilled, animals tortured. The moon will
turn into a rancid grape, and the seas will run pink with squid brains.
Nikolaus Maack
what you're talking about. Can you explain and or elaborate? Are you
trying to suggest that at one point I came on to you? I suppose it's
possible, but I have no recollection of ever doing so. Given that I keep
forgetting what gender you are, it seems unlikely that I would make a pass
at you.
Then again, I did make several passes at Dale, and I'm pretty sure he's
male. But these gender labels are so arbitrary. Male, female, whatever.
(Was it you that once accused Dale of coming on to you, or was that
someone else?)
cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> I realize you pursued some personal correspondence with me a while ago,
> but I was not particularly interested in going deeper. I happen to have
> a different interest, another woman whom I do love very much. So
> anything here between poets who are active in rec.arts.poems and
> alt.surrealism is definitely NOT a "light my fire" kind of thing. I
> thought you were astute enough and intelligent enough to realize that
> fact.
>
> It can be fun to do poetic things together, but not when you take that
> attitude. Then it is all spoiled and the kinds of fun that might have
> arisen amongst what might have been friends become impossible. Too bad
> things have changed that much. You see, Morphealism again, wherein all
> the external reactions have changed in radical ways. Aren't you
> surprised at that. Remember when you involved yourself in the
> interchange ?
>
> xo
>
> cythera
Dale Houstman
> In article <8ep8bu$ntt$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
> > Cythera, I have read this over three times now, and I still have no
> > idea what you're talking about.
>
>
> > Are you
> > trying to suggest that at one point I came on to you?
>
>
> > I suppose it's
> > possible, but I have no recollection of ever doing so. Given that I
> keep
> > forgetting what gender you are, it seems unlikely that I would make a
> pass
> > at you.
> >
> > Then again, I did make several passes at Dale,
And every one of them a forged hall pass.
>
> He's easy to like, isn't he? I've hardly ever known such a generous
> person.
Now cythera, there's no reason to insult me, just because the N word has a
thing for "rabid atheists."
dmh
>
>
>
>
>
>
> cythera
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:390F3B...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > thing, just as having gangrene is the same as not having gangrene.
>
> I think it lies in the very concept of belief itself, and this is something
> I discussed with Barrett to some degree of surprise. He had come to
> understand a basis for agnosticism (which we atheists tend to dismiss as
> dumbass fence-sitting) in the notions of suspended observation. In other
> words, belief is the disease itself: being forced to state a position on
> unobservable phenomenon. Barrett is much better at explicating matters of
> cognition than I am. I am rather intuitive on such concerns. But it did
> strike me as useful, and relates back to the originator of the word
> "agnostic" aka Thomas Huxley, who found it the perfect attitude for a
> scientist. It is the impermeable adamancy on either side that polarizes what
> might otherwise an elegant discussion. But then, whenever I see an issue
> reduced to two sides, I am suspicious.
This is essentially the view that I take, that one is probably better
off without beliefs (meaning an idea that is accepted on faith alone;
once such a belief is in place, it is very difficult to dissolve even in
the face of new information). I think of W.S. Burroughs, who envisioned
a lethal virus that would strike dead anyone who formed the thought, “I
am right.” Or of Charles Fort, who considered beliefs as if they were
varieties of beans. At the same time, though, it is too much to ask that
the mind to never come to a conclusion or form an opinion about
anything. I cannot watch a magician pull a pigeon from his sleeve and,
knowing how the trick is done, think that maybe this time the bird
really just materialized; I cannot see a game of 3 Card Monte and think
maybe this time it’s not fixed.
I’m not sure what “suspended observation” means -- is it something like
“suspension of disbelief”? “Agnosticism” is the suitable scientific
attitude, in principle. When pressed, a scientist will admit that
knowledge is tentative, truths are theories, and all facts are
assailable. Still, lies can be sifted out, and probabilities assigned to
what remains. The probability of a scenario may be vanishingly small.
The idea that the world rests on a turtle’s back gets such a low
probability that I would dare to venture there are very, very few
scientists who seriously discuss it as a possibility.
>
> > DON'T BELIEVE IN THE
> > EXISTENCE OF... BECAUSE...
> > Yahweh = absence of father
> > Isis = absence of mother
> > alien abductions = absence of uncle
>
> Uncle Fester from Bohunk Flats, no doubt!
Another Addams Family reference. My thoughts immediately drift to
Morticia’s curvy black blotch of a presence.
> > telekinesis = absence of sister-in-law
> > faeries = was not close to my fifth cousin
>
> I have a friend who professes to believe in "the little people" but he's a
> very subtle and persistent kidder.
Maybe he means dwarves, or those people you see out the airplane window.
>
> > levitation = absence of milkman
>
> And a shortage of Levis.
>
> > reincarnation = absence of elevator operator
>
> Reincarnation is the great trousseau chest that has replaced the hope for
> heaven, even in a lot of Christians I meet! Odd, I think.
It is odd, but not surprising. This dilapidated wing of philosophy
invites such inanities. I recall the posts of one fellow who said he was
a christian atheist. Go figure.
>
> > ghosts = absence of absinthe
>
> But there are a lot of great ghost stories, aren't there? I think ghosts are
> interesting psychologically and aestheically, because they ring (in
> literature) so many changes on issues of displacement, revenge, regret,
> exile, etc.
Agreed, ghost stories are great.
>
> > precognition = the clerk at 7-11 gave me the wrong cigarettes
>
> You'll have to explicate this: What is "wrong" about the cigarettes? Do you
> feel a vague horror because they were originally designed for women, as a
> daintier version of the too gross male cigar?
Obviously you are not a smoker (good thing), otherwise you would know
that there is one brand of cigarettes which tastes wonderful and the
rest taste like crap. With my brand, the packaging of the “king-size”
and “regular” are almost identical, so occasionally I end up with the
kings, which are lousy. Well, you asked.
>
> > faith healing = absence of gullibility
>
> Laying on of hands can be quite exciting though if they know where to press!
>
> > guardian angels = absence of severe head injury
> > telepathy = never met Uri Geller
>
> He's too busy bending his "private spoon."
It’s amazing that this guy is still raking in money with a very thin
routine. His last book came with a blue dot that was psychically charged
by Geller himself when he stuck his hand in the vat of ink.
>
> > Santa Claus = absence of evidence of a housing complex at the North
> > Pole
>
> Santa Claus! Now you're making me mad!
Sorry, Virginia.
>
> > pyramid power = absence of a working dowsing wand
>
> I wish they'd make all office buildings into masoleums for CEOs. And bury
> them alive with their stockholders. Then imagine all the great tourist spots
> a few thousand years from now.
That’s the best idea I’ve heard in months.
Parry
>
> Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > When I first came to this group 3 months ago, Nik was stinking up the
> > place with god talk. He went away for a while and returned as the “new
> > Nik,” picking up exactly where he left off. What’s his problem? Is he
> > actually a believer? He seems to have the believer routine down pat.
>
There was really only one principle question, and you’ve neglected to
answer it: do you (Nik) have a belief in god(s)? Or is this mania for
epistemology just your flavour of the week?
Some of your comments have been addressed elsewhere in this thread, so I
won’t re-hash things here. There’s a couple of things, though...
> Even the
> most ridiculous system can be met with a "Hmm, could be."
Do you say that the fifth time you bump into the same ridiculous idea?
The 10th? The 1,000th?
> Ah, says the surrealist atheist -- I believe you said this yourself? --
> then that is not a God. A real God is an authority figure you cannot tear
> down. Like there's some sort of REAL definition of what a God has to be?
> Isn't insisting on this definition of "God" rather limiting in itself?
I wonder if you have low comprehension skills. Most of my last post was
an explanation of while I feel god talk to be unfit for a dog to eat,
yet you would push this discussion. But I’ll cut you some slack this one
time. Strap yourself in with cooked spaghetti; it’s going to be one hell
of a dull ride.
Well yes I guess a word is limited by its definition. There’s not much
you can do with a word that doesn’t have a definition. Generally people
are trying to say something when they use the word. Of course, you may
have a very personal definition and say that God is a bone china teacup,
in which case its existence could be proven. But that would be
bone-headed.
> > Already he’s veering to the desperate “how can anyone know anything
> > about anything” gambit which is the believer’s last hope for
> > stupefaction.
>
> Admitting that anything is possible is not an excuse for the existence of
> God. It's an idea that allows for all sorts of imaginings and pleasures.
You do understand that “all things are possible” is a figure of speech?
It’s not actually true. It’s not possible both that a) gods exist, and
b) gods do not exist. Or are you saying that anything’s possible except
the possibility of making a sound conclusion on a given matter? If so, I
wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.
Consider these possibilities: there is the monotheistic god of judaism;
there is the 3-in-1 god of christian monotheism; there is the multiple
god system of the ancient Greeks or Egyptians or of the Hindu system;
there is the legalistic god of deism; there are the gods of pantheism in
every mushroom and stool; there isn’t even a question because you’re
only a brain in a laboratory jar; there is Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Bel,
countless others. Do you think all of these things are equally possible?
If not, how would you assign probabilities? Or is your glib
pronouncement that “all things are possible” supposed to cover the
eventuality that these gods are simultaneously equally impossible and
not equally impossible? How about a vengeful god who will torture you
for eternity if you don’t worship him now? If you think that’s possible,
you should get worshipping. Just cross your fingers that you’re
worshipping the right one.
Let’s consider something concrete. Do you think faith healing is
possible, or do you take the noble agnostic position of “dunno”? Faith
healing has been studied. You know these people are frauds and dupes,
you know how the tricks are done. There’s not even a mechanism by which
it *should* work. Are you incapable of passing judgment on faith
healing, or are you -- after all this time -- still waiting for “all the
evidence” to be in? You recall the story of Tyrell Dueck which unfolded
last year. This kid was diagnosed with cancer and he (i.e. his parents)
rebuffed medical treatment in favour of faith! Social Services sued the
family to force treatment on the boy, but by the time the case got to
court doctors had diagnosed his condition as hopeless, so the suit was
thrown out. The parents then took the kid to Mexico where they sunk a
lot of money into a bogus “alternate medicine” treatment. They even
deluded themselves that their son was getting better. He could have died
with dignity but became part of this circus; had his only real chance to
get better not been turned down, he might have lived. Perhaps they
carved “Anything’s Possible” on his tombstone.
> If one of those imaginings happens to be God -- for one particular
> person's kink -- then so be it. Who am I to say they're wrong? I may
> find their religion silly -- say a $cientologist for example -- and may
> feel compelled to comment. But if it gives them pleasure, and if they
> don't preach it to me...
In this respect, there’s nothing religion can do that drugs can’t do
more effectively and efficiently.
> What I find depressing is anyone -- be they religious lunatic, or "rabid
> atheist" -- who expresses something they claim to be The Truth. The
> Christian who preaches that Christ is the only way is just as ignorant as
> the atheist who insists that anyone who holds a religious belief is an
> idiot at worst, and at best "misguided".
Sticks and stones, Nik. Or are you maintaining that because “anything’s
possible” then there can be no such thing as “idiocy”? Idiocy becomes
impossible. The complexity of your pronouncement appears to be over my
head.
> Call me a unitarian, I suppose. I would have no difficulty listening to
> an atheist sermon, so long as they were willing to ackowledge that their
> "certainty" is just as much based on faith as the "certainty" of the
> religious.
Your assertion is simply not correct. An opinion formed on the basis of
observation, reflection, and evidence is not “just as much based on
faith” as faith is.
Well I hope you enjoyed this walk down Theology Lane, but don’t expect
me to show up for a second run. Perhaps someone else in the group will
set you on their knee and explain to you all these bloody obvious
things. Or you could take you act to alt.atheism.moderated.
> The following is funny.
Thanks. Always glad to hear I made someone smile.
> Anything can be excused if it provides
> entertainment. Christianity directly led to the movie "Life of Brian".
> How can we knock it, when it's brought us such a good thing?
I don’t think you understand how humour works. It’s commonly used to
sabotage the absurd, chaotic and threatening. A well-documented case of
this is the study of jokes told by school children when Ed Gein was in
the news. By your logic, Ed Gein and African famines must be good things
because they give us something to make jokes about.
-- Parry
>
> > DON’T BELIEVE IN THE
> > EXISTENCE OF... BECAUSE...
> > Yahweh = absence of father
> > Isis = absence of mother
> > alien abductions = absence of uncle
> > telekinesis = absence of sister-in-law
> > faeries = was not close to my fifth cousin
> [snip]
>
> Nik
>
> --
> Blank, meaningless stares from people long dead.
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
But in the case of the magician you are NOT taking your observations on
faith. You KNOW what is being done. "Coming to a conclusion" is - as you
earlier explained - quite a different affair, isn't it? Neither of your
examples strike me as originating from a belief system, but rather from an
observational stance. I am certainly not saying that one should not form
opinions.
> I'm not sure what "suspended observation" means -- is it something like
> "suspension of disbelief"?
I guess I meant to say - and said clumsily - that one should suspend a rush
to judgement on matters. In other words to avoid "belief" in the absence of
"forensic debris." That this is NOT always possible (or even desirable) is
perhaps obvious. For instance, I do have certain political postures that
often overwhelm this "cool" position. But I think it is useful as an
asymptote of consciousness.
"Agnosticism" is the suitable scientific
> attitude, in principle. When pressed, a scientist will admit that
> knowledge is tentative, truths are theories, and all facts are
> assailable. Still, lies can be sifted out, and probabilities assigned to
> what remains.
I certainly - again - do not beleive in eternally resisting the things to be
learned from observation. Only that a better "sort" of observation will be
the result - as in the scientific method - of not rushing to a conclusion
based on prejudice.
> > > precognition = the clerk at 7-11 gave me the wrong cigarettes
> >
> > You'll have to explicate this: What is "wrong" about the cigarettes? Do
you
> > feel a vague horror because they were originally designed for women, as
a
> > daintier version of the too gross male cigar?
>
> Obviously you are not a smoker (good thing), otherwise you would know
> that there is one brand of cigarettes which tastes wonderful and the
> rest taste like crap. With my brand, the packaging of the "king-size"
> and "regular" are almost identical, so occasionally I end up with the
> kings, which are lousy. Well, you asked.
I know this: I was being "philosophically" satirical. Actually I do smoke.
My cigarettes (to my taste buds) taste like chocolate. Camels are rough and
ready, etc.
>
> >
> > He's too busy bending his "private spoon."
>
> It's amazing that this guy is still raking in money with a very thin
> routine. His last book came with a blue dot that was psychically charged
> by Geller himself when he stuck his hand in the vat of ink.
"You'll never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the American
public."
> >
> > > Santa Claus = absence of evidence of a housing complex at the
North
> > > Pole
> >
> > Santa Claus! Now you're making me mad!
>
> Sorry, Virginia.
That Miss Virginia Slims to you!
>
> >
> > > pyramid power = absence of a working dowsing wand
> >
> > I wish they'd make all office buildings into masoleums for CEOs. And
bury
> > them alive with their stockholders. Then imagine all the great tourist
spots
> > a few thousand years from now.
>
> That's the best idea I've heard in months.
You can have it!
>
dmh
Aeon
>
cythera, I was super freaked until I read this! :)
I could remember everything you said in that post having
been said earlier in other discussions, as if you took
all of the comments and threw them together.. I was just
hoping that I'm not crazy...
Nikolaus Maack
> There was really only one principle question, and you’ve neglected to
> answer it: do you (Nik) have a belief in god(s)? Or is this mania for
> epistemology just your flavour of the week?
Down comes the playful mask, out comes the somber and realistic me, in all
seriousness. You've caught me in a good state of mind. Let's see what I
can do with it.
I believe in gods if I need them. When I don't need them, I forget about
them. They are an interesting tool. I do not discount them. I like
Jungian archetypes. I see gods as more psychological balls of yarn to be
batted around. Read on -- I'll make more sense in a bit.
If I'm going to build a nuclear reactor, I am going to study the ways
other people built nuclear reactors. They probably knew what they were
doing. I will listen to them. I would rather not blow myself up.
If I had cancer, I would take the treatments that have shown statistically
to be successful. I would not rely on a faith healer alone. Maybe if
nothing else worked, I'd play with that too, but overall, I'm pretty
skeptical. I'd stick with what my doctor says. Even there, I'd question
what the heck it is my doctor knows. Them boys and girls in the white lab
coats have been known to make some pretty far out mistakes. But overall,
I'd take the treatments. I would limit my possibilities, until things got
desperate.
On the other hand, art, thought, ideas, beliefs, words, gods, unknowables
and intangibles -- these things are liquid. Total uncertainties. Fun to
play with.
I am well aware that saying "everything is possible" is more a stance than
a fact. It describes a state of mind, not a reality. "Everything is
possible" is a useful place to hang your hat when playing certain games.
If I were dying of cancer, I would not be as keen on playing the
"everything is possible" game. Is this fickle of me? Perhaps. But I am
willing to role dice and take chances and be insane when it comes to art
and words and ideas, but when it comes to dying of cancer, I'll take the
scientific cure.
>> Even the
>> most ridiculous system can be met with a "Hmm, could be."
>
> Do you say that the fifth time you bump into the same ridiculous idea?
> The 10th? The 1,000th?
I try to be as open minded the 1,000th time as I was on the first, but
often my brain doesn't cooperate. I often find what I think is bumping
into the same old idea for the 10th time turns out to be bumping into a
whole new idea. It's somewhat difficult to tell when it's a new idea or
not.
> You do understand that “all things are possible” is a figure of speech?
> It’s not actually true. It’s not possible both that a) gods exist, and
> b) gods do not exist.
At the risk of raising your dander -- is the cat in the box dead, alive,
or both? Until we look at it, how can we possibly know? What if we can
NEVER open the box and look at it?
God (and his existence or lack there of) is an unknowable. So why isn't
it possible A and B are both true? Why assume that it's either A or B for
that matter? Perhaps on some days God exists, and on other days he does
not. Perhaps God is a bone china tea cup every second Thursday. Why not?
Can't we at least entertain these ideas, given that they are (at least
to me) entertaining?
Do you not find certainty to be boring? I do. While in some areas
certainty is quite useful -- "Please make certain your nuclear power plant
does not explode!" -- in other areas certainty is just plain dull.
"I know that God exists!" Blah. Dull. "I know that God doesn't exist!"
Just as dull. "We cannot know whether or not God exists, so let us bat
Him around like a ball of yarn in order to amuse ourselves!" Now that's
some fun!
> Or are you saying that anything’s possible except
> the possibility of making a sound conclusion on a given matter? If so, I
> wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.
Science -- as I'm sure you know, because you strike me as very bright --
doesn't actually establish facts. It establishes probabilities.
Admittedly, in some areas, these probabilities are so close to 100% that
we can assume them to be facts. Still, they are only "best guesses".
If I take the bone china cup to a top of a high tower and drop it, we can
be pretty sure that when it hits the ground it will shatter. The odds are
almost certainly 100%. If you asked me if it would break, as a realist, I
would say, "Yes."
As an artist, as a dreamer, as a surrealist, I would like to call that
certainty into doubt. It's not 100%. That cup might not break. A freak
gust of wind might gently lower it to the ground, or some stray animal
could catch it, or it might just not shatter because it hits the ground in
a strange way. I hope it wouldn't break. If I were writing a short story
or painting a picture of it or making a film, you can be certain that that
cup WON'T break. I want the cup to live. I want it to soar. I will play
with that cup, make it fly, make it dance. I will give it omnipotence and
let it rule the universe.
But if you ask me, as a realist, to say whether or not the cup would
break, what choice do I have? Of course it will break. But what fun is
that?
In other words, I can admit reality exists, but that doesn't mean I have
to like it.
Does this mean that on some level I "know" as "truth" that God doesn't
exist? I don't know. I'm not so certain that those odds are approaching
100%. I don't think we can know the odds, no matter what we do. There's
no evidence for God, some say, therefore, "There is no god. It's a
childish dream."
Others say things like, "Of course God exists! Look around you! See the
sky and the trees and the entire world? That's the proof! Of course God
exists!"
As I have said, I like uncertainty. God strikes me as an uncertainty.
That means we can fuck His shit up, and play with Him like the big
archetypal construct that he is!
[If religion gives you pleasure, then why not believe it?]
> In this respect, there’s nothing religion can do that drugs can’t do
> more effectively and efficiently.
I hope you don't really assume all pleasure is the same. The pleasure of
a drug isn't the same as the pleasure of a first kiss, or the pleasure of
a religion. For that matter, even a somewhat unpleasant experience -- I
cut off a section of my left thumb the other day -- can be pleasurable
because it's a new and rare and interesting experience. It still hurts.
It's still interesting. Is it pleasure? I would say yes.
> Or are you maintaining that because “anything’s
> possible” then there can be no such thing as “idiocy”? Idiocy becomes
> impossible. The complexity of your pronouncement appears to be over my
> head.
It's not that complex at all. Really, it's just a fun game to play. Turn
it on when it suits you, see what happens.
What if there was no such thing as idiocy? What if the mentally
handicapped are in fact hyper intelligent? Maybe the sanest response to
the world is to sit in a corner and drool, and expect other people to
occasionally change your diaper. In this sense, the idiots are the smart
ones!
Of course, as a realist, I can say idiocy does exist. I've seen it.
Hell, I have committed some idiotic acts in my time, as I'm sure you have
too. But why not occasionally tweak your brain and pretend idiocy doesn't
exist? Taoists often say that the perfect being is a fool -- Winnie the
Pooh is an enlightened Taoist master. He follows his own nature without
even thinking about it. Pooh is a fool who happens to be a genius.
Isn't it worthwhile to play with these notions? As poets and dreamers and
surrealists, isn't that our job? Does it not give you pleasure to do so?
> Your assertion is simply not correct. An opinion formed on the basis of
> observation, reflection, and evidence is not “just as much based on
> faith” as faith is.
I don't know if I can make you understand how depressing I find this
statement. Of course there is a reality. Of course we can study the
evidence, and reach high probabilities of certainty. On the other hand,
wouldn't you rather a world of mysticism and magic and UNcertainty? Can
you not switch off your skepticism and empirical nature and allow yourself
to play with ideas? I'm sure you can. I know you can. We do it every
night, when we dream.
I like to play. Facts have their place. But being an artist, a writer, a
dreamer, a fool, facts are not my specialty. I leave that to others. I
have some facts, of course. Did I say "facts"? What I meant to say was I
have some "probabilities so close to 100% that it is safe to act as though
they are a certainty". But overall, I would much rather play without
facts.
> Well I hope you enjoyed this walk down Theology Lane, but don’t expect
> me to show up for a second run. Perhaps someone else in the group will
> set you on their knee and explain to you all these bloody obvious
> things.
That's just it, Parry -- they're so bloody obvious they're absolutely no
fun at all. Facts! Certainty! Truth! "The sky is blue and water is wet
and the ground is below our feet."
Where's the fun in that stuff? None that I can see. Question everything,
play with everything, if only because it's fun to do so.
Now do you understand me any better?
> By your logic, Ed Gein and African famines must be good things
> because they give us something to make jokes about.
Exactly! Ed Gein is a beautiful monster. Was he the serial killer who
stuck a nail through his own testicle, because he wanted to explore the
pain of it? I forget. Perhaps it was someone else. But do you see the
beauty of such extreme madness? What delight Ed Gein brings us, if only
in something to hate. If Ed Gein did not exist, we would be forced to
invent him.
Of course Ed is evil, and if I were confronted, personally, with an Ed
Gein, I would not meekly let him slash my throat. Realistically, I would
have to stop him, probably kill him. But as a story, as a concept, as a
thing to play with, Ed Gein is beautiful. And so are famines and droughts
and plagues and wars and all human suffering. Misery is beautiful!
If you are totally unwilling to cut me any slack, you will say at this
point that I am using the word "beautiful" in some disturbed and
unrealistic way. This would make me cry, so please, do nothing of the
sort. Thank you.
reddad...@hotmail.com
Humans create the image of god they need. Jerry Falwell has a deep
need for punishment. Madonna does not. Each is biting off a small
manageable piece of a very large concept, and tayloring it to their own
needs of an authority figure, deistic confidante, etc. Things are only
contradictions because we look at them in the narrowest sense. If one
really does believe in a god--an all-encompassing being or state of
being, then that god IS all of these things, just as humans have in
them different aspects to their personality. Even Hitler had a
mother. And a girlfriend. someone with whom he was tender. That
doesn't mean that he wasn't also capable of atrocities.
Multitheistic systems are merely the expression of the different
elements of god through different manifestations of personality. Thus
gods of love, gods of destruction, gods of creation, gods of grain,
etc. Only a fundamentalist monotheist is unable to understand that
monotheism and multitheism are different expressions of the same thing.
People spend too much time trying to prove the unproveable. Believe
what you want. Write about it if you want. Express the marvelous
wherever you find it. You don't need to "prove" to anyone else what
you find marvelous. why should this be any different?
>
> Consider these possibilities: there is the monotheistic god of
judaism;
> there is the 3-in-1 god of christian monotheism; there is the multiple
> god system of the ancient Greeks or Egyptians or of the Hindu system;
> there is the legalistic god of deism; there are the gods of pantheism
in
> every mushroom and stool; there isn’t even a question because you’re
> only a brain in a laboratory jar; there is Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Bel,
> countless others. Do you think all of these things are equally
possible?
> If not, how would you assign probabilities? Or is your glib
> pronouncement that “all things are possible” supposed to cover the
> eventuality that these gods are simultaneously equally impossible and
> not equally impossible? How about a vengeful god who will torture you
> for eternity if you don’t worship him now? If you think that’s
possible,
> you should get worshipping. Just cross your fingers that you’re
> worshipping the right one.
>
reddad...@hotmail.com
possible, or do you take the noble agnostic position of “dunno”? Faith
healing has been studied. You know these people are frauds and dupes,
you know how the tricks are done. There’s not even a mechanism by which
it *should* work. Are you incapable of passing judgment on faith
healing, or are you -- after all this time -- still waiting for “all the
evidence” to be in? You recall the story of Tyrell Dueck which unfolded
last year. This kid was diagnosed with cancer and he (i.e. his parents)
rebuffed medical treatment in favour of faith! Social Services sued the
family to force treatment on the boy, but by the time the case got to
court doctors had diagnosed his condition as hopeless, so the suit was
thrown out. The parents then took the kid to Mexico where they sunk a
lot of money into a bogus “alternate medicine” treatment. They even
deluded themselves that their son was getting better. He could have
died with dignity but became part of this circus; had his only real
chance to get better not been turned down, he might have lived. Perhaps
they carved “Anything’s Possible” on his tombstone.
>
that he would have died anyway, even with medical treatment?
Story/parable. A man lives in an area where there is a terrible flood
happening. The water is up to the man's porch. Rescuers come by with
a boat and say "get in and save yourself." The man says "no, God told
me if I was faithful he would save me. I'm going to stay here."
The water is up to the second story of the house and again the rescuers
come by in a boat, trying to persuade the man to leave his house. He
insists that god will rescue him.
Finally, the man is on top of his roof. A helicopter comes by and
drops a ladder for him. He says "No thanks, I'm waiting for God to
rescue me."
The man drowns. When he finally comes face to face with God, he says
"You told me that if I was faithful you would stand by me and help me.
What happened?"
God said "What are you talking about? I sent two boats and a
helicopter."
Parry
>
> > You recall the story of Tyrell Dueck which unfolded
> > last year. This kid was diagnosed with cancer and he (i.e. his parents)
> > rebuffed medical treatment in favour of faith! Social Services sued the
> > family to force treatment on the boy, but by the time the case got to
> > court doctors had diagnosed his condition as hopeless, so the suit was
> > thrown out. The parents then took the kid to Mexico where they sunk a
> > lot of money into a bogus “alternate medicine” treatment. They even
> > deluded themselves that their son was getting better. He could have
> > died with dignity but became part of this circus; had his only real
> > chance to get better not been turned down, he might have lived. Perhaps
> > they carved “Anything’s Possible” on his tombstone.
> >
> that he would have died anyway, even with medical treatment?
>
Treatments for cancer have no guarantee -- the disease may be slowed or
go into remission, or the work may be fruitless. For as long as the
doctors expected treatment could do some good, they wanted to apply it.
Had not the death sentence of faith been enforced, who knows how much it
would have helped?
-- Parry
reddad...@hotmail.com
> >
> [snip corny but okay joke]
>
You miss the point of the "corny but okay joke". It was a direct
response to the question of so-called "faith healers".
Parry
I was trying to suggest that once one knows how a trick is done, there’s
no going back. There are “mysteries” which, at some point, no longer
pose questions. It’s not a matter of being “right” but rather of
dismissing what has been determined to be false. This is why disbelief
is not belief -- something which should be obvious from the structure of
the words. Someone could claim either atheism or agnosticism to be
beliefs, if it suits their purpose. But in fact atheism is lack of
belief, and agnosticism I suppose is suspension of disbelief.
Religionists prefer you to be agnostic because it’s less threatening.
They think you’re still “seeking.”
> > I'm not sure what "suspended observation" means -- is it something like
> > "suspension of disbelief"?
>
> I guess I meant to say - and said clumsily - that one should suspend a rush
> to judgement on matters. In other words to avoid "belief" in the absence of
> "forensic debris." That this is NOT always possible (or even desirable) is
> perhaps obvious. For instance, I do have certain political postures that
> often overwhelm this "cool" position. But I think it is useful as an
> asymptote of consciousness.
Of course, a belief is not necessarily incorrect. It just needs to
withstand re-examination in the light of new information. Here’s a minor
or “soft” belief I’ve had that has been subject to revision. I was told
as a kid that a straight line was “the shortest distance between two
points.” This lingered as an unquestioned belief for decades until
someone pointed out that this definition did not work in the real
universe because space is curved, so a proper definition of a straight
line was “the path of a laser beam.” So I threw out the old belief. Now
they’re saying that the universe is actually flat, not curved. Another
belief shattered. But at least we’re safer in a flat universe. In a
curved universe, if you fired a bullet and let it fly unimpeded, it
would eventually hit you in the back of the head. Now you don’t have to
worry about that.
I sort of view beliefs as being “soft” to “hard”: soft beliefs being the
sort inculcated in us in our less critical youth; hard beliefs being
those which are linked to a perceived self-interest.
> "Agnosticism" is the suitable scientific
> > attitude, in principle. When pressed, a scientist will admit that
> > knowledge is tentative, truths are theories, and all facts are
> > assailable. Still, lies can be sifted out, and probabilities assigned to
> > what remains.
>
> I certainly - again - do not beleive in eternally resisting the things to be
> learned from observation. Only that a better "sort" of observation will be
> the result - as in the scientific method - of not rushing to a conclusion
> based on prejudice.
To the subject of agnosticism and atheism, all the observational data
seems to be in. Considerations of history, psychology, sociology,
biology, linguistics and logic lead me inexorably to atheism. I’m as
confident in this conclusion as I am in any I’ve made. A devious pedant
might claim that there is always doubt, because there is the solipsistic
view that casts doubt on anything and everything, even the question of
whether you or I exist. To enshrine this grain of uncertainty as
“Agnosticism” is to give the impression that there is a question mark
where, for all intents and purposes, none exists. This is why I consider
religious agnosticism to be ignoble and even, were I to adopt it,
dishonest.
> > > > precognition = the clerk at 7-11 gave me the wrong cigarettes
> > >
> > > You'll have to explicate this: What is "wrong" about the cigarettes? Do
> you
> > > feel a vague horror because they were originally designed for women, as
> a
> > > daintier version of the too gross male cigar?
> >
> > Obviously you are not a smoker (good thing), otherwise you would know
> > that there is one brand of cigarettes which tastes wonderful and the
> > rest taste like crap. With my brand, the packaging of the "king-size"
> > and "regular" are almost identical, so occasionally I end up with the
> > kings, which are lousy. Well, you asked.
>
> I know this: I was being "philosophically" satirical. Actually I do smoke.
> My cigarettes (to my taste buds) taste like chocolate. Camels are rough and
> ready, etc.
I’m the last person who should give advice to anyone, but you should
quit smoking. I’ve heard it’s bad for you.
Parry
dunce cap grow ever bigger and more brightly coloured.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > There was really only one principle question, and you’ve neglected to
> > answer it: do you (Nik) have a belief in god(s)? Or is this mania for
> > epistemology just your flavour of the week?
>
> Down comes the playful mask, out comes the somber and realistic me, in all
> seriousness. You've caught me in a good state of mind. Let's see what I
> can do with it.
>
> I believe in gods if I need them. When I don't need them, I forget about
> them. They are an interesting tool. I do not discount them. I like
> Jungian archetypes. I see gods as more psychological balls of yarn to be
> batted around. Read on -- I'll make more sense in a bit.
Another impossibility: that you can give a straight answer to a simple
question. My current view is that you are foolish enough to have a god
belief, but sensible enough to feel embarrassed about it.
> If I were dying of cancer, I would not be as keen on playing the
> "everything is possible" game. Is this fickle of me? Perhaps. But I am
> willing to role dice and take chances and be insane when it comes to art
> and words and ideas, but when it comes to dying of cancer, I'll take the
> scientific cure.
It’s a relief to hear you willing to err on the side of good sense for a
change.
> > You do understand that “all things are possible” is a figure of speech?
> > It’s not actually true. It’s not possible both that a) gods exist, and
> > b) gods do not exist.
>
> At the risk of raising your dander -- is the cat in the box dead, alive,
> or both? Until we look at it, how can we possibly know? What if we can
> NEVER open the box and look at it?
Consider dander raised. Shroedinger’s (sic) cat is a conundrum of
physics, and I don't see it as relevant to the things we’ve been
discussing. It you wish to continue beating people with red herrings,
you may be better off chasing down the ideas of Heisenberg and Goedel to
mis-use.
> God (and his existence or lack there of) is an unknowable. So why isn't
> it possible A and B are both true? Why assume that it's either A or B for
> that matter? Perhaps on some days God exists, and on other days he does
> not. Perhaps God is a bone china tea cup every second Thursday. Why not?
> Can't we at least entertain these ideas, given that they are (at least
> to me) entertaining?
All you’ve done is empty the word of meaning. You may as well call this
“god” which pops in and out of existence a “iwbvs.” It’s a triumph of
mysticism’s capacity to stupefy that you cannot understand that
existence and non-existence are incompatible.
> Do you not find certainty to be boring? I do. While in some areas
> certainty is quite useful -- "Please make certain your nuclear power plant
> does not explode!" -- in other areas certainty is just plain dull.
Frankly, I don’t sweat over certainty much. On the other hand, ignorance
and superstition can be boring, and their effects hideous.
> "We cannot know whether or not God exists, so let us bat
> Him around like a ball of yarn in order to amuse ourselves!" Now that's
> some fun!
Of course we can know, unless you’re using some specialized definition
of “know” that you wouldn’t use in any other context.
> [If religion gives you pleasure, then why not believe it?]
>
> > In this respect, there’s nothing religion can do that drugs can’t do
> > more effectively and efficiently.
>
> I hope you don't really assume all pleasure is the same. The pleasure of
> a drug isn't the same as the pleasure of a first kiss, or the pleasure of
> a religion. For that matter, even a somewhat unpleasant experience -- I
> cut off a section of my left thumb the other day -- can be pleasurable
> because it's a new and rare and interesting experience. It still hurts.
> It's still interesting. Is it pleasure? I would say yes.
I thought you were referring to the highly touted pleasures of religion
-- the oceanic feeling, relief from pain -- when I might have guessed
you were referencing some private language of your own. There is no
novelty in religion. It’s not “new rare interesting.” It’s as old as the
first priest and first human sacrifice, as rare as oppression and
exploitation, as interesting as a bad joke heard for the millionth time.
> Of course, as a realist, I can say idiocy does exist. I've seen it.
> Hell, I have committed some idiotic acts in my time, as I'm sure you have
> too. But why not occasionally tweak your brain and pretend idiocy doesn't
> exist? Taoists often say that the perfect being is a fool -- Winnie the
> Pooh is an enlightened Taoist master. He follows his own nature without
> even thinking about it. Pooh is a fool who happens to be a genius.
>
> Isn't it worthwhile to play with these notions? As poets and dreamers and
> surrealists, isn't that our job? Does it not give you pleasure to do so?
Pretend idiocy doesn’t exist? Why should anyone want to erase their
experience? The surrealist intends to retrieve the mental state of a
child, not return to that mental level.
> > Your assertion is simply not correct. An opinion formed on the basis of
> > observation, reflection, and evidence is not “just as much based on
> > faith” as faith is.
>
> I don't know if I can make you understand how depressing I find this
> statement. Of course there is a reality. Of course we can study the
> evidence, and reach high probabilities of certainty. On the other hand,
> wouldn't you rather a world of mysticism and magic and UNcertainty? Can
> you not switch off your skepticism and empirical nature and allow yourself
> to play with ideas? I'm sure you can. I know you can. We do it every
> night, when we dream.
One does not have to relinquish skepticism to be able to play with
ideas. Or do you think that’s impossible? All concepts should be
subjected to an acid bath of criticism. How could you miss this aspect
of surrealism?
>
> I like to play. Facts have their place. But being an artist, a writer, a
> dreamer, a fool, facts are not my specialty. I leave that to others. I
> have some facts, of course. Did I say "facts"? What I meant to say was I
> have some "probabilities so close to 100% that it is safe to act as though
> they are a certainty". But overall, I would much rather play without
> facts.
Do what you want. One more religious fool won’t make any difference. The
larger concern is the insidious effects which god belief has, has always
had, on people in general.
> Facts! Certainty! Truth! "The sky is blue and water is wet
> and the ground is below our feet."
>
> Where's the fun in that stuff? None that I can see. Question everything,
> play with everything, if only because it's fun to do so.
It’s comical that you portray your advocacy of mysticism as being
rebellious. You don’t seem to see that with your vague, fickle,
ill-considered blather about god you fit right in with the
mush-mindedness that keeps the religion racket in business.
> Now do you understand me any better?
How would I know? But let me try to explain my point of view to you.
Sure surrealism involves play, but it is not a game. It’s cruelly
serious, a bastion of seriousness against the imbecility of life. You
understand that surrealism was born out of the First World War? You
understand how insanely easy it is for people to become tragic fools? I
do not have lofty expectations of a newsgroup. People post poems. Even
if I don’t like the poem I appreciate that someone acted on their
impulse to write and post it. I appreciate this group’s humour and
manifold interests. I even like the hecklers, usually. I look to
surrealism for the spirit of life, so when I come to this group and read
prattle about gods, I smell the stench of imbecility rising, and am
filled with sadness. I don’t need more sadness, especially tonight as
recent events in my life are tearing me apart. I don’t want to waste my
time watching you play solitaire with funny-looking cards. I need that
which surrealism is always striving towards.
> > By your logic, Ed Gein and African famines must be good things
> > because they give us something to make jokes about.
>
> Exactly! Ed Gein is a beautiful monster. Was he the serial killer who
> stuck a nail through his own testicle, because he wanted to explore the
> pain of it? I forget. Perhaps it was someone else. But do you see the
> beauty of such extreme madness? What delight Ed Gein brings us, if only
> in something to hate. If Ed Gein did not exist, we would be forced to
> invent him.
> No, you may be thinking of Albert Fish -- actually a worse person than Gein, but one whose consummate weirdness did put him in an extraordinary class of vile people. Gein is the white trash necrophile from Wisconsin, and a figure singularly lacking in beauty. He was reared by a religious nut, by the way.
> Of course Ed is evil, and if I were confronted, personally, with an Ed
> Gein, I would not meekly let him slash my throat. Realistically, I would
> have to stop him, probably kill him. But as a story, as a concept, as a
> thing to play with, Ed Gein is beautiful. And so are famines and droughts
> and plagues and wars and all human suffering. Misery is beautiful!
>
> If you are totally unwilling to cut me any slack, you will say at this
> point that I am using the word "beautiful" in some disturbed and
> unrealistic way. This would make me cry, so please, do nothing of the
> sort. Thank you.
I certainly don’t want to make you cry. You are a man of many faces --
one day you’re an insensitive boor, the next a fragile baby. Perhaps my
jibes have been a little harsh -- calling you a “dunderhead” and all
that -- but I hope you can put them in context and not take things
personally. You may call my view of surrealism limiting, I call it
exclusive. If the door must be completely open -- to new agers and
christians and nazis and Ed Gein -- then I’m outta here.
-- Parry
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > But in the case of the magician you are NOT taking your observations on
> > faith. You KNOW what is being done. "Coming to a conclusion" is - as you
> > earlier explained - quite a different affair, isn't it? Neither of your
> > examples strike me as originating from a belief system, but rather from
an
> > observational stance. I am certainly not saying that one should not form
> > opinions.
>
> I was trying to suggest that once one knows how a trick is done, there's
> no going back. There are "mysteries" which, at some point, no longer
> pose questions. It's not a matter of being "right" but rather of
> dismissing what has been determined to be false. This is why disbelief
> is not belief -- something which should be obvious from the structure of
> the words.
Well, the structure of words often lies, creatring oppositions where there
are only differences. And I am not sure that - using the magician analog -
that there is "no going back." In fact, as almost any magician will tell
you, children are the toughest audiences because they haven't learned to
suspend disbelieve, and are quite curious as to the how. Adults can and do
suspend themselves in a state between knowledge and surprise, if only to
promote the potential for pleasure.
>Someone could claim either atheism or agnosticism to be
> beliefs, if it suits their purpose. But in fact atheism is lack of
> belief, and agnosticism I suppose is suspension of disbelief.
> Religionists prefer you to be agnostic because it's less threatening.
> They think you're still "seeking."
I don't think atheism is "lack of belief" (unless you are only saying that
is is a lack of belief in a divinity, which is too easy to say); I don't
even think "atheism" (as a word) defines precisely enough a set of human
characteristics. One watches - for instance - atheists on local access
channels, rather fervently discussing the stupidities of deists every week,
as if they had nothing left to hang on to but the remnants of a flag they
must strive to piss on. They are indulging - it appears to me - in a
ritualistic belief in their own superiority. Now I am an atheist, but such a
one who cringes to define myself as such, who - essentially - finds this
position natural and not the basis for a "rabidness." Atheists too often
either allow themselves to be defined by their relationship to theists, or
actually revel in the contrariness of their stance, which is thus a type of
belief. I believe!
>
>
> > > I'm not sure what "suspended observation" means -- is it something
like
> > > "suspension of disbelief"?
> >
> > I guess I meant to say - and said clumsily - that one should suspend a
rush
> > to judgement on matters. In other words to avoid "belief" in the absence
of
> > "forensic debris." That this is NOT always possible (or even desirable)
is
> > perhaps obvious. For instance, I do have certain political postures that
> > often overwhelm this "cool" position. But I think it is useful as an
> > asymptote of consciousness.
>
> Of course, a belief is not necessarily incorrect. It just needs to
> withstand re-examination in the light of new information.
Yes, but I think what we have here is a linguistic barrier. I think a
"belief" (by definition) is that which does NOT have to withstand
re-examination, is beyond curiosity. What you are saying here strikes me
more as a hypthosis, which is meant to be tested. When Christians - for
example - speak of "testing" their faith, they are presupposing a success of
the belief, and - in fact - view a failure NOT as a failure of the original
belief, but as a failure of the believer in holding on tight enough. One can
see how this would decimate the scientific method!
iefBelie Here's a minor
> or "soft" belief I've had that has been subject to revision. I was told
> as a kid that a straight line was "the shortest distance between two
> points." This lingered as an unquestioned belief for decades until
> someone pointed out that this definition did not work in the real
> universe because space is curved, so a proper definition of a straight
> line was "the path of a laser beam." So I threw out the old belief. Now
> they're saying that the universe is actually flat, not curved. Another
> belief shattered. But at least we're safer in a flat universe. In a
> curved universe, if you fired a bullet and let it fly unimpeded, it
> would eventually hit you in the back of the head. Now you don't have to
> worry about that.
Again, I think these are in the nature of hypotheses, not beliefs. The very
fact that you can so easily change this point each time new information
occurs to you, without feeling that you are abandoning a pre-existing order
shows this. It is a much different process to say you belief in a god, and
then - at twenty - suddenly to lose that belief. I must say that I -
foolishly perhaps - was blissfully unconcerned about shotting myself in the
head in this rather circuitous way! And they think cigarettes are slow
suicide!
>
> I sort of view beliefs as being "soft" to "hard": soft beliefs being the
> sort inculcated in us in our less critical youth; hard beliefs being
> those which are linked to a perceived self-interest.
A "soft" belief strikes me as more of a hypotheses, or an opinion. It is
different. I am quite aware that this is all linguistic shading, but
language is all we have to work with here.
>
>
> > "Agnosticism" is the suitable scientific
> > > attitude, in principle. When pressed, a scientist will admit that
> > > knowledge is tentative, truths are theories, and all facts are
> > > assailable. Still, lies can be sifted out, and probabilities assigned
to
> > > what remains.
> >
> > I certainly - again - do not beleive in eternally resisting the things
to be
> > learned from observation. Only that a better "sort" of observation will
be
> > the result - as in the scientific method - of not rushing to a
conclusion
> > based on prejudice.
>
> To the subject of agnosticism and atheism, all the observational data
> seems to be in. Considerations of history, psychology, sociology,
> biology, linguistics and logic lead me inexorably to atheism. I'm as
> confident in this conclusion as I am in any I've made.
I understand, and - really - agree. I was just fronting an idea I have
recently come across and found intriguing. I have no doubt that there is no
deity.
>A devious pedant
> might claim that there is always doubt, because there is the solipsistic
> view that casts doubt on anything and everything, even the question of
> whether you or I exist.
This sounds like the N word!
To enshrine this grain of uncertainty as
> "Agnosticism" is to give the impression that there is a question mark
> where, for all intents and purposes, none exists. This is why I consider
> religious agnosticism to be ignoble and even, were I to adopt it,
> dishonest.
>
I think one might though think of agnosticism NOT as a suspended "waiting"
for - say - the answer to the questions of deity, but as that very attitude
that diminishes the need for deity in the first place, so that we do not -
like so many pathetic atheists oin local access - have to permanently
demonstrate our "discovery." If one withholds a rush to theory based on the
"inrush" of obervable substance or process, deity NEVER becomes an issue in
the first place, it simply will not occur.
On to loftier matters!
> >
> > I know this: I was being "philosophically" satirical. Actually I do
smoke.
> > My cigarettes (to my taste buds) taste like chocolate. Camels are rough
and
> > ready, etc.
>
> I'm the last person who should give advice to anyone, but you should
> quit smoking. I've heard it's bad for you.
I KNOW it's bad for you. I'm rather recent to it (I'm 49). I am fitful in my
usage - maybe more akin to a social drinker in my frequency - and am not
particularly worried about it, in relationship to my other vices.
In the interest of balance, I've given up walking into airplane props.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Nik, why do you persist with this god gibberish?
It's not god gibberish -- it's just gibberish. I enjoy gibberish.
Believing in gibberish, sleeping with gibberish, and, on occasion,
worshipping gibberish.
> All you’ve done is empty the word of meaning.
Oh, Parry, you're absolutely no fun at all. Who gives a word meaning?
It's social consensus, right? Five thousand million people say the word
"cat" means one of those small, fuzzy, furry animals that walk around on
all fours and chase mice.
But don't you ever get off on the idea of a word having mystical power?
Like in the worst of fantasy novels, if you could only come up with the
right syllable construction, you could open a gateway to another
dimension, or make macaroni fall from the sky, or cause tidal waves of
lime soda. What fun, to imagine those words.
And don't you ever feel the urge to bend a word, to strain it to the
breaking point, just for kicks? Like a kid who smashes open an expensive
electonic video game they got for Christmas -- don't you ever want to
smash open a word? Bend it and twist it until all the meaning comes
flying out in a spray of microchips and springs and gears and cogs?
What does GOD mean? It is one of those words that is quite unbreakable,
no matter how hard you twist it. Isn't that irritating? That's all the
more reason to smash it with a hammer, to pull out its innards. You don't
seem to even like hearing the word. It must be magic -- I can say God,
and it makes you irritable. It's not making macaroni fall from the sky,
but it'll have to do.
> It’s a triumph of
> mysticism’s capacity to stupefy that you cannot understand that
> existence and non-existence are incompatible.
It's the triumph of your unimaginative mind, your unwillingness to dream,
your inability to play, that you won't even let yourself concoct a world
where something can exist and not exist at the same time. Can you not
even speculate on such a thing? Make believe. Pretend. Do it for me.
Preface any statement you make with, "Now, I'm just pretending, but..."
[[[If it makes you feel safer, put the statement in multiple brackets.]]]
Imagine an object that exists and doesn't exist. What would it look like?
A broken hologram perhaps? As you move around it, it flickers in and out
of space -- at one point as solid as a boulder, at others not even there.
Is it hazy, foggy, like a mist, like a ghost?
If you aren't even willing to imagine such an object, aren't you limiting
your experience?
Now let us take this back to the question of God -- if you are unwilling
to even entertain the idea that there is a God, aren't you limiting your
experience? To say, "let us imagine that..." does not mean you
necessarily believe in it, but it can be a useful game.
You can even be cruelly sarcastic about it. Pretend there's a God. He
must be a complete asshole, getting off on our suffering and misery.
Imagine what he'd do if he saw all these churches, each competing to get
the copyright on his image. He'd kick Jimmy Swaggart's ass.
Or, if he does exist, he must be utterly indifferent and bored. He's got
a billion cameras, all over the world, and he's just sipping a beer and
flicking channels on his remote. "Rape, torture, seen it. Plague,
famine, blah blah, seen it. Another wore in the middle east? Fuck man,
how many times are they going to put THAT on the air?" Click, click,
click. In the end, he slaps in a tape of the Marilyn Monro murder, and
watches it for the 8,342nd time.
> On the other hand, ignorance
> and superstition can be boring, and their effects hideous.
Same with science, reason, logic, etc. Give me a tool -- any tool -- and
I can use it to commit atrocities. I will kill people with dental floss.
I will jab Q-tips into the eyes of babies.
> Pretend idiocy doesn’t exist? Why should anyone want to erase their
> experience?
Because it's quite possible that your experience is limited if you aren't
open to imagining different -- yes, even nonsensical -- interpretations of
your experience.
Example -- I have met a lot of idiots. In another newsgroup I frequent, a
woman is telling me she's dating a drunk who hits her, but she loves him
and their life is good -- getting better every day -- so it's okay. My
gut reaction is to tell her to run, that she's wasting her time, that this
is pure idiocy on her part.
On the other hand, how can I know? She claims that her love makes a
difference. Maybe it does. Maybe she has learned to be happy being hit
by her boyfriend. Maybe they've ritualized it into S&M. Or maybe she has
changed her definition of happiness, and now is content with misery.
Maybe she hits him back. Maybe she gets drunk and she beats him. Maybe
she sees this all as an adventure. It's possible she's quite happy.
As I ask her what her current situation is -- I'm waiting for more details
that may never come -- I know that she can never fully explain it. She
can't tell me every detail. People in love can never express what it's
like to be with their lover -- the dynamics, in my experience, are
different with each couple.
(Hey, maybe she even got him to stop drinking! Though I doubt it.)
She can only give me hints, so I can only imagine. My gut, my rational
brain, wants to tell me that obviously she's a moron. What other
possibility is there? But my heart, my love of life, my surrealist nature
want to put on the breaks -- often my rational brain makes mistakes.
Often it doesn't know what it's talking about. Often, my seemingly
rational brain is merely rationalizing.
Of course if a woman stays with a drunk who beats her, she's an idiot! Of
course! That's life. That's a fact.
But is it? Why is it? Why does it have to be that way?
I think that questioning the obvious is a necessary component of being
critical. And I think you asked, at one point, how often are you supposed
to try to accept the most ridicuous of ideas? I suppose this could be
turned around -- how often are you supposed to question obvious answers?
The only answer to that I can think of is, as often as you'd like.
Being hyper critical to the point of being nonsensical is useful. It
opens up possibilities. Being un-critical, and open minded, amounts to
the same thing. "That explanation sounds utterly fucking moronic, but...
I think I'll entertain it, at least for a moment."
> Do what you want. One more religious fool won’t make any difference.
Neither will one more man roaming the streets, insisting that he is the
pinacle of sanity and reason -- not to accuse you of being such a man.
And, in my experience, people who do roam the streets doing this very
thing never seem to understand anything. Oh well. It takes all kinds.
> It’s comical that you portray your advocacy of mysticism as being
> rebellious.
I don't recall doing that -- although it's possible. I find my mysticism
useful and entertaining. That's all.
> You don’t seem to see that with your vague, fickle,
> ill-considered blather about god you fit right in with the
> mush-mindedness that keeps the religion racket in business.
To quote Dali, the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not
mad.
> Sure surrealism involves play, but it is not a game. It’s cruelly
> serious, a bastion of seriousness against the imbecility of life. You
> understand that surrealism was born out of the First World War? You
> understand how insanely easy it is for people to become tragic fools?
In my experience, anything that takes itself too seriously is in serious
danger of becoming stupid. Here's a question I've asked in this newsgroup
repeatedly, that no one ever answers. Now it's your turn. Can you laugh
at yourself? Can you giggle at your own foibles, your gods, your dreams,
you noblest aspirations? To me, this is a vital skill. It changes
everything, once you learn it.
> No, you may be thinking of Albert Fish -- actually a worse person than
>Gein, but one whose consummate weirdness did put him in an extraordinary
>class of vile people. Gein is the white trash necrophile from Wisconsin,
>and a figure singularly lacking in beauty. He was reared by a religious
>nut, by the way.
It was Gein that inspired the novel and the movie "Psycho" and the novel
and the movie "Silence of the Lambs" -- was it not? See how necessary he
was?
> If the door must be completely open -- to new agers and
> christians and nazis and Ed Gein -- then I’m outta here.
The only door you have control of, Parry, is your own. You get to
determine what gets inside your head, and what doesn't. I'd like to
suggest you let in everything that seems remotely entertaining. Maybe you
do. Maybe, because this conversation spins around the topic of God, you
come across more close-minded than you actually are.
Maybe you've looked at the topic of God, have decided you have an answer,
and don't want to look at the topic any more. Hey, you can do that. But
I find that, as soon as I think I have a SOLID answer, I become a major
asshole.
"NO! We don't need to talk about that! I KNOW THE ANSWER! I have a
conclusion! It's settled, for me."
Too serious, too certain, and therefore, very silly.
Nik
--
"He is too tiring in his inconsistency and inherent silliness." - C/E
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
Fascinan
>It’s a triumph of
>mysticism’s capacity to stupefy that you cannot understand that
>existence and non-existence are incompatible.
Hi Parry. I've enjoyed your posts, but have not been actively participating in
many threads for varying reasons.
Considering your above statement that existence and non-existence are
incompatible, where did existence come from?
At the very core of cosmic creation lies "the triumph of mysticism". The big
bang theory - a theory and not a "belief", i suppose, because its favorably
accepted in scientific circles - is shrouded in guesstimation; it supplies yet
another framework for trying to understand an objectified universe.
Of course, there is great skepticism with the "accuracy" of the theory, and
there's the realization that it is inherently restricted by its own technology
and method, but 100 years from now there will probably be the same disdain for
it, as many hold for any religious investigation - it will laughed at,
ridiculed for its idiocy.
I understand that, in many ways, there has been an insidious effect via god
belief, and that blind adherence to a belief system is akin to rolling masking
tape over one's blinders. But, in a positive light, I think both religiosity
and scientific investigation, at their core, try to capture the spirit of life.
As I understand it, thats what surrealism is all about - an awe-filled,
experiential engagement with the universe.
I like Nik's sense of play, his creative engagement of various ideas, but can
also understand your call for exclusivity. I fail to see such an egregious
schism between the two as most do. And, I don't really understand the witchunt
mentality that transpires in this forum.
Fas
Fascinan
>And Surrealism is not a hodge-podge of any and
>all beliefs. It is very specific in its motivations and goals. It is
>unique.
I disagree that Surrealism is very specific in its motivations and goals. Both
Dale and Barrett (your seeming new-found mentors) have pointed out that
contradictions abound, and that there are divergent points among national and
international factions of the project. Certainly, there are basic tenets that
can be agreed upon for a majority, but any project that seeks to liberate the
imagination will have manifold and myriad approaches to doing so, and they will
differ from individual to individual.
>That some people expect some of
>us to put up with anything and everything that comes through here and
>to say nothing, or even to welcome it, is absurd and unfair.
Some of us?
>Example:
>Andrea Chen and her insulting comments.
Insulting comments? Who _hasn't_ made an insulting comment? I respect
Barrett, John, and Elag's ability to remain relatively ad homineum attack-free,
but aside from that, abrasive, un-called for, and downright sadistic pot shots
are taken daily.
>Please, the majority of us
>are not here to "play" Nik's game or press a foreign agenda onto others
>who clearly do not want it.
Or, you don't want anyone to raise issues that may be conflicting to the chosen
methods that seem suitable to your perceptions du jour? Nik is fun, he asks
questions, he is a good writer who is interested in many things. Don't make up
your mind to be anti-thetical to everything he writes before you even read it.
And, more importantly, don't let Breton, Juice Newton, Dale or Barrett, or
anyone make up _your_mind for you.
>> And, I don't really understand the witchunt mentality that transpires
>> in this forum.
>
>Like what?
Like your personal pathologizing of Morph for one. I thought your concern about
Morph was sincere, but I didn't agree with your approach to try and "heal" him
to your own ideas of normality.
Secondly, the formula goes something like: Brandon and Nik vehemently disagree,
Dale has a few witty, disparaging remarks about Nik, then there are 3 or 4 more
posts following Dale's lead in insulting Nik.
This pattern could use some liberation.
Fas
Leo Sgouros
> to say nothing, or even to welcome it, is absurd and unfair. Example:
> Andrea Chen and her insulting comments. Please, the majority of us
> are not here to "play" Nik's game or press a foreign agenda onto others
> who clearly do not want it. And I for one am tired of hearing about
> the guilt we should feel.
>
I for one dont know about what you are talking about again but it is obvious
you are carrying some torch.
What guilt are you talking about?
And what are "most of us here for?"
What foreign agenda are you hallucinating?
> > And, I don't really understand the witchunt mentality that transpires
> > in this forum.
>
> Like what?
>
>
Like what?
Claiming non-existent "forces" at work limiting you.
Killfile for you dear until you get over your gas.
> > Fas
johnqadamsiii
and goals. Both Dale and Barrett (your seeming new-found
mentors) have pointed out that contradictions abound, and that
there are divergent points among national and international
factions of the project. Certainly, there are basic tenets that
can be agreed upon for a majority, but any project that seeks to
liberate the imagination will have manifold and myriad
approaches to doing so, and they will differ from individual to
individual. >>
Surrealism is very specific in its goals and at the same time
aims not
to hinge itself upon a static framework, that you are correct in.
There are divergencies too, since we are all unique, but i
believe (or resolve to set out to describe that)
there are fundamental ideas we can agree upon, where at the
heart of the focus is liberation, as well as truth, love, and
beauty, to simplify this intricate but natural (whether it is
called surrealism or simianism) philosophy of freeing the human
spirit. But yo, let me know if im misrepresentin' anyone else's
color. What are the contradictions
you refer to?
<<Insulting comments? Who _hasn't_ made an insulting comment? I
respect Barrett, John, and Elag's ability to remain relatively
ad homineum attack-free, but aside from that, abrasive, un-
called for, and downright sadistic pot shots are taken daily.>>
<<Or, you don't want anyone to raise issues that may be
conflicting to the chosen methods that seem suitable to your
perceptions du jour? Nik is fun, he asks questions, he is a good
writer who is interested in many things. Don't make up your mind
to be anti-thetical to everything he writes before you even read
it. And, more importantly, don't let Breton, Juice Newton, Dale
or Barrett, or anyone make up _your_mind for you. >>
Nik has his moments and then he has his non-moments; he preaches
about
opening up to new ideas yet is resistant to the very thing
himself, and is often
dis-engaging in discussion for the reasons Dale points out
recently in another post. His trouble appears
to lie in the lazy desire to continue wading through the ooze of
everything and nothing,
where everything can be equal and nothing is in need of
discernment of thought or embrace.
But this is no personal attack and a simple discussion of the
matter at hand which you raise.
As for Nik's writing, i think its probably improving (maybe
surrealism is rubbing off on him?). Why, I remember not long ago
reading things similar to "I held poop deep in my hand.
Clenching, my shorts were soiled and dirty. I came". Oh ok,
sorry to regress.
<<Secondly, the formula goes something like: Brandon and Nik
vehemently disagree, Dale has a few witty, disparaging remarks
about Nik, then there are 3 or 4 more posts following Dale's
lead in insulting Nik.
This pattern could use some liberation.
Fas >>
Couldn't we all.
john
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dale Houstman
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000506150923...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> Cythera:
>
> >And Surrealism is not a hodge-podge of any and
> >unique.
>
> I disagree that Surrealism is very specific in its motivations and goals.
Both
> Dale and Barrett (your seeming new-found mentors)
That last comment is as uncalled for as you think my comments sometimes are.
I am nobody's mentor, and cythera needs no teaching.
>(Dale and Barret) have pointed out that contradictions abound, and that
there are >divergent points among national and international factions of the
project. Certainly, there >are basic tenets that can be agreed upon for a
majority, but any project that seeks to >liberate the imagination will have
manifold and myriad approaches to doing so, and they >will differ from
individual to individual.
This is true enough, but there must be limits if only to make the word
"surrealism" represent something rather than everything (or - in other
words - nothing). Thus if a person loudly declares that "surrealism is about
power mongering" or "surrealism means anything goes" or "surrealism is
nonsense pure and simple" or a thousand other such things, then they are
outside the ballpark and must pay to get in. These contradictions you speak
of are more along the lines of debates over the parameters of essentials, or
(often enough as I found when in England) over points that are basically
personal: simple character differences. But Breton not only expected debate
but insisted upon it, but within the comprehension of certain basic ideals:
universal freedom, liberated imagination, the delineation of desire, and so
on.
>
> Insulting comments? Who _hasn't_ made an insulting comment?
This is true also, but only Andrea has made an agenda of division, while you
and the N word and Leo sttod by without complaint. That - occasionally -
harsh or nagging words will emerge is the nature of debate and of the human.
But only Andrea has publicly and freqently paraded her desire to destroy
coherence and collaboration, to be "the new leader of surrealism" and on and
on. This is an important distniction that you might be more aware of.
>
>Nik is fun, he asks questions, he is a good writer who is interested in
many things.
This is a statement that I cannot as of yet - agreee with.
>Don't make up your mind to be anti-thetical to everything he writes before
you even read >it. And, more importantly, don't let Breton, Juice Newton,
Dale or Barrett, or
> anyone make up _your_mind for you.
Who is making upo cythera's mind for her? I would be intrigued in seeing how
any of us are doing - or even attempting - this. At any rate, I take it that
cythera is quite strong enough to resist the "evil manipulations" of a
simple garden snake like me...
>
> Secondly, the formula goes something like: Brandon and Nik vehemently
disagree,
> Dale has a few witty, disparaging remarks about Nik, then there are 3 or 4
more
> posts following Dale's lead in insulting Nik.
Well at least I don't talk endlessly with him anymore, which has cut down on
the opportunites for this pattern immensely. And - to be honest - I ignored
him for the longest time until he began mentioning me in his posts so
frequently that it was frankly embarrassing. It is obvious to me at least
that he barely exists on the group except as a contrary figure, and that
ignoring him hastens his spectralizing.
>
> This pattern could use some liberation.
Could be. I do my best. But let us say that a certain wicked approach is
natural to me at times. That I indulge myself against one who has so often
indulged himself should not dismay you. I rather think he feeds upon it, and
feels more important by the resistance.
dmh
Fascinan
>I would like to do some reading with other people... maybe you and
>Nik are interested in reading the First Manifesto along with me?
I'm sure Nik has read it, but I certainly need to begin. I must admit that I
haven't purchased, let alone read a book, since my hasty departure from
graduate school (2 years ago). I can't really explain my paralysis in this
regard. I'm very much interested in many topics, but have been lacking energy
and drive in my life, desperately trying to earn enough money to live off of,
while not giving up entirely on music as a source of joy.
>> I respect Barrett, John, and Elag's ability to remain relatively ad
>> homineum attack-free,
>
>Yes, so do I; it's more than wonderful.
You know what is odd, the fact that Morph has not made a disparaging remark
towards anyone, even with all of the negative remarks continually dumped on him
- this is commendable.
>elag said he's not a Surrealist; I don't know if, outside of this
>newsgroup, he's fiery and passionate, but I don't have an image of him
>taking his film-making and art lightly.
I wouldn't say that at all. Obviously, I don't know, but from the little I do,
I figure Elag as very passionate about his art.
>I won't say daily, but yes they are. And by the people that you defend
>as well! But you defend them... why have you defended them and not,
>for instance, me?
If I thought that you were unfairly assailed, I probably would.
>What were we saying about assuming last week?
>
I'm working on that - it's a tough task.
>Nik can be fun, and he can be selfish... do you see him interacting
>with an entire group?
I think we are all inherently selfish. I've found Nik to be very honest. I
like the idea of confession (which alot of people don't) as establishing some
trust with others. And, for me, a sense of humor is imperative. Many of us
are unwilling to even smile at our own faults, errors, quirks, etc.
>because then I learn, and
>learn more quickly, and that's partly the very reason I'm here... to
>learn about Surrealism. And I'm here to participate in a surrealist
>group.
Yes, your enthusiasm is great to see.
> however,
>everything is a process and if Nik wants to work in a group, he'll
>eventually find his way into the program or be winnowed out.
This sounds like an oligarchy, not an open forum for surrealism - kiddin
(maybe) :-)
>So why
>should I put much credence in your negative judgments.
Forgive me if I've been negative.
>Meanwhile Nik has attacked and riled, as he moves from one person to
>another: first Dale, then Kristina, me, and now Parry.
From what I've seen most of Nik's jibes are defensive reaction as opposed to
the initial slap, but we're all guilty of it to varying degrees.
>Will you lead by example? I like your ideas; I don't disagree with
>them except on some rather trivial points.
I like to write (what I consider to be) quasi-surreal automatic writings - it's
fun, and I hope some people enjoy reading them. I'm no leader, especially when
there are very serious students of surrealism - leave that to barrett, Dale,
Parry, Robert Pearson does some great work, and others as well, or course.
But, this group is at its best when *everyone* is here and going at it. The
best discussions come about when everyone contributes. Don't you agree?
Fas
Leo Sgouros
> This is true also, but only Andrea has made an agenda of division, while
you
> and the N word and Leo sttod by without complaint. That - occasionally -
> harsh or nagging words will emerge is the nature of debate and of the
human.
> But only Andrea has publicly and freqently paraded her desire to destroy
> coherence and collaboration, to be "the new leader of surrealism" and on
and
> on. This is an important distniction that you might be more aware of.
>
>
This is not a fair representation of events.However I am not going to defend
anyone but say that if anything, people played along for a long time when
they were supposedly being harshly treated.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> To quote Dali, the difference between myself and a madman is that I
> am not mad.
madman - mad = man
SO WHAT!
Nikolaus Maack
> I don't think you're taking a clear look at what Nik and Morpheal are
> doing in this forum. They have been clinging to assumptions that are
> anti-Surrealist (for example, Nik's implication to me that Surrealism
> is not about truth).
Oh dear -- is that what you think I'm saying? Quite the opposite.
Surrealism is certainly about truth. It's just that far less things are
true than most people think. I guess I am a nihilist, but that word
always suggests a sort of misery to me. A joyful nihilist seems
contradictory, but I guess that's what I am.
People are always asking other people to define "surrealism". Perhaps,
instead, we should be defining how we can decide if something is "true"?
Nikolaus Maack
> In article <20000506150923...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> Dale and I make jokes out of boredom, and Nik has attacked us both
> plenty.
Jesus, Cythera! Do you hear what you're saying?
When Dale & Cythera attack == jokes out of boredom.
When Nik jokes out of boredom == an attack.
It would be nice if you would at least try to hold yourself to the same
standards you hold others to. Or maybe you could cut others the slack
that you cut for yourself?
Now if you'll excuse me, these Chee-Tos Twisties aren't going to eat
themselves. Although maybe they should.
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>I guess I am a nihilist, but that word
> always suggests a sort of misery to me. A joyful nihilist seems
> contradictory, but I guess that's what I am.
and this is precisely what sets you apart from surrealism.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@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
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
I said:
>>I guess I am a nihilist, but that word
>> always suggests a sort of misery to me. A joyful nihilist seems
>> contradictory, but I guess that's what I am.
"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> and this is precisely what sets you apart from surrealism.
Correction, Barrett -- this is what makes me a Unique Surrealist, just
like all other surrealists. We are all uniquely unique.
Instead of seeing my joyful nihilism as something that excludes me from
surrealism, perhaps it would be more optimistic to say that this is
something that I bring to surrealism. It was once necessary for every
surrealist to be a card-carrying communist. This is no longer true --
correct?
So who knows? Perhaps in some distant future -- hopefully long after
you're dead, for your sake -- it will be necessary for all surrealists to
be card-carrying nihilists.
Dale Houstman
>
> I said:
> >>I guess I am a nihilist, but that word
> >> always suggests a sort of misery to me. A joyful nihilist seems
> >> contradictory, but I guess that's what I am.
>
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > and this is precisely what sets you apart from surrealism.
>
> Correction, Barrett -- this is what makes me a Unique Surrealist, just
> like all other surrealists. We are all uniquely unique.
Like a veterinarian who eats horses? There are points at which "uniqueness"
settles into mere unlikeness. Nihilism is distinctly a non-surrealist
quality.
>
> Instead of seeing my joyful nihilism as something that excludes me from
> surrealism, perhaps it would be more optimistic to say that this is
> something that I bring to surrealism. It was once necessary for every
> surrealist to be a card-carrying communist. This is no longer true --
> correct?
You cannot "bring" nihilism to surrealism, since surrealism is an escape
from nihilism.
>
> So who knows? Perhaps in some distant future -- hopefully long after
> you're dead, for your sake -- it will be necessary for all surrealists to
> be card-carrying nihilists.
I suspect you know this is bullshit, but don't care, because you're a
nihilist.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Like a veterinarian who eats horses?
Like a veterinarian who eats horses,
like a soldier who bombs his own country,
like a student who refuses to learn,
like a priest looking forward to hell,
like an arsonist fire-fighter,
like a killing doctor,
like an aroused castroti,
I am a nihilist surrealist.
Nikolaus Maack
> Nik:
>> It was once necessary for every surrealist to be a card-carrying
>> communist.
>
The "card-carrying" part is a slight exaggeration, but other than that,
yes, it's true. At one point in history, Breton decided that the
surrealists and the communists should join forces. He took the connection
between the two groups so very seriously that anyone who didn't show the
same love of communism that he did was booted out of the group. This
sudden politicization of surrealism caused a lot of supporters to leave
the group.
Even today, many surrealists claim to have connections with communists.
Not that long ago, Dale and Brandon themselves were admitting to communist
leanings. It would be interesting to know whether or not they still feel
that way. If they don't feel that way, what changed?
barrett john erickson
> cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > Nik:
> >> It was once necessary for every surrealist to be a card-carrying
> >> communist.
> >
> > That's untrue.
>
> The "card-carrying" part is a slight exaggeration, but other than that,
> yes, it's true. At one point in history, Breton decided that the
> surrealists and the communists should join forces. He took the connection
> between the two groups so very seriously that anyone who didn't show the
> same love of communism that he did was booted out of the group. This
> sudden politicization of surrealism caused a lot of supporters to leave
> the group.
well i may be remembering this incorrectly, so feel free to point me toward
any factual references you may have (pollizotti perhaps?)...
but it seems to me that it was far more likely that someone (aragon, for
instance) would be "booted out" (although this was more often a matter of
agreeing to a separation as a result of irreconcilable differences revealed
at some group inquiry) as a result of having placed something like communism
ahead of surrealism.
in other words, and here (as Dale has pointed out many times) there is no
possibility of anything but a willful misunderstanding, "surrealism's"
autonomy was always insisted upon and was never compromised by placing it in
service to an ideology.
-- barrett
johnqadamsiii
except perhaps that they may have conceded communism as
implemented into a society has, like all other systems, proven
imperfect. It's a common naivety for westerners especially to
view communism as anti-democratic, whereas that simply is not
true. Most responsible for that seems to me the mix of
capitalistic misinterpretations and misrepresentations as well
as communist's failings with regard to upholding its own ideal -
which perhaps might be said to be concerned with democracy to an
even further extent in that it aimed to end the seperation of
the elite and the working class in societies like capitalism.
Nowadays we have communist China, where freedom and
human rights exist in shortage; fortunately there are the
capitalists who remain free to thrive on and exploit
those "poor" individuals without freedom - I suppose the least
we could do is throw a few pennies their way for supporting our
democratic cause, right?
john
>
>Even today, many surrealists claim to have connections with
communists.
>Not that long ago, Dale and Brandon themselves were admitting
to communist
>leanings. It would be interesting to know whether or not they
still feel
>that way. If they don't feel that way, what changed?
>
> Nik
>
>--
>"He is too tiring in his inconsistency and inherent
silliness." - C/E
>The Nik Maack Art Gallery
>http://www.nikart.com
>
>
Parry
>
> Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > Nik, why do you persist with this god gibberish?
>
> It's not god gibberish -- it's just gibberish. I enjoy gibberish.
> Believing in gibberish, sleeping with gibberish, and, on occasion,
> worshipping gibberish.
Thanks for clearing this up.
> > All you’ve done is empty the word of meaning.
>
> Oh, Parry, you're absolutely no fun at all. Who gives a word meaning?
> It's social consensus, right? Five thousand million people say the word
> "cat" means one of those small, fuzzy, furry animals that walk around on
> all fours and chase mice.
My cat is not small and has never seen a mouse. A cat can be seen as a
pet, pest, food, even as a mother (to other cats), etc. But if one
person uses the word cat to mean his fireplace poker, he can’t assume
the other 6 billion people will know what he’s talking about. So, yes
words exist in a social context.
> But don't you ever get off on the idea of a word having mystical power?
No.
> Like in the worst of fantasy novels, if you could only come up with the
> right syllable construction, you could open a gateway to another
> dimension, or make macaroni fall from the sky, or cause tidal waves of
> lime soda. What fun, to imagine those words.
>
> And don't you ever feel the urge to bend a word, to strain it to the
> breaking point, just for kicks? Like a kid who smashes open an expensive
> electonic video game they got for Christmas -- don't you ever want to
> smash open a word? Bend it and twist it until all the meaning comes
> flying out in a spray of microchips and springs and gears and cogs?
>
> What does GOD mean? It is one of those words that is quite unbreakable,
> no matter how hard you twist it. Isn't that irritating? That's all the
> more reason to smash it with a hammer, to pull out its innards. You don't
> seem to even like hearing the word. It must be magic -- I can say God,
> and it makes you irritable. It's not making macaroni fall from the sky,
> but it'll have to do.
I know this is your perception, otherwise you wouldn’t keep using the
word. On meaning, the actual word is as close to a free floating
signifier as any of which I know. But I am of accord with Breton:
“Everything that is doddering, squint-eyed, infamous, sullying, and
grotesque is contained for me in this single word: God.”
> > It’s a triumph of
> > mysticism’s capacity to stupefy that you cannot understand that
> > existence and non-existence are incompatible.
>
> It's the triumph of your unimaginative mind, your unwillingness to dream,
> your inability to play, that you won't even let yourself concoct a world
> where something can exist and not exist at the same time. Can you not
> even speculate on such a thing? Make believe. Pretend. Do it for me.
> Preface any statement you make with, "Now, I'm just pretending, but..."
Now, I’m just pretending, but maybe you have a point.
> [[[If it makes you feel safer, put the statement in multiple brackets.]]]
>
> Imagine an object that exists and doesn't exist. What would it look like?
> A broken hologram perhaps? As you move around it, it flickers in and out
> of space -- at one point as solid as a boulder, at others not even there.
> Is it hazy, foggy, like a mist, like a ghost?
You can imagine whatever you like. Who said you couldn’t? It would be
nice, though, if you didn’t veer so off topic at the drop of one of your
god’s broken holographic skin flakes.
> If you aren't even willing to imagine such an object, aren't you limiting
> your experience?
Experience of what? Don't asnwer, it was a rhetorical question.
One interprets the past, not erases it. The goal of surrealism is not
Alzheimer’s.
> Example -- I have met a lot of idiots. In another newsgroup I frequent, a
> woman is telling me she's dating a drunk who hits her, but she loves him
> and their life is good -- getting better every day -- so it's okay. My
> gut reaction is to tell her to run, that she's wasting her time, that this
> is pure idiocy on her part.
Well, W.S. Burroughs said one should stay out of boy-girl fights. From
what you’ve said, I wouldn’t think the woman is necessarily a fool. She
may have a personality defect, or she may be lying, etc. You don’t
really know her, so there’s no way you can tell. Maybe if you told her
your ideas about gods it would shock her to her senses.
I never made claims of being safe, sane or singular. And I don’t roam
the streets. This seems like an oddly defensive attitude for you to take
considering you’ve conceded you’ve been talking gibberish.
> > It’s comical that you portray your advocacy of mysticism as being
> > rebellious.
>
> I don't recall doing that -- although it's possible. I find my mysticism
> useful and entertaining. That's all.
>
> > You don’t seem to see that with your vague, fickle,
> > ill-considered blather about god you fit right in with the
> > mush-mindedness that keeps the religion racket in business.
>
> To quote Dali, the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not
> mad.
>
> > Sure surrealism involves play, but it is not a game. It’s cruelly
> > serious, a bastion of seriousness against the imbecility of life. You
> > understand that surrealism was born out of the First World War? You
> > understand how insanely easy it is for people to become tragic fools?
>
> In my experience, anything that takes itself too seriously is in serious
> danger of becoming stupid. Here's a question I've asked in this newsgroup
> repeatedly, that no one ever answers. Now it's your turn. Can you laugh
> at yourself? Can you giggle at your own foibles, your gods, your dreams,
> you noblest aspirations?
I find humour in all these things; except of course gods, of which I
have none. You don’t seem to get why your invitation to join you as you
bang you head against a wall has wiped the smile off my face.
> To me, this is a vital skill. It changes
> everything, once you learn it.
>
> > No, you may be thinking of Albert Fish -- actually a worse person than
> >Gein, but one whose consummate weirdness did put him in an extraordinary
> >class of vile people. Gein is the white trash necrophile from Wisconsin,
> >and a figure singularly lacking in beauty. He was reared by a religious
> >nut, by the way.
>
> It was Gein that inspired the novel and the movie "Psycho" and the novel
> and the movie "Silence of the Lambs" -- was it not? See how necessary he
> was?
>
> > If the door must be completely open -- to new agers and
> > christians and nazis and Ed Gein -- then I’m outta here.
>
> The only door you have control of, Parry, is your own.
You’ve misunderstood me if you think I’ve applied for a job as doorman.
> You get to
> determine what gets inside your head, and what doesn't. I'd like to
> suggest you let in everything that seems remotely entertaining. Maybe you
> do. Maybe, because this conversation spins around the topic of God, you
> come across more close-minded than you actually are.
>
> Maybe you've looked at the topic of God, have decided you have an answer,
> and don't want to look at the topic any more. Hey, you can do that. But
> I find that, as soon as I think I have a SOLID answer, I become a major
> asshole.
>
> "NO! We don't need to talk about that! I KNOW THE ANSWER! I have a
> conclusion! It's settled, for me."
This has nothing to do with what “answers” I think I may or may not
have. As I’ve said all along, you can waste your time discussing gods
all you like, but stick it where it belongs -- I’ve recommended maybe 3
times already that you take your act to alt.atheism.moderated. But they
are a rather serious bunch. Maybe you’d be happier over at alt.slack.
The point is: your gibberish has nothing to do with surrealism but you
insist it has. You act as if you think you are the messiah for a new
surrealism, just about the last thing the world needs. You don’t care
about surrealism. You appear to care only about your own hubris.
> Too serious, too certain, and therefore, very silly.
If surrealism is too serious for you, try alt.slack.
Now why don’t we move from the tedium of this thread to something new?
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
>
> Parry:
>
> >It’s a triumph of
> >mysticism’s capacity to stupefy that you cannot understand that
> >existence and non-existence are incompatible.
>
> many threads for varying reasons.
[snip]
Fas, as I’ve told Nik, I consider this whole topic too moribund for this
newsgroup (of course, once you tell Nik something like that then that’s
all he wants to talk about), so I’ll respond via private e-mail.
> I like Nik's sense of play, his creative engagement of various ideas, but can
> also understand your call for exclusivity. I fail to see such an egregious
> schism between the two as most do. And, I don't really understand the witchunt
> mentality that transpires in this forum.
Nik’s idea of play is to leave his god in a burning shoebox on this
group’s doorstep and then run and hide. He calls this “surrealism” but
really one would get a better understanding of surrealism of a Dr.
Bonner’s soap wrapper. What you call a “witch-hunt” is actually more
akin to “pest control.” Elsewhere you wrote that you disagreed that
surrealism “is very specific in its motivations and goals.” Such
motivations and goals are manifold but they are not arbitrary.
Surrealism does have its coordinates.
Parry
> >> I respect Barrett, John, and Elag's ability to remain relatively ad
> >> homineum attack-free,
> >I won't say daily, but yes they are. And by the people that you defend
> >as well! But you defend them... why have you defended them and not,
> >for instance, me?
>
> If I thought that you were unfairly assailed, I probably would.
> >Meanwhile Nik has attacked and riled, as he moves from one person to
> >another: first Dale, then Kristina, me, and now Parry.
>
> From what I've seen most of Nik's jibes are defensive reaction as opposed to
> the initial slap, but we're all guilty of it to varying degrees.
My name cropped up a couple of times in this post so I thought I should
make some sort of response. As for ad hominems, well everything has its
place. For the most part though, there are only disagreements, which is
something else entirely. As for me and Nik, I explained from the outset
that I would not discuss religion without a sneer, so he knew what he
was getting into. Admittedly, I chickened out somewhat and have shown
restraint, not wishing to be (too) rude. It doesn’t help that Nik is
difficult to really talk with, that he thinks it’s "limiting" to have to
know what you’re talking about. But I don’t know him and have nothing
personal against him. On the other hand, when I did insult him, he
agreed with me.
As for defending those unfairly assailed, I would now like to speak up
for Cythera. You wrote pejoratively of “mentors” and suggested she
doesn’t think for herself. She is obviously well-read, has a diversity
of interests, and is independently-minded, so I would say your comments
are unfair. Thanks for providing me with an opportunity to sing
Cythera’s praises. Just be grateful I didn’t accompany myself on guitar.
johnqadamsiii
incident often, recalling once that he was crushed by S. freud's
unacceptance of him upon their meeting or some such. The way i
seem to recall is (and anyone correct me if im wrong) that
breton was not very impressed himself with freud's old-fangled
attitude and lack of interest in the arts and how his work may
have applied. I also doubt he was "expecting high praise" from
him. I suppose its your way of skewing the facts again to fit
your argument.
john
<<The situation was similar to when Freud couldn't see what
connection surrealism had with psychoanalysis, when Breton
showed up at his door, expecting high praise. Freud shook
Breton's hand, was baffled, and then dismissed Breton with a pat
on the shoulder and a smile. Breton, it is said, took this as a
great insult. >>
Fascinan
long thread).
Anyhow, I lauded Cythera's enthusiasm for knowledge, but then ignorantly
intimated that she was too readily embracing others' opinions - thanks for
pointing out this bungle on my part Parry. Cythera, I will now attempt to
right my wrong by offering up some Max Ernst:
(excerpt from Au-dela de la peinture, 1936)
Then my eyes perceived human heads, various animals, a battle ending in a kiss
(Fiance of the Wind), rocks, The Sea and the Rain, Earthquakes, The Sphinx in
her Stable, Little Tables around the Earth, Caesar's Palette, False Positions,
an Ice-Flower Shawl, Pampas.
Whip Lashes and Threads of Lava, Fields of Honour, Floods and Seismic Plants,
Scarecrows, The Sprinting Chestnut Tree.
Teenage Lightning, Vaccinated Bread, Conjugal Diamonds, The Cuckoo, Origin of
the Pendulum, Dead Man's Meal, Wheel of Light.
A Solar Money System.
The Habits of Leaves, The Fascinating Cypress.
Eve, The Only One Left to Us.
Fas
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Not that long ago, Dale and Brandon themselves were admitting to
> communist leanings. It would be interesting to know whether or not
> they still feel that way. If they don't feel that way, what changed?
Actually, it was very long ago, at least a year or a year and a half
ago. Maybe even longer. Maybe three years? Why don't I feel that way
now? I met some people who changed my mind. I discussed political
issues with my friends. I learned more about freedom and how important
it really is. I've had enough of social systems and manipulation. Etc.
The list can go on and on.
I really think it came when I asked myself what I really wanted from
the government. "Freedom" was my only response. Five years ago I would
have said "security."
Nikolaus Maack
> possibility of anything but a willful misunderstanding, "surrealism's"
> autonomy was always insisted upon and was never compromised by placing it in
> service to an ideology.
Yes. Historically speaking, the surrealists -- or specifically Breton --
insisted on maintaining automony, while at the same wanting to put
themselves at the service of the communists. Breton saw each group as
having common goals, but didn't want his group to be only a splinter group
of the commies. This baffled and irritated the communists. Serve our
cause, or bugger off, was their reaction. At the same time, they tried to
show interest in Breton and friends. Maybe something would come of it?
After years of negotiation, it never worked out.
The communists couldn't really figure out what a bunch of unemployed
artist types thought their ideology had to do with communism anyway. And
getting a straight answer out of the surrealists -- "What is surrealism,
anyway?" -- was a tough job. Surrealism is freedom? That's nice, but
what does it have to do with communism, comrade?
The situation was similar to when Freud couldn't see what connection
surrealism had with psychoanalysis, when Breton showed up at his door,
expecting high praise. Freud shook Breton's hand, was baffled, and then
dismissed Breton with a pat on the shoulder and a smile. Breton, it is
said, took this as a great insult.
Breton, frankly, seemed to have a lot of difficulty describe what
surrealism was to people outside of the group.
But all this aside for the moment, Barrett, do you see yourself as a
communist? Do you surrealism's goals and the communist movement's goals
as being compatible?
Nikolaus Maack
> If surrealism is too serious for you, try alt.slack.
Hmm.
The entire reason I moved from alt.non-sequitur to alt.surrealism was
because I was irritated at the gibberish I was seeing in alt.non.seq. It
was pure gibberish. It seemed to me that gibberish is much more
interesting when it contains at least a note of sense to it.
That is, someone types the random phrase, "Raccoons feed on the garbage of
my soul at dawn."
I respond, "Dawn's light scares off the skunks and eels of my mind."
There's at least some poetic, semi-sensible connection.
Anyway, I ranted for a saner world in non-sequitur. Someone said, "Son,
you're in the wrong place. Non-sequitur means that the response does not
follow, in any way. If you want gibberish that makes sense, head to
alt.surrealism."
Or words to that effect.
And lo, I did. I recognized this person was absolutely right.
And now you suggest I move on to alt.slack, for the comedy lies there.
Well, my experience with Bob and the Church of the Sub Genius has always
been rather distant. The few Bobbers I met always seemed to be trying to
keep a very straight face while spewing gibberish. They knew they were
playing a game, but they took the game seriously. It's almost as if they
forgot they were joking.
And the others were just plain crazy.
They do seem to be nihilists. At least some of them have a sense of
humour. Hmm. I don't know if you meant me to take your suggestion
seriously, but I'm considering it. I'll at least stick my nose into
alt.slack, see what they're doing over there.
But Parry, can you at least consider having more of a sense of humour when
it comes to surrealist theory and your own personality? I don't know you
from Adam, but in this conversation at least, you have come across as
rather dry and crusty. No offense.
Nikolaus Maack
>> Not that long ago, Dale and Brandon themselves were admitting to
>> communist leanings.
Brandon:
> Actually, it was very long ago, at least a year or a year and a half
> ago. Maybe even longer. Maybe three years?
One of the beauties of language -- to me, a year ago, even two years ago,
doesn't seem like that long a time. To you, it is. Interesting. I have
no idea what our difference on this means. Ah well.
By the way, thanks for your answer to my question. I was genuinely
curious, and I found your answer interesting -- especially:
> I really think it came when I asked myself what I really wanted from
> the government. "Freedom" was my only response. Five years ago I would
> have said "security."
That's a concept I can strangely appreciate. Although here, in Ontario,
we have this politician -- Mike Harris -- who is making the world less
secure, and more free, supposedly.
By cutting welfare programs to ribbons, Harris is literally killing the
poor. The working class and the middle class cheer him on as people on
welfare "disappear". "Those bums shoulda got jobs, been a hard worker,
like me!"
There is some debate as to whether the people kicked off welfare died or
merely become homeless -- Toronto now has 50,000 homeless people. It
seems clear that Harris hates the poor, and is convincing the people
around him that everything is the fault of the poor. Meanwhile he funnels
more and more money to big business.
I mention all of this because, on a good day, I'm fairly apolitical. I
find politics to be rather silly. Not much of a difference between high
school class presidents organizing a school dance, and so called grown men
and women running a city. But Mike Harris scares me. He seems to be
genuinely evil.
He's making people spy on each other, looking for "welfare cheats" --
setting up 1-800 numbers to phone in on your neighbours -- while he and
his cronies run amok, spending money left and right. Suddenly it makes
the news when a Toronto woman defrauds the welfare system for 60 grand
over five years. That's a pittance, compared to what the government is up
to, but she makes the news.
Sad.
But maybe you don't see this as more freedom, less security. I don't
know. Ah well. I'm rambling.
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f5cte$uno$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > Not that long ago, Dale and Brandon themselves were admitting to
> > they still feel that way. If they don't feel that way, what changed?
>
> now? I met some people who changed my mind. I discussed political
> issues with my friends. I learned more about freedom and how important
> it really is. I've had enough of social systems and manipulation. Etc.
> The list can go on and on.
I must say that - in my case - this is not a fact. I have never admitted to
"communist leanings." This appears to be as typical N word simplification of
a rather more complex discussion. If he were to say I had "socialist
leanings" he might be more accurate, but it's not the same thing. And at any
rate, I'm an anarchist, and commies kill them like tics.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Actually you seem to mention that about the freud/breton
> incident often, recalling once that he was crushed by S. freud's
> unacceptance of him upon their meeting or some such.
I like the story for a couple of reasons:
1) I like Freud.
2) I like psychoanalysis.
3) I like surrealism.
4) I like the connections I see between surrealism and psychoanalysis.
5) For whatever reason, some people don't like to mention this connection.
6) I don't really like Breton -- as a person -- very much.
> The way i
> seem to recall is (and anyone correct me if im wrong) that
> breton was not very impressed himself with freud's old-fangled
> attitude and lack of interest in the arts and how his work may
> have applied.
In the account I read -- and of course there are many possible
interpretations of the events that took place -- Breton arrived, expecting
Freud to know who he was. After all, Breton did have some status in the
literary world at this point. Freud had no idea who Breton was, didn't
seem to understand Breton's rushed description of surrealism, and gave
Breton very little of his time.
This tweaked Breton's nose, and he went on to write a rather petty mockery
of Freud, mainly because he felt snubbed. This, at least, was a
description of the text in the biography of Breton that I read -- I
believe the author called the essay "childish", but I could be wrong. I
have not read the Freud critique text. Have you, or anyone else, read it?
> I also doubt he was "expecting high praise" from
> him. I suppose its your way of skewing the facts again to fit
> your argument.
Which argument is that?
Breton did, at least, expect recognition, understanding, and
encouragement. Remember that Breton saw his work as directly connected to
psychoanalysis. Until he actually met Freud, he had a lot of respect for
the man. A number of surrealist games have their origins with Freud, the
importance of dreams being but one of them. Free association, for example
-- where the patient talks freely, without thinking about what they're
saying, in order to plum the depths of their psyche -- is directly related
to the surrealist concept of automatic drawing and writing.
So imagine you're Breton. You see your work as directly related to
Freudian theory. Freud not only doesn't know who you are and sees no such
connection, but he gives you little time, and doesn't seem too impressed
with you. Psychoanalysis, in Freud's mind, is about medicine and mental
health, not something as lowly as "art". You don't think Breton would see
this as being snubbed?
As further evidence -- it is said that Breton was extremely irritated at
how much of an impression Dali made on Freud, when the two met. Breton
was extremely jealous.
This is just historical gossip, mind you, and should be treated as such.
But I enjoy historical gossip, so there you are.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f5ost$aq9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39164ae9$0$30794$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> > I must say that - in my case - this is not a fact. I have never
> admitted to "communist leanings." This appears to be as typical N word
> simplification of a rather more complex discussion. If he were to say I
had "socialist
> > leanings" he might be more accurate, but it's not the same thing. And
> at any rate, I'm an anarchist, and commies kill them like tics.
> >
> > dmh
> >
>
> especially Knabb's statements in paragraph three.
>
> from
> Chapter 1 of "The Joy of Revolution," from Public Secrets: Collected
> Skirmishes of Ken Knabb (1997).
>
>
> Stalinist "communism" and reformist "socialism" are merely variants of
> capitalism
This is sturdy enough, and explains my repugnance for Stalin in a new
light. I live with a former American Stalinist (an old SDS leader) and I
must say old gods die hard! There are days when she grows nostalgic and I
have to leave the room.
I find nothing to disagree with in the statements, and wish only to
stress that I still think socialist ideals (as divorced from most of the
examples we have been presented with) are valid and - despite the media
death knells - quite active in the world. I would like to say that I think
anarchists are the true socialists, and this is probably why Lenin had them
slaughtered AFTER they had finished organizing his farflung farm towns into
"useful" cadres.
Stalin is to socialism what the Titanic was to luxury liners.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
>> 1) I like Freud.
>
> Do you remember that he betrayed his women patients and his friend
> Sandor Ferenczi so that he could secure a well-paid job for life as a
> society doctor?
Freud is an interesting guy. Did he betray his female patients? I'm not
sure.
The story goes that Freud, at first, was horrified that women were
reporting sexual abuse to him as often as they did. It boggled his mind.
It couldn't possibly be as rampant as it seemed, could it? At first Freud
took his patients at their word -- sexual abuse seemed to be everywhere,
and no one was talking about it. Freud, being the sort of person who
stands up to social pressures, started talking about the prevalence of
child abuse and rape.
All the doctors of the world thought Freud was a lunatic. It was "known"
that patients make this stuff up all the time. It couldn't possibly be
true. The doctors of the world ostracized Freud for his "incorrect"
thinking.
Freud eventually recanted. He backed down, saying that the sexual abuse
was just fantasy. These women wanted to have sex with their fathers, and
that's why they were claiming the abuse. Historians, feminists, social
critics, and many other groups would have us see this as Freud's gravest
error. He could have been a whistle-blower for sexual abuse, but backed
down. I would tend to agree. It sure looks like Freud messed up, big
time.
But what's interesting is re-examining Freud's waffling with some modern
knowledge in hand. Have you noticed the increasing numbers of crazy
people stepping forward, of late, claiming to have been abused by satanic
cults? The conspiracy of satanic sexual abuse is, supposedly, a global
phenomena that covers its tracks so well that there has never been a
single piece of evidence to prove it exists.
I, personally, met a woman who described to me some incredibly horrific
things she claimed happened to her at the hands of priests in her home
town. You see, the priests in her town were engaged in satanic ritual
abuse. Not only did they tie her to the altar and masturbate her, as a
child, but they nailed her into a coffin full of worms. They deliberately
gave her multiple personality disorder, and then programmed some of her
personalities to work against the others.
Other SRA sufferers claim to have been impregnanted by their abusers, so
the children could be "harvested" for satanic sacrifice. There are other
allegations that are so out there, without any evidence what-so-ever, that
you just have to wonder what the heck is going on.
The woman I met was in a whole lot of genuine pain. When she spoke of
some fairly outrageous claims, her eyes filled with tears, she trembled
uncontrollably, and was obviously in fear for her life. She was convinced
that one or more of her personalities was still in contact with the
satanic cult. Her claims got weirder -- the entire small town conspired
against her. Not just the priests of the one church, but the mayor, the
police, almost everyone in the small town was part of the satanic cult.
When I politely expressed some disbelief, she got very upset. She said
that not being believed by the people around her -- which was very common
-- was like being abused all over again.
When I consider the increasing prevalence of this kind of "satanic abuse",
I begin to wonder about Freud recanting. There wasn't a whole lot of MPD
in Freud's time. It's possible that it manifested, back then, in some
other way. Modern psychiatrists look at MPD with some suspicion. Is it a
real illness, or something manufactured between doctors and patients --
male and female -- through therapy itself?
So, when it comes to whether or not people have been sexually abused, I
wonder. False Memory Syndrome -- where so called memories of sexual abuse
seem utterly manufactured out of nothing by therapists -- seems very real
to me. What I have read on the topic suggests that the human mind is far
more suggestible than we like to think. It's quite possible that people
expressing a great deal of pain, suffering, and making claims of abuse,
are -- if not consciously making it up -- then at least, mistaken.
> Were you not shocked at Freud's malpractise in the case of The Wolfman?
I'm not familiar with that -- or my memory of it is hazy. Care to
enlighten or remind me me?
But after the whole Fleiss and nose surgery to rid people of delusions,
nothing would surprise me.
Nikolaus Maack
>> The story
>
> It's not a story, of course.
Of course it's a story. From "Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of The
English Language":
Story: n. an oral or written account of a real or imagined event or
events.
So it's a STORY.
[Freud's patients -- sexually abused or not?]
> The evidence suggested that since childhood they had been forced into
> sex with their fathers/uncles/grandfathers/brothers.
What evidence are you referring to, specifically? Just what they said, or
anything else?
> A man was analyzed by Freud. He was one of the wealthiest men in
> Europe. His name The Wolfman came from a dream he had had since
> childhood. He was apparently molested by his elder sister for many
> years, beginning in early childhood. Once again, Freud heard the
> evidence, but didn't *see.*
"Apparently"? Was he molested or wasn't he? Any evidence?
Freud was going into completely uncharted territory when concocting his
psychoanalytic theories. He lived during the victorian era, when talking
about sex was considered so offensive as to be unthinkable. Talking about
incest, sexual abuse, etc. was even more unthinkable and -- to Freud and
the doctors of his time -- nearly unimaginable. So it's hardly surprising
that Freud was, by our modern standards, an idiot.
However, we have Freud to thank -- even if he made a lot of ridiculous and
bizarre mistakes -- for our culture being more capable of talking about
these issues today. In his historical context, Freud was quite a
visionary, sexually speaking.
In case you're wondering, I do not see Freud as infallible or godlike.
The story that always amuses me -- and shows how laughably human Freud is
-- is Freud's worship of Fleiss, the doctor who thought all neuroses were
caused by the nose. Freud himself allowed Fleiss to perform several nasal
operations in order to "cure" Freud of certain neurotic quirks. Lovely.
And then there's the famous and amusing tale of Freud being so convinced
Jung was out to kill him -- for the traditional Oedipal complex reasons --
that Freud fainted on the spot. Jung had merely described a dream in
which he was trying to escape Freud's tyranny, and Freud saw it as a
murderous impulse. It was too much for Freud to bear, and he passed out
-- not just once, but again, a second time, after recovering. This is the
man who diagnosed men and women as suffering from "hysteria"?
It's also interesting to apply Freud's own theories to his own life. His
mother much younger than her husband, and spoiled Freud rotten. Any
wonder this is the man who formulated the Oedipal complex?
Speaking of quackery, I just finished reading the novel "The Road to
Wellville", a fictionalized account of Dr. Kellogg -- health expert and
cornflak inventor. It's interesting to consider how Freud is a reaction
to the world where women were never touched "down there", and in some
cases masturbating a woman to orgasm was seen as "therapy". She was much
happier after the therapy, after all.
What's more disturbing to consider is that things haven't changed all that
much. My girlfriend uses a "keeper" instead of tampons. A keeper is a
resuable rubber cup a woman inserts into the vagina. It collects the
blood during a period and you can dump it out, or mix it with water and
pour it to your plants.
My girlfriend will be the first to admit that she's a little obsessed with
the topic of menstruation -- she's actually subscribed to a menstruation
mailing list. But she finds the fact that tampons contain bleach and
cancer causing dioxins profoundly disturbing. People don't like talking
about menstruating and vaginas, so nothing gets done about this -- which
is even more disturbing. There are more rules guiding what level of
dioxins can be in a diaper than what can be in a tampon -- and a tampon is
stuck INSIDE a woman, meaning the dioxins are far more dangerous.
But people don't want to talk about such "disgusting" things. In fact,
when my girlfriend talks about how to insert a keeper, other women tend to
find the notion disturbing. They could never simply stick fingers in
their vaginas and push the keeper into place! That's just "weird". And
pouring vaginal blood on to your plants? Ew, gross!
It would be nice if we lived in a world where people could be less afraid
of sexuality and their own bodies. I'm reminded of the boy who called a
phone-in show about sexuality, and asked if enjoying having his girlfriend
finger his butt meant he was gay. *sigh*
brandon...@my-deja.com
> As further evidence -- it is said that Breton was extremely irritated
> at how much of an impression Dali made on Freud, when the two met.
> Breton was extremely jealous.
Do you remember what Freud said to Dali?
johnqadamsiii
<I also doubt he was "expecting high praise" from him. I suppose
its your way of skewing the facts again to fit your argument.>
<<Which argument is that?>>
That would be my argument. Whether what either of us have read
is true, i felt you were twisting the details a little to
support your contempt for Breton.
<<As further evidence -- it is said that Breton was extremely
irritated at how much of an impression Dali made on Freud, when
the two met. Breton was extremely jealous.>>
I would be irritated at Dali parading around representing
surrealism to anyone during that time and it's too bad Breton
didn't come to his final realization sooner. It's of little
surprise to anyone that you support the would be surrealism of
Dali so consistently over that of other surrealists.
john
Nikolaus Maack
He's the one who teased the bores,
Dali, Dali -- Salvador!
Had a sense of humour, and
so much more.
Used Breton's big hair,
to mop cafe' floors.
Saw all that political nonsense as
such a bore.
Dali, Dali -- Salvador!
They tried to expel him
from the surrealist realm.
Dali, laughed, said,
"I don't see Breton --
I smell him!"
Even when sick with a fever
of a hundred and three
none of those surrealists
could take on Dali.
Silly and wild,
so much like a child.
Made love to the camera.
Rolled around naked in drama.
When he went to the States,
Breton was irate,
said, "You stupid Spanish fish!
Real surrealists don't speak English!"
So while Breton was cooped up,
with other French expatriates,
Salvidore Dali created
surrealism's greatest hits.
He's the one people adore,
Dali, Dali -- Salvador!
Known by many who've never heard
of Breton before.
Takes up seven volumes of
surrealist lore.
But if you want to be known as an in-tell-eck-too-ell...
You'll condemn poor Salvadore to the fiery pits of Hell.
Dali, Dali -- Salvador!
Nik
johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
> It's of little
> surprise to anyone that you support the would be surrealism of
> Dali so consistently over that of other surrealists.
--
Nikolaus Maack
> Do you remember what Freud said to Dali?
That Dali was not just a fan of psychoanalysis, but a fanatic, wasn't it?
Nik
johnqadamsiii
Axel, Axel, so brilliant and twee
shimmering with your glamour, rock
nothing sang so splendid and ghastly
since those fucking kids, new kids on the block
In article <8f74p8$rno$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
>--
>"He is too tiring in his inconsistency and inherent
silliness." - C/E
>The Nik Maack Art Gallery
>http://www.nikart.com
>
>
elag
> > I respect Barrett, John, and Elag's ability to remain relatively ad
> > homineum attack-free,
>
>
> elag said he's not a Surrealist;
True, but I suppose that it would be hard to tell w/o such a declaration.
I don't know if, outside of this
> newsgroup, he's fiery and passionate,
Yes. 1000x yes!
but I don't have an image of him
> taking his film-making and art lightly.
I put every erg of spare energy into my art. Art = life = art.
Why should any of us settle?
"De L'audace, et encore de l'audace et toujours de l'audace." --- Danton
brandon...@my-deja.com
> That Dali was not just a fan of psychoanalysis, but a fanatic, wasn't
> it?
He said that when he looked at Dali's work he could only see and look
for what was consciously constructed. In other words, Dali's art was
just a machine for pumping out images that fit the "rational system" of
the psychoanalytic community. He used symbols which he knew Freud and
others would identity as having a certain meaning. This type of
conscious construction is the main reason why I've never identified
Dali as a Surrealist, but merely a pseudo-Surrealist. He is not freeing
his mind, but avoiding it.
brandon...@my-deja.com
conscious construction. The title of the piece had something to do with
"Narcissus" [I can't remember the complete title] and it contained some
obvious references to the myth and the complex:
1. an egg [Freud compared Narcissism to someone living in a egg]
2. a pool of water [Narcissus stared into a pool of water]
3. a Narcissus flower [Narcissus turned into a flower and the end of
the myth, Dali put the flower coming out of the egg]
Leo Sgouros
> > > I respect Barrett, John, and Elag's ability to remain relatively ad
> > > homineum attack-free,
> >
I agree its nice they dont bring up people that arent even posting here at
the moment to attack them.
The rest of us just pick on the poor defenseless bystanders.
Aeon
>humour. Hmm. I don't know if you meant me to take your suggestion
>seriously, but I'm considering it. I'll at least stick my nose into
>alt.slack, see what they're doing over there.
alt.slack is where it's at mon ami!
err... I just don't know what "it" is yet.
*rumaging around through plastic Dobb's heads, armpit hair of the Yeti,
pubic covered frying pans of the great Connie, and the strange guitar
playing madman's ode to jesus*
orlan
--
--Joan of Ark heard voices too--
laura transforms
http://www.gurlpages.com/art/orlan/index.html
Aeon
I am uncertain as to whether I personally consider Dali a surrealist
painter or not, but I kind of wonder about the following things:
Do all paintings created under the heading "surrealism" have to be
painted "unconciously" or without any concious motives?
If you create a painting completely on purpose, with no unconcious
type of excercise whatsoever, can this painting not be an image (or
group of images) that would inspire the mind and possibly link
somehow to one's unconcious? Can it not still be an exploration of
one's unconcious self?
Is there a rule to surrealism that anything created under it's large
umbrella must be done unconciously (as opposed to the "conscious
construction" of Dali's above)?
Dale Houstman
> In article <3914d836$0$30790$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000506150923...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> > > Cythera:
> > >
> Dale, I was touched and surprised when I read this. Then I became shy,
> and didn't know how to thank you. I appreciate this, very much.
> Thank you Dale.
>
No need to thank me, I do it because I am paid by your mom.
dmh