other people's parents
Jill
{Remarq is a pain, and very forgetful too about whether or not
one has an account w/it}
[.....]
You can’t tell it from this newsgroup, but an international
community of surrealists exists {and they create art}: the
Starfish, the Leeds group.....so many; do they ever write here?
Hey, Laura, maybe we should ask Anton to contribute here? <g>
#Paul, Fas, John, elag, jsday, Laura...sorry if I left someone
out, and.....you know who you are!!! thanks for your posts;
they get me to think or laugh, or both.
Peace, out,
cythera - elizabeth
I'm posting this from an old account...so there might be a
repost of something [there was]...oops.
Nik is not a soporific camel.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> Mags (mk...@is9.nyu.edu) writes:
>>Or maybe I'm just on crack.
> Can I have some? I've never tried crack before.
I'm surprised. You do seem to talk out of one.
#Paul, not very surreal but unable to resist a cheap shot.
john adams
>
> Mags said:
>
> Is it really that exciting to talk about this? It almost takes
> on the appearance of a soap opera, especially the Dale-Nik
> conflict. It's kinda sucky - what can I say? This ng seems to be
> less and less surreal and more and more suburbian (trust me, I
> know). Or maybe I'm just on crack.
>
> L&K2,
> Mags
>
> Elephants are not camels.
>
> & then elag said:
>
> F laming\
> is
> addictive/
> Crack\
> is
> whack/
>
> MOMA\
> is
> DADA/
>
> Dromedaries are not Camels.
>
> elag and Mags:
>
> You're both right. Except, Mags, some of what we have here is
> so far past sucky that it broke the suck barrier. This is some
> lame project that somebody named barrett thought up, apparently;
> and Dale pretends to be, or actually is, so "problematic", that
> between the posturings of him and Nik - and the range of they
> reactions they get, from disgust to intrigue - almost no
> creativity happens here.
>
> You canÃÿffffa2
Have to agree Mag et al: sucking right down the marrow.
But i don't see where you are going with the rest, Cythera (especially
that last word...).
Does Nik really have a memory problem, as dale purports? Is there some
perceptual or rationalizing component that is deficient which encourages
(or is symptomatic of) this trudging of old worn out weed-filled
territories where nothing new is discovered? Will Nik ever stop playing
the role of the dunce and the attention-seeker? Will we continue to
reward this behaviour? Will Dale dislodge the briquette from his
imagination? Stay tuned until next time net-goers.
Here is a something to consider: why not switch the focus off of YOU
for once and onto some less self-absorbed endeavors?
On a lighter note, has anyone seen Goonies? Very 'surreal' movie!
john
john adams
>
> In article <38AE2178...@aol.com>, john adams
> its burp.
>
> >Does Nik really have a memory problem, as dale purports? Is
> there some
> >perceptual or rationalizing component that is deficient which
> encourages
> >(or is symptomatic of) this trudging of old worn out weed-filled
>
>
> >territories where nothing new is discovered? Will Nik ever stop
> playing
> >the role of the dunce and the attention-seeker? Will we
> continue to
> >reward this behaviour?
>
>
> Will Dale dislodge the briquette from his
> >imagination? Stay tuned until next time net-goers.
> >
> > Here is a something to consider: why not switch the focus off
> of YOU
> >for once and onto some less self-absorbed endeavors?
>
> >
> >On a lighter note, has anyone seen Goonies? Very 'surreal'
> movie!
> >
> >john
>
>
>
My apologies - i was being sarcastic about Goonies, so don't really hold
me to the comment.
I didn't realize i'd opted for the U, how Umorous. I certainly wasn't
taught this in grammar school on the range where the primary focus was
horse shoe tossing and waxing steer bellies!
john
Fascinan
>A graceful, poetic movie that I love, "Solaris", is worth seeing
>if you get the chance. It's Russian sci-fi, c. 1970. I don't
>remember if it has any surrealistic elements, but it is
>beautiful.
One of my favorites, though I prefer "Stalker" just a bit more. The Mirror,
Nostalghia, and The Sacrifice are also exceptional works (check out
http://skywalking.com/tarkovsky/ ). I love the use of space, close-ups, and
silence to empower the visual aspects; the dialogues are also very rich in
philosophy and metaphysics -- this ain't no "Men in Black".
At one point, I had to pause the film and write out the dialogue between Chris
Kelvin and Dr. Snouth in the library. I'd love to be able to articulate such
sharp, biting thoughts like that. I bet a "real life" conversation between Nik
and Dale would be almost as steely dramatic, once past the first few awkward
moments of necessary defensiveneness.
Fas
Dale Houstman
"Jill" <bloodstai...@sweetness.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0643b430...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
> Hi John, here's the remainder of the boring post that Remarq ate.
> {Remarq is a pain, and very forgetful too about whether or not
> one has an account w/it}
>
> [.....]
> community of surrealists exists {and they create art}: the
> Starfish, the Leeds group.....so many; do they ever write here?
I happen to personally know some of these international surrealists, and
believe me, there is VERY little that goes on in this ng that would interest
most of them. In the main, the "major players" here (Nik, Fascinan, etc.)
demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge when it comes to even the most
basic assumptions of surrealism.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> Will Nik ever stop playing
> the role of the dunce and the attention-seeker?
Sometimes I sing to be heard, other times I'm testing my voice. And
occasionally I sing just for me. I always hope that someone will join in,
and sing with me. People rarely do. Getting up on stage -- even a
virtual one -- can be intimidating.
> Will we continue to
> reward this behaviour?
If you were all dead silent and deaf, I'd keep singing anyway. Some days
I feel like I should apologize for my endless song. I'm sorry, but today
isn't one of those days.
Nik
--
UPDATED! Feb 2nd, 2000 -- go look!
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Nikolaus Maack
> I happen to personally know some of these international surrealists, and
> believe me, there is VERY little that goes on in this ng that would interest
> most of them.
Any chance you can tell us what these international surrealists are up to?
I find it weird that you're such a big-wig and you never share your
experiences with us. What happens at a meeting? Do they plan events, or
is it sort of like a "book of the month club" where people just chat?
What does an "international surrealist" do? Does putting "international
surrealist" on a resume get you places? Does flashing your badge --
"International Surrealist, ma'am." -- get you hot sex?
> In the main, the "major players" here (Nik, Fascinan, etc.)
> demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge when it comes to even the most
> basic assumptions of surrealism.
I guess we're the difference between poets in the street struggling with
our personal shit, and academic poets at the university struggling with an
entirely different ball of candle-dripping.
I feel a strange compulsion to mention that I saw Vance Gilbert in concert
last night, and that he blew us all away.
john adams
>
> john adams (gala...@aol.com) writes:
> > Will Nik ever stop playing
> > the role of the dunce and the attention-seeker?
>
> Sometimes I sing to be heard, other times I'm testing my voice. And
> occasionally I sing just for me. I always hope that someone will join in,
> and sing with me. People rarely do. Getting up on stage -- even a
> virtual one -- can be intimidating.
>
> > Will we continue to
> > reward this behaviour?
>
> If you were all dead silent and deaf, I'd keep singing anyway. Some days
> I feel like I should apologize for my endless song. I'm sorry, but today
> isn't one of those days.
>
> Nik
All im saying is get over yourself and the need to be center spectacle
in this newsgroup.
I think Brandon was onto something with what he said about your
obsession/struggle for power. And your "plea to share personal details"
is just another ploy to gain leverage and use it against others. Yes,
sing on good friend. Im sorry i ever wanted to rain on your innocent
parade like that.
john
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38AF7133...@aol.com...
> Mags wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, john adams wrote:
> > >
> > > On a lighter note, has anyone seen Goonies? Very 'surreal' movie!
> > >
> > > john
> > >
> >
> >
> > Mags
> >
> > Elephants are not camels.
>
> I never really saw all of the movie, so i could be very wrong...
>
Walking out of a movie before it's finished is very "surreal"! I've only
done this a few times.
1. Trog: Joan Crawford's last "movie." Not exactly Mildred Pierce. One of
those "look we found a caveman" movies.
2. "Edvard Munch" kinda truly awful. The seventh or millionth time they
showed Munch's mother dying by spitting up tubercular blood, I thought I had
seen enough. Not so much surreal as sure dull.
3. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Beautiful people with everything to
live for flee the oncoming Russian tank army! Really wish they had been
captured. At one point - as a Russian tank rolled down an alley toward me -
the film broke, leaving us a perfectly white screen. I thought it was
(mercifully) an arty ending to a long experience. Sorry! Still - the taste
of freedom I received from that error was too much for me, and soon I fled.
But "Goonies" (like most Spielberg movies besides "Duel" "Jaws" and "Close
Encounters" (and "Sugerland Express") is pretty dumb awful ain't it? It
seemed pretty heavy-handed (hamhandiness appears to be one of Spielberg's
main traits of late) for a kid's film.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> To those who would rather play their own game, you say: "How dull your
> game is! Mine is so much better. How can you expect anything to be the
> slightest bit amusing if it doesn't involve talking about our dirty
> underwear?"
There is truth to this -- I really do see the games that other people play
as exceedingly boring. For example, the whole "my tax dollars pay for
this bad art" discussion in ott.general -- I have nothing to say about
that, because I have heard the arguments over and over again. It is old
material, and it is dull. Who wants to have that discussion AGAIN? Do
you?
If someone asked me about my stance on abortion, I would moan in misery,
because it's just one of those areas people talk about, over and over
again, utterly humourlessly. It never ends. Maybe I'd crack a joke,
maybe I'd talk about the one time a girlfriend of mine had an abortion
behind my back. But no one wants to hear stuff like that. They want to
discuss the "intellectual issues".
And cut me some slack -- I don't just want to talk about bowel movements
and fingernail clippings and urine. I also want to talk about what our
relationships to our parents are like, what we do everyday, what our jobs
are, in detail. Not just a superficial intellectual concept, but the guts
and the raw feeling behind the concept.
My unwillingness to engage on that intellectual level is out of sheer
boredom. Dale will never think of it this way -- because he loves
intellectual debate, he lives intellectual debate -- but I see it as
lacking. No personal opinion anyone has ever comes just from "I thought
about it intellectually, and it came to me." Yet that is how almost all
people speak, as though ideas fly out of a black hole and into their
brain.
So when someone says, "I think X," I will attempt to get the to say "I
think X because I feel Y, Z, and have experienced A, B..." But getting
people to talk like that is incredibly difficult.
Dale sees me as avoiding the intellectual issue. I'm "intellectually
lazy". Instead of discussing the hard logic and the serious intellectual
issues in regards to the issue (of whether or not there is a God) I
"digress" into emotional issues, personal experiences, and play. To me,
that's not a digression. That's getting to the MEAT of reality.
Everyone does the intellectual dance, and I'm tired of it. It's boring.
I fight for the value of emotions and personal experience because so many
people choose to ignore this level.
I have a friend who has very strong ideas about welfare. He'll talk about
his ideas until your ears hurt. Where do these ideas come from? If you
can corner him, talk to him quietly, get him to open up, he'll tell you
how he once lived in a welfare housing project, and will describe to you
all the things that he's seen.
One floor dedicated to junkies. The entire power being out for a week --
in a thirty story building -- and no one fixing it until the story made
the papers. Women being passed around, back and forth, among people --
and the women putting up with it, because it's the only power they get. A
woman masturbating with a beer bottle because she wants some attention.
Porn as currency, and not the shiny mags, but stuff on newsprint, like
Allo Police!
When my friend talks about his experiences, his ideas start to have a
background, start to make sense. When he got talking about all this, and
I told him how fascinated I was, he was surprised. "I thought everyone
knew this stuff. You don't find it boring?"
Intellectual debate ignores the emotional background. I want that
background.
And another thing I hate doing -- and I'm doing it right now -- is
explaining myself. Because what inevitably happens is someone begins to
intellectually pick apart what I'm saying. The intellectuals have this
habit of ignoring the personal, and when you expose the personal, they
beat you to death with it. If you try to explain why the personal is
important to you, using their intellectual language, they try to have an
"intellectual debate" on the topic.
Can you see where I am coming from?
> Self-mocking is an integral part of your game. Self-criticism is
> strictly forbidden.
Self-criticism leads to intellectual hell. I openly admit my bias. I
want emotions, I want experiences, I want stories. And that's what it
boils down to, I think. I don't want ideas, I want stories. Even if they
are fables, that's okay. A story says more than an impersonal,
intellectual essay.
> Those who were
> arguing with you now think they have "won". You did not make a
> dent in them, just as they did not make a dent in you.
These are the goals of intellectual debate. There must be a victor.
Someone has to dent someone else. I don't know if you're aware of this,
but I have emotionally influenced Dale. And I know he is COMPLETELY
unaware of this, but he has emotionally influenced me. Personal
experience talk is much more insiduous, much more subtle. And much more
overwhelming, although the changes aren't always as obvious.
I have yet to see any intellectual debate resolve anything. People clash
together like knights in armor. In the frenzy, it looks like a lot of
denting is going on, but because it's all on an "ideas" level, it's never
for keeps.
"I think X because of these logical principles."
"CLANG! You're wrong, because of these logical principles. Y is
correct."
"No, X is correct! BONG! Follow my reasoning."
"There are flaws in your reasoning. BANG! I am right, and you're not."
When the battle ends -- if it ends -- they walk away with their own armour
all the more securely fastened to their bodies.
> Eliminating the repressive forces that keep us from openly discussing
> such topics is a fine goal, but it's hardly worth the price of your
> current technique of making those topics the sole focus of your
> mind. There are better ways.
Perhaps. Maybe I should blend my intellect and my emotions into one, and
talk that way. But what with everyone wanting to talk intellect, and
wanting to ignore personal experience, I know all too well what happens.
We talk intellect. We ignore feelings.
In my experience, I know the value of changing my communication style with
each person I talk to. Bill wants a gruff, combatitive talk. I can do
that. Rob wants an emotionally sincere discussion. No problem. Susan
wants to talk in poetry, without meaning. I can do that.
But there are times when I must VERY LOUDLY be me, or I will go apeshit.
Sometimes I must defend what I think and feel, what my poisitions are.
And that's what I'm describing in the above.
Barrett has said that there is no difference between cognition and
emotion, that it's a false split. He then went on, in extremely
intellectual terms, to dismiss anyone who believs in this split. Barrett,
I think we can all agree, comes across as strictly a dry, intellectual
debate kind of guy. I'm sure he has feelings, but I have yet to see any,
except save, irritation at those who won't follow the one truth path of
surrealism.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the "one true path to surrealism" is a
highly intellectual one.
> I don't think it's primarily fear, it's more laziness and habit. Think of
> all those people watching television. Now think of them watching this
> newsgroup.
I think the laziness and habit also comes out of fear. "My job is to
watch. Take part? Why, why, I couldn't! Uh, uh, no, no, I couldn't."
There's a song by the dead Kennedys -- I forget which one -- that goes
"They'd rather watch somebody else's life on TV than participate in their
own." Ah well. Probably can't change these people, but I think
occasionally they need to be told what their options are.
Does any of this count as self-critcism? *grin*
Nik
--
JC sez: "You don't qualify for my list of people too stupid to live."
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:88p4l7$fj2$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> My unwillingness to engage on that intellectual level is out of sheer
> boredom. Dale will never think of it this way -- because he loves
> intellectual debate, he lives intellectual debate -- but I see it as
> lacking.
Because you lack the ability to engage in it yourself it seems to me. The
fact is that no matter how LOUD one proclaims these "feelings" you regard as
the highest expression of mankind, on Usenet the only thing you see is
words, and only a finer use of language will express those feelings. For all
your championing of emotive "exuding" (and by the way, your insistence on
this is dictatorial; I for one enjoy emotions finely expressed), your
personal examples usually fail to become anything more than rather
overforced phrases, and those of a uniformly loutish and dull quality. A
sort of surrealist Bukowski, although lacking even his somewhat interesting
street sense. In other words, you always seem fake to me.
>No personal opinion anyone has ever comes just from "I thought
> about it intellectually, and it came to me."
Clearly untrue. But here again your artificial insistence on a separation
between intellectual pursuit and emotive content betrays you. In many ways
intellectual consideration acts as a focusing lens for emotions, allowing
one to present very profound sensations in a form that matters. But there is
no useful border between emotion and consideration. Obviously the greatest
and purest emotional act involves physical actions: crying, tossing
furniture at your spouse's head, kissing, etc. We are (maybe unfortinately,
maybe not!) limited in that regard. No matter how hard you attempt to
portray "pure emotion" through the Usenet, you will fail as soon as you are
forced to utilize language. At that point the only salavation lies in
contemplation of your chosen words, and that - no matter what you rail on
about - is intellectual in the extreme. In other words, you are constantly
judging me (and others) as being (in Fascinan's words) "surrealist androids"
and yet you come off just as mechanical, because you seem dreadfully afraid
of exploring your own hastily constructed opinions, or of responding to
those of us who find so much of what you say frankly superficial and flat. I
have little doubt that you find your words exciting in the extreme, and feel
that you are merely inviting all of us to "join in" on some vague
excitement, but in actuality your amusements come off as mainly
overconsidered (considering your insistence on some odd notion of
spontanaiety without any spontaneous action), and your tyrannical inability
to "step up to the plate" when other's challenge your self-involvement
(which you experience as generosity) brings any and all serious interaction
to a screeching halt in the bogs of frustration. You simply refuse to be
engaged.
>Yet that is how almost all people speak, as though ideas fly out of a black
hole >and into their brain.
Nobody thinks this except you. Intellectual discourse is not an exercise in
random blather, and ideas - if you would allow yourself to be involved in
their formation - are as organically produced as anything else.
>
> So when someone says, "I think X," I will attempt to get the to say "I
> think X because I feel Y, Z, and have experienced A, B..." But getting
> people to talk like that is incredibly difficult.
Only because you refuse to listen very closely, and pull away when you are
challenged upon the basic assumptions you put forth as if they were forgone
conclusions.
>
> Dale sees me as avoiding the intellectual issue. I'm "intellectually
> lazy". Instead of discussing the hard logic and the serious intellectual
> issues in regards to the issue (of whether or not there is a God) I
> "digress" into emotional issues, personal experiences, and play. To me,
> that's not a digression. That's getting to the MEAT of reality.
And yet... when I brought up my personal experience (a very real one) you
were the first to digress into the psychology of atheism as an outgrowth of
seeing gods as Daddy. That isn't a personal observation, but a rather common
and (as I went to some pains to show) a rather flawed "idea." And I am
afraid that you are just wrong, intellectual interaction with the stuff of
the cosmos is as 'meaty" as any "pure" emotional response, if such an animal
exists.
>
> Everyone does the intellectual dance, and I'm tired of it. It's boring.
But so is your artificial notion of "pure emotion" because you spend so much
time thinking about it, and then will not allow anyone else to think about
it. We are forced to either ignore you (which I feel coming up as an option
once again) or to play it your way. You are - essentially - totally
convinced beforehand of everything you put forth in the guise of giving us
lesser beings a chance to interact with you. But it's always about you. The
thing is intellectual labor allows one to get further "outside" one's own
skin than emotion does. Even empathy grows out of an ability to imagine and
to consider the other. The pure emotional response - or animal response - is
always to consider one's own wellbeing above all others. This is even
rational, given the state of the world at any given point. But only an
ethos, which is a consideration of the greater world, will allow one to find
a path toward true collaboration. You have shut yourself off from that. And
that is the foundation of the frustation you encourage in some.
> I fight for the value of emotions and personal experience because so many
> people choose to ignore this level.
You are deluded on this point; although you are blinded by your own
self-involvement (expecting others to find The Way in your martyrdom to the
cause of emotion, all I see in others - even when they are
intellectualizing - is this very personal and emotive life. It seems - for
all your talk - you are deaf to true feeling, and slave to "a notion of
emotion."
>
> Intellectual debate ignores the emotional background.
Intellectual debate grows out of and leads to this emotional background. And
once you find this background what can you do with it unless you are willing
to discuss the ramifications?
>
> And another thing I hate doing -- and I'm doing it right now -- is
> explaining myself.
And doing it very badly as usual. Because you are leaving such little room
for the opinions of others in your UberFeeling Pogrom. We either agree that
everything you are saying is TRUE, or we must be fools. You absolutely
refuse to be challenged in your lack of ideas.
DMH
elag
>
> But "Goonies" (like most Spielberg movies besides "Duel" "Jaws" and "Close
> Encounters" (and "Sugerland Express") is pretty dumb awful ain't it? It
> seemed pretty heavy-handed (hamhandiness appears to be one of Spielberg's
Spielberg is God.
He's the God of Saccharine.
mike...
>>> Consider this factoid: according to one friend of mine, who usually knows
>>> about such things, on average there are 300 lurkers to every person who
>>> posts in a newsgroup. Sounds like a high number to me, but even if it
>>> were 50 lurkers for every poster, I would be horrified.
js replies:
>> Yep, 300:1 wouldn't surprise me. It was said to average
between 30 and 60
>> several years go, and the proportion of lurkers has probably
grown since
>> then.
>> I've seen many newsgroup appeals to the lurkers to start posting.
>> "I want everyone, I mean *everyone* reading (this means you!)
to POST a
>> message (even an empty one) right NOW!" It rarely draws
out more than
>> three or four people out of the hundreds that are reading.
nik:
>>> Why do you suppose it is that so few people post in newsgroups,
and so
>>> many lurk? I suspect they fear being mocked for their
grammar, for their
>>> "stupid" ideas, for their feelings. People don't WANT
to be seen.
js:
>> I don't think it's primarily fear, it's more laziness and habit.
Think of
>> all those people watching television. Now think of them
watching this
>> newsgroup.
nik:
> I think the laziness and habit also comes out of fear. "My
job is to
> watch. Take part? Why, why, I couldn't! Uh,
uh, no, no, I couldn't."
> There's a song by the dead Kennedys -- I forget which one -- that
goes
> "They'd rather watch somebody else's life on TV than participate
in their
> own." Ah well. Probably can't change these people,
but I think
> occasionally they need to be told what their options are.
i've been "lurking" here for probably a year now, maybe two? i don't know, i have no sense of time, but it doesn't really matter anyway. i lurked for awhile, i posted a few things about the teletubbies and fears of going to college, and then i shut up. no one ever attacked me, no one ever told me to use spell check or to capitalize.
the reason i stopped participating is hardly out of fear (or at least, not fear of being flamed or attacked) and certainly not because i'm too lazy. it's mostly because i have no faith in myself. i'm a terrible writer. i love the things i think, and the ideas in my head (most of which are shared by one person or another in this group), but no matter how i try, i'm incapable of expressing them. when i'm writing (it's happening now even), i tend to stop and reflect for a moment on what i want to say, and during those fifteen seconds, every word and idea and emotion that i want to convey spins through my head, and it all makes perfect sense. then i turn back to the keyboard, and suddenly everything i was thinking is gone. my vocabulary shrinks, my ideas turn to dust, my emotions dry up. what instead appears on the screen is something reminiscant of a highschool five paragraph essay. i'm embarassed by the way i (can't) express myself, and so i keep quiet.
i suppose this /is/ an effect of fear, but not so much a fear of being mocked as a fear of looking stupid in general. i'm not an idiot, but i think i look like one everytime i open my mouth. i worry about looking stupid so much that it stifles and distracts me. it's ironic that my fear is the cause of all the things of i'm afraid of in the first place.
abrupt ending. mike
http://members.tripod.com/projectinfinity
Leo Sgouros
"mike..." <mik...@coconet.com> wrote in message news:38B0353C...@coconet.com...
interesting what you are describing is stage fright
its tough when you are a musician and you write material, no matter how seasoned you are playing in front of people when you expose yourself to others it can be traumatic
it works the same for these newsgroups-
the best thing to do is just be yourself-such posts as above where you honestly examine your surroundings and how they make you feel is a good step-
037
Mags
that the "surrealists" you know are pretentious little bastards engulfed
in their art not aware of their surroundings, i.e. the omnipresent
internet. Instead of enjoying life by noticing ALL of its values, they
choose to ignore it. So, they're kind of sad people.
And we're not dull, Dale, unless you yourself are dull, for you enjoy (so
it seems) our little fights and arguments. Unless of course, you're in
horrible denial, in which case, I pity you and am jealous.
Mags
On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> "Mags" <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.21.00021...@is9.nyu.edu...
> > It's nice to know that the international surrealists that Dale
> > knows are people of narrow interests who enjoy nothing but their art and
> > exceed in their pretentiousness to the point where the joke of a newsgroup
> > attempting to speak on a subject by missing it is not funny to them or
> > ironic or at least causing a slight sardonic smile mixed with a bit of
> > flaming interest and hatred or love.
>
> That's quite a long sentence to have such little real content, Mags! So - it
> is pretentious to actually know something about a subject? Hmmm... once
> again the sweet birdcall of applied ignorance? Something - by the way - can
> be funny but still be lacking participation (which is what we were speaking
> about) by the ones who are laughing. Too difficult a concept for you to wrap
> your elephant around? By the way I NEVER said they weren't sardonically
> amused by what most of the no-nothings say here, I just said (and it's a
> fact!) that none of them were particularly interested in the content (what
> little there is) as it applies - or doesn't apply - to surrealism. For
> instance, it wouldn't be "pretentious" of a an electrical engineer to lack
> great interest in a group of people writing in a NG called
> "electric.alt.com" and claiming - over and over - that electricity was a
> Streetcar named Desire. They might be amused, even slightly distracted by
> such dubious goings on, but even that stupidity - repeated as often as Nik
> and others repeat their inanities to great applause - wears thin quickly for
> most.
>
>
> > So, Dale knows dull people.
>
> Just you guys!
>
> DMH
>
>
>
Elephants are not camels.
Mags
but you gotta see Goonies - it does, as a matter of fact, have a tricycle
in it too :)
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, john adams wrote:
> Mags wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, john adams wrote:
> > >
> > > On a lighter note, has anyone seen Goonies? Very 'surreal' movie!
> > >
> > > john
> > >
> >
> > 'surreal'? what does that mean with the quotes around it?
> >
> > Mags
> >
> > Elephants are not camels.
>
> With qoutes the meaning is completely up in the air.
> I never really saw all of the movie, so i could be very wrong...
>
> john
>
> elephants riding tricycles
>
Elephants are not camels.
Dale Houstman
> I'm sorry Dale that you missed the point of my sentence. Its point was
> that the "surrealists" you know are pretentious little bastards engulfed
> in their art not aware of their surroundings, i.e. the omnipresent
> internet.
Oh - I see- to you the entire internet is composed of THIS NG? Fascinating
little theory...
>Instead of enjoying life by noticing ALL of its values, they
> choose to ignore it. So, they're kind of sad people.
So to really engage with life one has to move in with the Nazi idiot in the
apartment next door? Another fascinating theory...
I understood your sentence quite well, and your explication of it only
renders its idiocy that much clearer. Thanks for the service...
>
> And we're not dull, Dale, unless you yourself are dull, for you enjoy (so
> it seems) our little fights and arguments.
No not really - although no doubt it may seem that way. I am here only
because - unlike so many of you - the word surrealism means something of
abiding importance to me, and I am - from time to time - caught up in the
(usually futile) attempt to engage others in that process. But since you
have all at one time or another accused me precisely of being dull, then
maybe you ARE all just dull.
>Unless of course, you're in horrible denial, in which case, I pity you and
am >jealous.
You can spare your pity for Nik, who is going to need it once he discovers
that true communion with others does NOT begin with demanding they reveal
their toilet habits to him over a latte. As for your jealousy, jealousy
demands imagination, and I am afraid - in that department - you are lacking.
DMH
maggies are not relevant
Dale Houstman
"elag" <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:38B024FD...@concentric.net...
I don't even think he's that "good." He used to be - if nothing else - a
filmmaker who knew the mechanics of a sotry and how to tell it; Duel, Jaws,
etc. run out their screen time efficiently and not without amusements.
Jurassic Park's story is hideously structured and full of totally unengaging
characters (one doesn't expect profundity here, but at least a certain
consistent superficiliality). I got in cheap and I still came out of the
theater feeling totally cheated of an experience. It's. He shovels endless
shit year after year and then tries to sucker punch us with his propped up
profundities. His biggest crime of late may have been turning what was a
respectably amusing comedic presence - Tom Hanks - into this leaden saint
among the SAG members. A truly horrible performer now, who thinks he is the
secondcoming of Jimmy Stewart, when Stewart was a much more nuanced
character; both livelier and (in several performances) more than willing to
work against the grain of his goodness to achieve new heights. There is now
an entire generation of "film stars" who play nothing but saints: Robin
Williams is the worst of that lot of course, and a dull presence at best. I
only wish someone would drag him behind a Pinto for a few hours, until he
looked like raw hamburger. Then he could play monsters. But - no - he'd opt
for portraying tear-jerking cripples and victims of atrocious crimes who
keep a smile on their wounds. Tom Hanks is gearing up to replace him. In
that awful war movie his big "actor decision" in an attempt to portray a
shell-shocked man was to have his hand shake!! Brilliant first-level
thinking. And Gump? Ook...
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> I'm sorry Dale that you missed the point of my sentence. Its point was
> that the "surrealists" you know are pretentious little bastards engulfed
How can you make such claims. You don't even know these people!
Aza Zaz
>
> I'd "forgotten" about my email reference to "guess who"; it was
> a play off an email from someone else here, & I was trying to
> rile you tit for tat; never thought you sent me secret messages
> in poems, but I'd love some from you & everybody; sounds surreal.
>
> Everyone is invited into my dreams from now on
>
> O {that's for Aza Zaz, who has some nice stuff on her/his site}
Well thank you. I do not claim to be a surrealist, but rather a memory
artist, which is something quite different. Most artists seem to be
'forget me artists', really. So much of art is a 'seen it and beyond
it' experience. A shallow response is natural.
The parameters of society are set to the identifying and reindentifying
the same thing, in its same static container, and calling that 'making
meaning'. Memory art, which is currently only nebulously defined, is an
evolving attempt to remedy that. One property of memory art is that it
is designed to be more easily memorisable than ordinary work. Memory
art could be anything you choose to remember. The 'loca network' is a
piece of memory art that provides a framework for certain type of pieces
to sit.
Incidental: loca a-january re b-brick can be referenced as loca ab.
>
> "Loss": that's for Morpheal; what more can one say?
>
> My *experience* of surreality is that it's an undiluted
> *energy*, and it's fun.
>
> Screw the confessional!
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
john adams
They are quite good in fact. But i prefer them bbq-ed on a stick with a
little Tallahasee Trail Sauce on the side. Metal is so disengaging at
times and rusty gums are not very good either. Now, Camel Cake is
another story. And Goonie burgers.
john
john adams
>
> "john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:38AF7133...@aol.com...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, john adams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On a lighter note, has anyone seen Goonies? Very 'surreal' movie!
> > > >
> > > > john
> > > >
> > >
> > > 'surreal'? what does that mean with the quotes around it?
> > >
> > > Mags
> > >
> > > Elephants are not camels.
> >
> > With qoutes the meaning is completely up in the air.
> > I never really saw all of the movie, so i could be very wrong...
> >
> done this a few times.
>
> 1. Trog: Joan Crawford's last "movie." Not exactly Mildred Pierce. One of
> those "look we found a caveman" movies.
Eek, the name trog and joan crawford wreaks of a terrible 70's movie.
But if it's backed with a soundtrack by the troggs, well that could be
of some salvation (esp. "wild thing" could work into it well).
> 2. "Edvard Munch" kinda truly awful. The seventh or millionth time they
> showed Munch's mother dying by spitting up tubercular blood, I thought I had
> seen enough. Not so much surreal as sure dull.
> 3. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Beautiful people with everything to
> live for flee the oncoming Russian tank army! Really wish they had been
> captured. At one point - as a Russian tank rolled down an alley toward me -
> the film broke, leaving us a perfectly white screen. I thought it was
> (mercifully) an arty ending to a long experience. Sorry! Still - the taste
> of freedom I received from that error was too much for me, and soon I fled.
>
That's hilarious. I see a humorous deity was watching over you that
day...
> But "Goonies" (like most Spielberg movies besides "Duel" "Jaws" and "Close
> Encounters" (and "Sugerland Express") is pretty dumb awful ain't it? It
> seemed pretty heavy-handed (hamhandiness appears to be one of Spielberg's
> main traits of late) for a kid's film.
>
> DMH
I still don't know what Goonies are, but they do give me the willakers
when i sometimes think about them.
john
Aza Zaz
>
> >cythera:
>
> >> Everyone is invited into my dreams
> >>
> site}
>
> >Well thank you.
>
> And thank you. I found this post {& your others} well-written
> and informative. I'm a beginning *creative* writer; & want to
> improve my ability to remember my dreams, and access other
> unrepressed "subconscious" material; got any info on that?
Yes, I certainly believe I do. Visit my website again and go to the
groups section, on the red page. Click on one of the image streaming
links. Image streaming, represented well on the web, is a very
interesting tool, quite in the same league of value as 'automatic
writing'. It is useful for discovering and developing subtle resources
in the brain. After you have looked at a discussion group, I suggest
that you go looking for a major website about it.
>
> >The parameters of society are set to the identifying and
> reindentifying
> >the same thing, in its same static container, and calling that
> 'making meaning.
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >http://pages.hotbot.com/arts/abyz/go.html
Nikolaus Maack
> In other words, you always seem fake to me.
What's funny here is that I think the same thing about your poetry.
To me, it seems like a lot of overly thought out words, strung together.
More an exercise in dictionary play, than poetry. Phrases like (not
yours, I'll make something up) "Scintilating contagion collapses the
porkine entities" do nothing for me. They seem like vague, forced,
intellectual mutterings.
Nice irony, that we lay the same critcism on each other -- one in an
emotional realm, the other intellectual.
> all I see in others - even when they are
> intellectualizing - is this very personal and emotive life.
And then you shit on them and tell them how inane and useless they are.
[A whole lot of intellectual analysis snipped]
I started to respond to this, but then I remembered where it leads, when I
start doing this. Part of the problem is that I offer lots of material
for you to "work with" where you offer none, so this is always a one-sided
conversation.
More delicious irony -- "It's always about you, Nik, isn't it?" Maybe
because you never offer up any of yourself to be discussed, Dale. Even
when you offer a personal experience, it's delivered in an impersonal,
distant, intellectual way.
> And doing it very badly as usual. Because you are leaving such little room
> for the opinions of others in your UberFeeling Pogrom. We either agree that
> everything you are saying is TRUE, or we must be fools. You absolutely
> refuse to be challenged in your lack of ideas.
Dale, you are so very, very "male" in your way of thinking, that it pains
me. Why must there be a "challenge"? Why must there always be battle?
Do you have a girlfriend? A wife? Do you understand what it means to
talk in the "female" style?
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> How can you make such claims. You don't even know these people!
And at this rate, we'll never even hear about them. Is there some reason
we can't be told what goes on at these meetings, what surrealists do, what
they plan, what they discuss? Have you, Dale, and Barrett taken vows of
secrecy?
Michael Voytinsky
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> I have a friend who has very strong ideas about welfare. He'll talk
> about his ideas until your ears hurt. Where do these ideas come
> from? If you can corner him, talk to him quietly, get him to open
> up, he'll tell you how he once lived in a welfare housing project,
> and will describe to you all the things that he's seen.
You are right, of course, but your thought may suffer from the same
difficulties a lot of other thought suffers. Nothing seems to follow
from it, much like nothing seems to follow from the "my tax dollars pay
for your bad art" debate.
For example, I hate communists. Yet you could probably, using your
own method, dig out the reasons I hate them, find that they actually
are understandable and given my experiences make sense.
Likewise, you could probably find a ravening communist, and use the
same process and find that his views are valid given his experiences
and background.
Where does this leave us? The communist will still want to
"liquidate" the class enemies, and I will still want to exploit the
proletariat.
> I have yet to see any intellectual debate resolve anything.
Yet views of "intellectuals" do change - I know mine did. They did not
change directly because of any particular debate, but the debates were
part of the input that prompted the change.
Cheers
Michael
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dale Houstman
> To me, it seems like a lot of overly thought out words, strung together.
Well you're entitled of course, but you're no better a reader than you are a
writer. If you knew how I wrote you would realize how absolutely silly your
notion of "overly thought out" really is.
> More an exercise in dictionary play, than poetry. Phrases like (not
> yours, I'll make something up) "Scintilating contagion collapses the
> porkine entities" do nothing for me.
Strangely enough, these lines have nothing in common with mine. More proof
of your inability even to mimic.
>
> Nice irony, that we lay the same critcism on each other -- one in an
> emotional realm, the other intellectual.
The only difference appears to be that - like most people - I DO have access
to the emotional realm, and you seem unable to access intelligence.
>
>
> And then you shit on them and tell them how inane and useless they are.
Only you, my little airy cupcake...
>
> I started to respond to this, but then I remembered where it leads, when I
> start doing this. Part of the problem is that I offer lots of material
> for you to "work with" where you offer none, so this is always a one-sided
> conversation.
Yes and I am the one obviously doing all the talking; over and over you
rationalize your non-responses, and just simply cannot admit that you are
unable to think, so you disclaim against thought.
>
> More delicious irony
So junior high this repetitious reliance upon supposed irony.
-- "It's always about you, Nik, isn't it?" Maybe
> because you never offer up any of yourself to be discussed, Dale. Even
> when you offer a personal experience, it's delivered in an impersonal,
> distant, intellectual way.
It only seems this way to your limited intelligence, Nik.
>
>
> Dale, you are so very, very "male" in your way of thinking, that it pains
> me. Why must there be a "challenge"? Why must there always be battle?
Tell me Brunhilda...
> Do you have a girlfriend? A wife? Do you understand what it means to
> talk in the "female" style?
This wonderfully insulting separation between female and male discourse
would embarrass any other human, but I doubt if you are capable of feeling
its ridiculousness.
So - all your endless blather about men's noodles and your subliterate porn
is "female" talk.
Hmmm...
Yes: I was married for 11 years and now have lived with a woman for another
15 years. Happily mind you... Does this disrupt another round of your
cheaply considered psychology? Sorry...
DMH
Dale Houstman
> [Mags mocked the surrealists Dale meets.]
>
> "Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> > How can you make such claims. You don't even know these people!
>
> And at this rate, we'll never even hear about them. Is there some reason
> we can't be told what goes on at these meetings, what surrealists do, what
> they plan, what they discuss? Have you, Dale, and Barrett taken vows of
> secrecy?
>
have proven your inability to understand even the most basic aspects of
surrealism.
Mainly what we discuss is how to free the world from fake imaginations like
yours.
Now you know...
DMH
Mags
Wow, you're even more full of yourself than I thought, Dale.
Enjoy life,
Mags
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> "Mags" <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.21.000220...@is9.nyu.edu...
>
> > I'm sorry Dale that you missed the point of my sentence. Its point was
> > that the "surrealists" you know are pretentious little bastards engulfed
Elephants are not camels.
Brandon J. Freels
> > Nice irony, that we lay the same critcism on each other -- one in an
> > emotional realm, the other intellectual.
You're creating fictitious opposites here, Nik. One thing that disturbes me
about you is that you are trying to force some kind of polarity between
"intellectual" and "emotional" realms. One does not exclude the other, like
you suppose. They are merely different, and highly compatible with one
another. It always seemed to me that this was how Nadja and Mad Love where
written, through a synthesis of the intellectual mind with the emotional.
Why are you trying to force an unnatural polarity?
Oh, that's right. You want "power"...
That's typical. Any one who ever tried to create a polarity was simple in
search of "power".
elag
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > 3. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." Beautiful people with everything to
> > live for flee the oncoming Russian tank army! Really wish they had been
> > captured. At one point - as a Russian tank rolled down an alley toward me -
> > the film broke, leaving us a perfectly white screen. I thought it was
> > (mercifully) an arty ending to a long experience. Sorry! Still - the taste
> > of freedom I received from that error was too much for me, and soon I fled.
> >
>
> That's hilarious. I see a humorous deity was watching over you that
> day...
Perhaps it was Santé Vaché.
Nikolaus Maack
> You are right, of course, but your thought may suffer from the same
> difficulties a lot of other thought suffers. Nothing seems to follow
> from it, much like nothing seems to follow from the "my tax dollars pay
> for your bad art" debate.
>
> For example, I hate communists. Yet you could probably, using your
> own method, dig out the reasons I hate them, find that they actually
> are understandable and given my experiences make sense.
And nothing follows from this because...?
It all depends on what your goal is. For example, if you want to figure
out what is the "right" position for you, personally, to take in an
argument, then understanding someone's background, as well as his ideas,
can help you decide what position you want to take. It provides you with
better understanding of the issue, and the argument the person is making.
For example, Reverend Tutu can tell me all about apartheid on strictly an
ideas level, and I might not care. Apartheid is wrong because, logically,
people should be free. So what? If he can tell me about his experiences
under apartheid -- his story and the story of others -- then I am much
more likely to form a "position" of some kind.
If someone sitting across from me is a ranting loon when it comes to
communism, I might not give anything he says much credibility. If,
however, he lets me in on the background information, his arguments might
make more sense. Say the person grew up in a communist regime and saw the
oppression first hand. Lends him some credibility.
On the other hand, the background material might be that he grew up in
Texas, and president Reagan says communism is bad, and that's good enough
for him.
In either case, the extra information helps me to weigh the value of the
intellectual concept. Judging ideas strictly from a logical stand-point
-- how well the person argues an idea -- isn't always the best way to
determine if their argument is any good. A person can be a good debater,
but be absolutely full of shit.
That's just in debating, mind you. I find personal experiences
and personal stories to have merit entirely on their own. Knowing the
experiences of others -- say someone tells you a story about their haunted
childhood dog -- provides you with more insight into how humans work.
Knowing what the private lives of other people is like can help with your
understanding of your own private life.
Example -- a guy (obviously young) called a talk show about sexual issues,
looking for help. His girlfriend stuck her finger up his ass, and he
really liked it. What he wanted to know was, does this mean he's gay?
Because this kind of thing is, in most circles, considering something that
can't be talked about, he has irrational fears. He doesn't know what the
experiences of other people are like. The talk show host assured him that
this doesn't mean he's gay. It means he's a transvestite.
What we see, ordinarily, on usenet and in real life, is people talking
from strictly an intellectual level. "I believe X, and here are the
logical reasons for it." For me, it's very difficult to determine whether
or not this person can be believed until I get more information about who
they are and what experiences led them to their beliefs. Speaking
strictly on an ideas level skims the surface.
For me, a good story on a subject matter is worth MUCH more than a person
explaining what their belief is, and why, logically, it makes sense to
believe as they do. For example, "Abortion is bad because it kills a
living thing!" is stupid. "Abortion is bad because I had one and it was
hell and it was unpleasant, but I really couldn't deal with a child right
now, so it was my only choice," is much more useful.
Nikolaus Maack
> The only difference appears to be that - like most people - I DO have
>access to the emotional realm, and you seem unable to access intelligence.
You may have access to the emotional realm, but you seem unable to express
it. You're -- what -- in your fifties? And you still feel uncomfortable
talking about your childhood and your relationship with your father? You
*still* can't talk about how you went to two psychologists as a kid?
Seems weird to me. A part of you must want to talk about it -- why else
would such a personal detail slip out in the open like that?
You say that silence is the expression of an emotion. I agree. Usually
it's an expression of fear and denial.
I find all your writing -- poetry and otherwise -- highly impersonal. It
makes me wonder what you're trying to hide. But I've said this all
before. And none of this answers a MUCH more important question:
Who would win a fight between Wolverine and Superman?
I'd put my money on Wolverine, just to irk you. After all, Batman nearly
kicked Superman's ass once. Who could have predicted that?
(I Deja'd you, wondering where else you hang. But there's no solving the
mystery named Dale. Lots of poetry comments posted, and no poetry in any
of the poetry newsgroups. Why does that seem TOO perfect?)
> Yes: I was married for 11 years and now have lived with a woman for another
> 15 years. Happily mind you...
Would it be too much of me to ask what her name is? Or does this cross
some kind of line? How about these questions: where did you meet her?
Love at first sight? Does she bear any resemblence to your mother?
I'd ask how big her breasts are -- strictly as a joke -- but I know that
crosses a line.
Nikolaus Maack
>>And at this rate, we'll never even hear about them.
>
I *genuinely* want to know. That's why I've asked about it repeatedly.
> Is there some reason
>>we can't be told what goes on at these meetings, what
> surrealists do, what
>>they plan, what they discuss?
> Have you, Dale, and Barrett taken vows of
>>secrecy?
>
> You actually think this is funny, don't you Nik.
No. I'm joking, but I'm not laughing. In fact, I find it very
depressing. Extremely so.
john adams
>
> In article <88p4l7$fj2$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
> > I have a friend who has very strong ideas about welfare. He'll talk
> > about his ideas until your ears hurt. Where do these ideas come
> > from? If you can corner him, talk to him quietly, get him to open
> > up, he'll tell you how he once lived in a welfare housing project,
> > and will describe to you all the things that he's seen.
>
> difficulties a lot of other thought suffers. Nothing seems to follow
> from it, much like nothing seems to follow from the "my tax dollars pay
> for your bad art" debate.
>
> For example, I hate communists. Yet you could probably, using your
> own method, dig out the reasons I hate them, find that they actually
> are understandable and given my experiences make sense.
>
> same process and find that his views are valid given his experiences
> and background.
>
> Where does this leave us? The communist will still want to
> "liquidate" the class enemies, and I will still want to exploit the
> proletariat.
>
What about those that want to liquify the exploiters ?
john
Michael Voytinsky
> > For example, I hate communists. Yet you could probably, using your
> > own method, dig out the reasons I hate them, find that they actually
> > are understandable and given my experiences make sense.
>
> And nothing follows from this because...?
Because the wording on my part was bad. I meant "It is not obvious to me
what follows from this".
> It all depends on what your goal is. For example, if you want to figure
> out what is the "right" position for you, personally, to take in an
> argument, then understanding someone's background, as well as his ideas,
> can help you decide what position you want to take. It provides you with
> better understanding of the issue, and the argument the person is making.
OK, fair enough.
If I am arguing with a communist, my approach should be very different when
dealing with a middle class university student who read some Marx, and with
Guatemalan expatriate who saw the ruling elites of that country do some
pretty nasty shit, often with American help.
Obviously understanding of the other party's motives for belief is useful
for meaningful communication. But at the end, facts are independent of
those motives. Either Lenin did or did not personally order the execution
of Nicolas II's underage heirs. Either that execution was or was not
morally wrong. Understanding the other party's motives will make it easier
to talk about those things - it will not change those things themselves.
> If someone sitting across from me is a ranting loon when it comes to
> communism, I might not give anything he says much credibility. If,
> however, he lets me in on the background information, his arguments might
> make more sense. Say the person grew up in a communist regime and saw the
> oppression first hand. Lends him some credibility.
>
> On the other hand, the background material might be that he grew up in
> Texas, and president Reagan says communism is bad, and that's good enough
> for him.
What if he grew up in Texas, but has extensive knowledge of history and
political science - more so than the vast majority of ex-Soviets? It seems
silly to say that he would have less credibility than any random ex-Soviet.
If all you are saying is that understanding why someone regard some belief
as important is an important part of understanding that belief, I will not
argue with you - you are right. But I am not sure if that is all that you
are saying.
> Judging ideas strictly from a logical stand-point
> -- how well the person argues an idea -- isn't always the best way to
> determine if their argument is any good. A person can be a good debater,
> but be absolutely full of shit.
Although a good debater who is full of shit does not typically win on logic,
except for the spurious variety (which is not really logic).
> That's just in debating, mind you. I find personal experiences
> and personal stories to have merit entirely on their own. Knowing the
> experiences of others -- say someone tells you a story about their haunted
> childhood dog -- provides you with more insight into how humans work.
> Knowing what the private lives of other people is like can help with your
> understanding of your own private life.
So, if a communist hater starts reciting all the boring historical facts
about how many people the communists killed, that is uninteresting. But if
he pulls out a photo of the late Nicholas II's late daughters, and says
"They killed these cute teenage chicks, the fucking commie bastards!" that
you can understand and find interesting?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
"When entering a health club, make sure there are people leaving.
Otherwise it could be an alien meat processing plant in disguise."
Aza Zaz
>
> Hi Aza Zaz, I pasted one of yr poems onto my earlier response to
> this post, but I did not include the copyright symbol that
> you've placed on yr work. (c)
> My apologies.
>
> Thank you.
It was an okay surprise to see one of my poems here. I think 'Alone at
Bark' probably has one of the best titles. 'Sunflowers Kissing' and
'Light Pieces' also sound good. I used to love 'Texture' as a title,
but then it started to seem like quite a yeasty sort of word for some
reason. Now that I look at it, though, I think I could just about fall
in love with it again actually. Don't worry about the copyright, I just
included it because I like the shape of it, looks nice.
Nikolaus Maack
> Study this group; consider taking a break from it; train
> yourself to ignore your ego.
I've noticed that anyone who talks about their personal experiences -- who
tells their stories -- is considered to have an ego. (That I desperately
want other people to tell their stories is seen as some kind of "cover"
for my ego, or as some manipulation tactic, or as me trying to make people
play MY game instead of their own, or...)
Is it arrogance to assume my life is interesting? Is it arrogance to
assume the lives of other people are at least as interesting as mine?
"Tell me your stories. Here are some of mine."
"You arrogant son of a bitch!"
*sigh*
Dale Houstman
> Is it arrogance to assume my life is interesting?
No, but it is arrogance to INSIST that others share your enthusiasm for it.
>Is it arrogance to assume the lives of other people are at least as
interesting as >mine?
No, but it is arrogance to INSIST that others share their life-details with
you at the risk of being labeled as "emotionless" if they don't.
> "Tell me your stories. Here are some of mine."
This is NOT your style of presentation. You are deluding yourself and lying
to others in the process. If someone doesn't wish - or sees no present
relevance - to sharing life-details, you berate them. So you are not simply
asking people for this information (which you show little insight into at
any rate) but arrogantly insisting upon its disclosure.
This is an entirely different matter.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> This is NOT your style of presentation. You are deluding yourself and lying
> to others in the process. If someone doesn't wish - or sees no present
> relevance - to sharing life-details, you berate them.
The only person I have berated is you, and that's because you're silly.
Pay attention, damn it. There will be a test later. In fact, I think
that time has arrived! Get out your pencils.
1. Who did Nik berate, personally, into giving personal details about
their life?
a) Everyone in alt.surrealism
b) No one at all
c) Andrea Chen
d) Dale Houstman
e) Invisible pixies
2. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
a) None
b) All of them
c) There are no such things as angels. It's idiocy.
d) This question is meaningless.
e) "Three if they're skinny, two if they're fat." -- Charles Schultz
Answers: 1-D, 2-E.
If you scored 0 -- throw yourself off a cliff, screaming, "Long live Andre
Breton." Give yourself 2 bonus points if you asked yourself the question
"Who will be doing the screaming, me or the cliff?"
If you scored 1 -- eat more pie. I recommend strawberry-rhubarb.
If you scored 2 -- congratulations! You are a "real surrealist" (whatever
that means) and you deserve to be showered with praise. And if there is
no praise on hand, we'll shower you with water. It's cheaper that way.
Dale says:
> This is an entirely different matter.
Isn't it always?
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> > This is NOT your style of presentation. You are deluding yourself and
lying
> > to others in the process. If someone doesn't wish - or sees no present
> > relevance - to sharing life-details, you berate them.
>
> The only person I have berated is you, and that's because you're silly.
This isn't true Nik. Pay attention to yourself, you silly little man.
> Pay attention, damn it. There will be a test later. In fact, I think
> that time has arrived! Get out your pencils.
Again, playing the teacher and the power role. Why doesn't this surprise
anyone anymore, Nik?
>
>
You have berated others for not sharing in your dementia for personal
details, but even it this weren't true, it still wouldn't make much
difference. The point here is that in the latest "god" talk, I DID present a
personal detail and you came back with intellectual (although superficial
and incorrect) details about "god being like your old man." You can't even
stick to your own program! If you had really been interested in others (and
I doubt this is true: you just want everyone to play YOUR game YOUR way) you
would simply have asked me for more information about my father. Whether I
would have provided it or not is another question: strangely enough we don't
owe you anything.
The thing about biographical trivia is how little it reveals about a
person's present life. The facts are in: one person grows up in an abusive
family and turns out to slaughter children with a ballpeen hammer. Another
grows up in the same sort of family and grows up to head a social support
group in Paduca. The missing element is all that stuff you won't allow
anyone to talk about because - to you - it's intellectual bullshit. My
"significant other" is a public health nurse and deals with mainly abused
women and children day in and day out. Some are whores and crack addicts,
others good mothers with bad pay, etc. Your biographical voyeurism is inane
by any standard except your own.
Supposedly there is little in what is know of Hitler's life to explain his
mania.
The true resources of a person's existence lie in what he or she DOES with
the hand they're dealt and - whether or not you want to admit it - these
resources are often intellectual in nature: people's constructs about raw
data.
The uncooked facts of a person's family life will literally tell you almost
nothing about that person as they are now. You will undoubtedly continue to
insist on this - it seems to be your one "idea" - but nevertheless the facts
will continue to render your stance on this invalid.
And - for the record - here are some biographical trivia for you:
born in England 1950 to a single mother. Never knew my Dad.
at five my mother met a US Army man, married and we moved to the Mojave
Desert. I developed a series of aggravating psychological problems for which
I was sent to a hospital in San Francisco and (later) in Germany and (even
later) in Maryland. The symptoms disappeared within months of my leaving my
family.The psychologists (who believe in the same trivia you do) were
complete failures at treating me. Psychology (especially the uninformed sort
you practice as if it were a dictator's boardgame) is a miserable excuse for
intelligence.
I was in German for 5 years, and rather liked it!
My family moved toMaryland where Dad retired finally, and I made my way into
the "60s scene' with apt enthusiasm, for both the drugs and the utopian
appeal. My main drugs were marijuana and LSD, with occasional forays into
opium and other soporifics. I rather tend to prefer hypnotic states over
wired open states. Still...
I was a quiet kid who liked to draw and write, but who had no real artistic
"pretensions" until I got to college, and came across others who informed me
that there was such a pursuit as art. Throughout most of primary education I
was a proud underachiever, and only woke up to the real interest in knowledg
e (as opposed to the lackadaiscal collection of facts) during my 11th and 12
years. In high school I was mainly interested in mathematics and science,
and the school went to the troulble of producing (for myself and a couple of
other math-heads) a calculus course. In college - because I was mainly going
to avoid the draft - I took engineering, but when I failed evertthing (due
to disinterest) but English I switched to English and Writing. No looking
back!
I moved to Minneapolis in 1972 to live with a friend and five other people
in a very 60s communal house that was cold in the winter and hot in the
summer. I developed a hard "crush" on a girl also liked immensely by my
best friend at the time. The girl and I hitchhiked around the Southwestern
U.S. and made love (badly enough on my part) in such place as in a rainstorm
under a picnic table!I have fond memories of her. She had a crooked smile
and played a good piano. I still think of her from time to time.
That house broke up: I lived on a farm in Iowa for a time and then moved
back to Mpls where I eventually met my wife-to-be. A marvelous woman - and a
nurse. We helped to bring up her drugged-up sister's kid, so I learned a bit
about that sort of responsibility. I never had children of my own and I am
happy about it! I went to the U of M in Mpls and took Studio Arts. Very
useful. I also took some poetry classes. Less useful. After 11 years I made
the mistake of feeling just sorry enough for myself to be with another woman
for a short time, and (oddly!) my wife didn't like it. We divorced and I
eventually - feeling rather lonely - went to live with my parents for 6
months. I came back to Mpls and eventually met the woman I have now been
living with for 14 years. She is also a nurse! Deep, that...
I took some graduate courses but bailed after yelling at one of my poetry
teachers, who was an idiot. since hitting 40 (and now beyond) I have relaxed
my usual frenetic inconsolable "spirit" and made quite a happy existence for
myself. I have been published - but don't much care - and, since meeting
Barrett in this ng - have been producing a surrealist magazine and generally
being kept busy.
There: now will you shut up you loathsome swine?
DMH
DMH
Andrea Chen
> > The only person I have berated is you, and that's because you're silly.
>
> This isn't true Nik. Pay attention to yourself, you silly little man.
>
Nik may be silly, but he controls you. I told you this years ago. You
spout how all he says is nonsense. You vow never to read him. Then (on
average) you devote an hour a day to responding him, to "correcting"
him. He's toying with you Dale, he's become your purpose in life.
Telling him off is the thing that gives you satisfaction, that spittley
spite which you call joy. Nik is your master. Admit it and try to turn
it into a more positive relationship. Liberate your imagination and see
your darkest foulest dreams (in the tradition of Burroughs,) imagine
yourself at the airport selling onions for your teacher, the one and
only Nik, the epitome of siliness which (as we all know) those who have
become as children truly love! Follow Nik and he will teach you the
way! This is your destiny Dale, don't refuse it! You're getting old
and senile and crotchety, you must act now before it's too late! Open
your heart and find the inner Nik, the part of you you've been rejecting
all your life! At the very least imagine it. Or do you dare? Is your
fearless exploration of the unconscious all a sham?
-your only friend-
Except for Nik of course, but's he's your destiny, the being you must
strive to become.
Nikolaus Maack
> The true resources of a person's existence lie in what he or she DOES with
> the hand they're dealt and - whether or not you want to admit it - these
> resources are often intellectual in nature: people's constructs about raw
> data.
I never denied this. Of course what you do with your life determines what
your life becomes. What I have been arguing is that people do not like
talking about the hand that they have been dealt, nor what they chose to
do with that hand. You have, until today, been a very good example of
that. People like to talk about what they think, what they believe
(intellectually), what particular intellectual state their mind has RIGHT
NOW.
Personal details are either considered too "personal" or inappropriate.
They reflect a "personal bias". One should be objective, detached,
impersonal in speech. We have been taught to think this way. I don't
know about you, but in my high school and university classes we were
taught to write essays without using the word "I". Personal opinion and
personal experience was considered ridiculous. Argument, research, and
fact were considered king.
We've been trained never to say, "I hate abortion because my mom nearly
had one."
We say, "I hate abortion, because it kills a living thing."
That the thing was almost US is obviously a significant factor. But
discussing it is considered letting your bias show. So for the love of
petunias, don't show it.
I say that the "personal" is not a bias, but a useful source of
information. No, don't create government policy based onthree or four
people having some good yarns to spin you about welfare programs. But
don't just base the policy on "facts" and "statistics" either.
Can it be a coincidence that in the faceless corporate world you hate so
much, Dale, that the "personal" is considered trite, offensive, and "bad
for business"? It's much easier to sell a product to a sea of identical
people too scared to say what they feel, what they care for, what they
have had happen to themselves. If we don't talk about the horrors of our
9 to 5 jobs, we don't realize that EVERYONE feels that way. No one can
organize or fight, if people keep their passions locked up inside.
> The uncooked facts of a person's family life will literally tell you
> almost nothing about that person as they are now.
That's not what I was asking for. I don't want MORE facts. I want
people's stories. Their fables. Their myths.
> And - for the record - here are some biographical trivia for you:
Joy! Thank you.
> I was a quiet kid who liked to draw and write, but who had no real artistic
> "pretensions" until I got to college, and came across others who informed me
> that there was such a pursuit as art.
Keen. I know you've done writing, but I've never seen any of your art,
that I can recall. Do you still do art, or do you focus mainly on writing
now? Is there any of it in (forgive me if I get the name wrong) Blue
Feather? Any chance you'll put up a web page with your art on it?
> There: now will you shut up you loathsome swine?
Almost certainly not, but thanks the same. Sort of an impersonal
biography -- you kind of skim over the good bits -- but it'll do. By good
bits, I mean the moments of drama. Not to belittle your experiences, but
I bet a description of your early days in a mental hospital would make a
great story.
All the same, thanks Dale. You're a peach, when you're not foaming at the
mouth in rage.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
Fascinan
Wow! It all came out right there. Biographies are always very interesting,
adding the human element to an otherwise opaque writing style. I would supply
my own, but it would be very dull, and only a paragraph or so in length -- a
friend once joked to me that my best asset was my height (he may well be
right!).
What kind of education did you have Dale? Ie/ where did you gain your
reading/writing skills? I take it you have developed your skills over reading
voraciously and writing on your own time?
I did laugh when you said you yelled at your poetry teacher. Did you, by any
chance, refer to him/her as "my little canker?"
Nikolaus Maack
> Nik may be silly, but he controls you.
Two countries at war control each other. Two men at war control each
other as well. If I am Dale's master, then he is, equally, my master.
Which is why I try to enjoy my slavery -- I try to make it playful and
fun. I can only hope Dale is enjoying his slavery, but I suspect he is
not having fun. Unless anger is fun for him. I know of other people like
this, so it seems possible that Dale is having fun with me too.
I found myself genuinely liking Dale today. I think I caught a glimpse of
the humanbeing beneath all that rage. I smiled and laughed without
disrespect while reading one of Dale's posts today. That has to be
progress, doesn't it?
Dale Houstman
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000223131349...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> On Dale's bio:
>
> Wow! It all came out right there. Biographies are always very
interesting,
> adding the human element to an otherwise opaque writing style. I would
supply
> my own, but it would be very dull, and only a paragraph or so in length --
a
> friend once joked to me that my best asset was my height (he may well be
> right!).
>
> What kind of education did you have Dale? Ie/ where did you gain your
> reading/writing skills?
In high school where evetyone else does?
> I take it you have developed your skills over reading voraciously and
writing >on your own time?
No - I was locked in a grey box the first twenty years of my life:
everything I have told you before is a lie!
>
> I did laugh when you said you yelled at your poetry teacher. Did you, by
any
> chance, refer to him/her as "my little canker?"
No: but I supposedly made them cry. Probably the highlight of my
post-graduate "career."
DMH
Dale Houstman
What a bothersome old snore you are Andrea. You only show up when you get
that adrenalin rush of disagreement in your pantaloons, and have to spray it
out or bust a bladder. Talk about nihilism!
Everything you say is total bullshit.
EVERYTHING...
DMH
Andrea Chen
>
> Two countries at war control each other. Two men at war control each
> other as well. If I am Dale's master, then he is, equally, my master.
True. But you are partially fre because you admit it. You also
attempt to relate to Dale with a spectrum of atttudes. Dale denies the
compulsion. And the only motive he admits is the moral one pf trying to
correct you, of refusing to allow falsehood to be spoken, despite the
fact that this is the task of Sisypuss and impossible. It is however a
good excuse not to do actual surrealism.
> Which is why I try to enjoy my slavery -- I try to make it playful and
> fun.
At times you succeed.
> I can only hope Dale is enjoying his slavery, but I suspect he is
> not having fun. Unless anger is fun for him. I know of other people like
> this, so it seems possible that Dale is having fun with me too.
>
He definitely allows himself a limited variety of emotions. A very
censured reality. As I pointed out yesderday your appeals to get him to
expose his inner feelings was one of the approaches of early
surrealism. He will undoubtedly deny it, but this was a part of the
process of exposing the unconscious. It's documented, it's got the
Breton seal of approval, but it remains too threatening. He must edit
away the reality. This is an aspect of something that fascinates me,
the ability to lie and not know it. Dale will not say "I reject
Breton," instead he will say, "this is inconsistent with surrealism,"
even though surrealism did it. The fascination with Taoisim is another
example. It often amused me that Brandon would regularly post web sites
which disagreed completely with what he had said and yet failed to see
it.
Dale and his friends have a limited emotional life. One reason is that
they don't allow themselves to see this. Thus they sincerely believe
that they can "completely liberate the imagination," experience awe
etc. They don't have the realization of limits forced by the reality of
being finit beings in a pragmatically infinite universe. They create an
imaginery world and they click their heels and pretend they are whatever
word they want to be. Spite is pleasurable, it's addicting. Dale will
call it joy and play and all kinds of wonderful things and believe it.
One only hopes for cracks in his faith, but it is a religious thing so
unlikely.
If he could admit his compulsion to connect to you and dar se it's
perhaps because you have another part of the puzzle...
Unfortunatly he can't because you represent what he dare not see, the
part of himself he denies and fears. The part he has tried to kill.
And if this doesn't work him into a frenzy we'll have to think of
something which will.
Dale is like a windup toy, it's fun to watch him spin. Though as you
say he does have a number of redeeming virtues.
Dale Houstman
"Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38B438...@earthlink.net...
> >
Andrea Andrea Andrea... you've been flogging this one idea for so long now
that it's a wonder you haven't killed it.
So
I don't respond to Nik for months on end, and then choose to engage him on
some point or another. Nik keeps responding to my posts despite all my
efforts to ignore him for months. And from this you conclude that I am in
"thrall" to Nik? Brilliant thinking... for a rubber doorstop.
Actually - whether or not Nik and I agree on anything - neither of us has
power over the other: there is no mastery here except in your one-track
mind.
Meanwhile I have ignored you for even longer than I ignored Nik, but you
felt the "urge" to post responses (predictably ignorant and filled with your
usual "contentless" spews about power) to my posts. Who's powerless, Andrea,
to stop their bland carping?
What Nik and I do - and I know this is hard for someone like you to
undertand - is human discourse. It may not always be pleasant, and I know it
irks you to not be the center of attention, but it IS a dialogue of sorts.
Who's the slave here, Andrea?
I say it's you.
And move on... away from the ugly mind in the worm suit.
DMH
Fascinan
Oh shit, I can't stop laughing. Things are getting good. I can see it all
playing out as the first Surrealist soap opera: The Days of our Donk.
Starring:
Dale as Norman "On Golden Pond" Falkins (an angry surrealist)
Andrea Chen as Inga Eagle (Pete's very intellectual and sardonic ex-wife)
Nik as Alex Di Grassio (Pete's intellectual nemesis, advocator of emotion)
Barrett as Nihls Thiessen (compadre of Pete, advocator of rational/intellectual
pursuit)
Brandon as Nathan Dernier (writer, vehemently denounces Alex's opinions)
John as Jerry Baron (probably the most stable of the characters, inquisitive by
nature)
Mags as Nenah Vick (free spirit, lover of arts, poetry, and strangely, camels)
Cythera as Laura O' Teal (the most curious of the lot, and the most upbeat)
Elag as Brock Townes (visionary eclectic, visual artist)
Morpheal as Stanislav Klack (super prolific, haunted by the memories of love)
Fas as Teek Lanios (quiet dishwasher who laughs too easily)
.....and many others.
Dale Houstman
> DMH:
>
> >What a bothersome old snore you are Andrea. You only show up when you get
> >that adrenalin rush of disagreement in your pantaloons, and have to spray
it
> >out or bust a bladder. Talk about nihilism!
> >
> >Everything you say is total bullshit.
> >
> >EVERYTHING...
>
> Oh shit, I can't stop laughing. Things are getting good. I can see it
all
> playing out as the first Surrealist soap opera: The Days of our Donk.
>
someone else (Christopher Reeves? Mickey Rooney? Soupy Sales?) to play my
part: I just will not talk to that indigestion problem Andrea anymore. She
is such a slave to her own need to talk about power power power, that it is
either boring or aggravating, or aggravatingly boring, or boringly
aggravating. She's rubbing on Nik's esteem-sausage again (she doesn't
believe a word of it of course; by her own admission it's all about
control), and I'm not even sure Nik is in the mood to get it up for Mommy
anymore. But even if he is up for one more go round with the nutopian nag,
that's his control issue, not mine.
How about getting Gary Coleman for my part? He's the Brando of growth
problem men.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
*Us* being those who truely have a grasp on what Surrealism is, and what it
isn't.
Andrea Chen
> Oh shit, I can't stop laughing. Things are getting good. I can see it all
> playing out as the first Surrealist soap opera: The Days of our Donk.
>
Hey bub this is surrealism! It ain't no laughing matter. We don't
want know stinkining soap operas, we need something dignified, something
librarians will like, someting that deals with life and death matters.
So...
Dale dies and goes to meet his maker.
Dale: Breton is that you.
Breton: Yes my boy. What did you do in your life?
Dale: I told Nik 9 million 345 thousand and 712 times that he didn't
understand surrealism.
Breton: And did you understand surrealism my child.
Dale: Yes. Barret and Brandon told me I did. And we wrote a magazine!
Breton: Oh you poor child. Barrett and Brandon didn't exist. They were
simulars created by the evil one to lead you into blind pompousness.
Dale: What!? But they always said they hated Andrea Chen. They said
really nasty stuff about her. How was I do know?
Breton: You should have looked into your unconscious and found your
secret surreal guide and seen the true face of surrealism.
Dale: Oh my god you're Nik!
Breton: Yes my child. I your god was secretly Nik and you couldn't
strip away the superficial cover that hides the obvious.
Dale: Oh Nik! Will you ever forgive me? Deep inside I always loved
you.
Breton: Pf course I'll forgive you my groveling worshipper. I never
disliked you. You helped pass the time. But of course it's demanded
that you meet some afterlife appropiate to your stupidity. I've decided
to make you a cactus.
Dale: A cactus! Why?
Breton: So you will wait for years dreaming to poke someone in the butt
you wouldn't be able to do it on your own, so you'll sit and wait and
wait and wait, not being able to cause misery...
Dale: Oh god! You're sending me to hell.
50 years later:
Dale: It's happening. Someone is backing into me! I've finally got a
real idiot I can poke in the butt! Come on babe, come on keep on backing
up!
A TERRIFYING SCREAM!
Dale: Ouch that was me! I was the cactus who poked the man in the butt
but I was the man poked by a cactus. This is uncanny! It's very
surrealist!
Nik: Yes Dale. That's what I tried to tell you, but you never read the
Chunag Tzu which is why you spent a life poking yourself in the butt
without lubrication.
Dale: Teacher, oh great teacher, thankyou for your wisdom!
They live happily ever after until the evil one comes again.
Leo Sgouros
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:iUYs4.1119$%A3.2...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> "Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000223170038...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> > DMH:
> >
> > >What a bothersome old snore you are Andrea. You only show up when you
get
> > >that adrenalin rush of disagreement in your pantaloons, and have to
spray
> it
> > >out or bust a bladder. Talk about nihilism!
> > >
> > >Everything you say is total bullshit.
> > >
> > >EVERYTHING...
> >
> all
> > playing out as the first Surrealist soap opera: The Days of our Donk.
> >
> someone else (Christopher Reeves? Mickey Rooney? Soupy Sales?) to play my
> part: I just will not talk to that indigestion problem Andrea anymore. She
> is such a slave to her own need to talk about power power power, that it
is
> either boring or aggravating, or aggravatingly boring, or boringly
> aggravating. She's rubbing on Nik's esteem-sausage again (she doesn't
> believe a word of it of course; by her own admission it's all about
> control), and I'm not even sure Nik is in the mood to get it up for Mommy
> anymore. But even if he is up for one more go round with the nutopian nag,
> that's his control issue, not mine.
>
This is where you are off track.Andrea happens to be correct but I think you
are complicating the issue or are in denial.
Put simply, this ongoing love affair between you and Nikky is so predictable
it isnt even funny...or maybe it is.The point is Dale, your buttons are so
easily pushed by Nick there is the *appearance* of being unable to resist a
single statement he makes.
This is what is so interesting about having this "liberated" surrealist
perspective while driving off cliffs over and over.
If you will abstain from making this an attack you might sit back and look
at what it is she has been saying.
john adams
>
> Personal details are either considered too "personal" or inappropriate.
> They reflect a "personal bias". One should be objective, detached,
> impersonal in speech. We have been taught to think this way. I don't
> know about you, but in my high school and university classes we were
> taught to write essays without using the word "I". Personal opinion and
> personal experience was considered ridiculous. Argument, research, and
> fact were considered king.
>
> We've been trained never to say, "I hate abortion because my mom nearly
> had one."
For a reason! The sentence tells us nothing. Expanded upon in this
fashion: "She also lied to me about it for years and for this reason it
is a bad thing to me". Where is the logic in it? It hints of zero
consideration of the person's real feelings and their origin/meaning.
> We say, "I hate abortion, because it kills a living thing."
>
This would make much more sense. And if it were then backed by an
illustrative example, perhaps even better.
Personal feeling: I find myself wanting to like you Nik, but sometimes
it's hard to do. Let's make a compromise here: you make an effort to
'listen' to others comments, wiegh them in intellectually or however you
can or wish, set aside your own feelings for that moment, strive to
ascend that stubborn ego, and im sure others will be more than happy to
share of themselves and more often their (relevant) personal details.
john
john adams
>
> DMH:
>
> >What a bothersome old snore you are Andrea. You only show up when you get
> >that adrenalin rush of disagreement in your pantaloons, and have to spray it
> >out or bust a bladder. Talk about nihilism!
> >
> >Everything you say is total bullshit.
> >
> >EVERYTHING...
>
> Oh shit, I can't stop laughing. Things are getting good. I can see it all
> playing out as the first Surrealist soap opera: The Days of our Donk.
>
>
> Dale as Norman "On Golden Pond" Falkins (an angry surrealist)
>
> Andrea Chen as Inga Eagle (Pete's very intellectual and sardonic ex-wife)
>
> Nik as Alex Di Grassio (Pete's intellectual nemesis, advocator of emotion)
So, who is this Pete...guy?
> Barrett as Nihls Thiessen (compadre of Pete, advocator of rational/intellectual
> pursuit)
>
> Brandon as Nathan Dernier (writer, vehemently denounces Alex's opinions)
Brandon would also have 3 different lovers within this storyline, the
details of which are always mysterious and obscured.
> John as Jerry Baron (probably the most stable of the characters, inquisitive by
> nature)
Stable, hmm...you mean boring? Feel free to cast any 70's classic rock
band as me (ha!).
> Mags as Nenah Vick (free spirit, lover of arts, poetry, and strangely, camels)
>
> Cythera as Laura O' Teal (the most curious of the lot, and the most upbeat)
>
> Elag as Brock Townes (visionary eclectic, visual artist)
>
> Morpheal as Stanislav Klack (super prolific, haunted by the memories of love)
>
> Fas as Teek Lanios (quiet dishwasher who laughs too easily)
>
> .....and many others.
when do we see act I?
john
mike...
john adams wrote:
my favourite tzara quote, which i will now misquote because i don't feel like
looking it up, goes something like this:
"the dialectic is an amusing mechanism, which guides us, in a banal kind of
way,
to the opinions we held in the first place."
i agree with tzara, and nik, probably because i want to (although this all
becomes
very circular), that we are incapable of being objective.
an intellectual pursuit is supposed to work something like this, i believe:
1) person starts with no opinion
2) person examines facts for and against question at hand
3) person follows most logical conclusion
this is not possible! i implore anyone to show me a person who has no opinion
whatsoever on a subject that he is pursuing. if he doesn't, then there is a
very good
chance that he will continue to suspend his judgment after looking over the
evidence (see: pyrrhonism). if he does, then he cannot be objective, and he
will
more than likely continue to hold the same opinion he had before looking into
the
question. now, however, he will have more "logic" and "evidence" to support
his
preference/claim. (and of course, he will ignore all contrary evidence).
even scientists have botched experiments because they believed so strongly in
their
hypothesis.
wait! i can stay on topic...
because of the above, an emotionalist argument is just as valid as a
logicians. and,
personally, i find "i don't like x because [personal statement]" far more
compelling than,
"x is wrong because [logical statements plucked from books]"
the only reason, i think, that we're generally expected to say, "x is wrong
because [pile
of rhetoric]" rather than, "i don't like x because [personal reason]" is
because personal
reasons can't be argued with. if someone says, "i don't like it." there's not
a damn thing you
can do about it, other than say, "well...i do!" and, for people who are more
interested in
besting others in intellectual combat, this makes for terribly boring arguing.
people want to
hear "logic" from their adversaries because it gives them something to defeat.
lately, i've been keeping a bit of a journal - i've been analyzing my
personality. for years, i had
everything rationalized to perfection. x because y, y because z...but i'm
getting over that, and
getting to the core of why i /really/ think they way i do. what led me to make
these choices?
to hold these opinions? it certainly wasn't the logic, which all came /after/
i had formed my
opinions, so that i could feel secure in them. casting off the logic-armor and
taking a good
look at yourself may not be very intellectual, but it's certainly a lot more
fulfilling.
naked, mike.
Dale Houstman
"Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Z9%s4.95$sG4....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >
>
> This is where you are off track.Andrea happens to be correct but I think
you
> are complicating the issue or are in denial.
> Put simply, this ongoing love affair between you and Nikky is so
predictable
> it isnt even funny...or maybe it is.The point is Dale, your buttons are so
> easily pushed by Nick there is the *appearance* of being unable to resist
a
> single statement he makes.
This simply isn't true, and you would know it if you had read correctly. I
ignored (easily) Nik for months, while he kept responding to my posts. That
I now choose to reenter the discussion (as I plan to leave it soon) is all a
matter of free will on my part. Whether or not what he says aggravates me
while I am allowing myself to converse with him is irrelevant to any
"accusation" of enthrallment. I am allowing myself to be aggravated and to
respond. The strange thing here is that Andrea - whom I ignored to the point
of non-existence for me (she barely registers as a human!) also kept
responding to my posts. So - if I finally decided to respond to her twice
out of all the times I might have - who is under the power of whom? And -
according to Andrea's one tired idea (that ALL human discourse is a matter
of manipulatible power) - your response here is also predictable and thus a
matter of your enthrallment. And any way, the predictability of anyone's
response doesn't in any way speak to the power relationship she wishes to
construct everywhere. The truth is most people - by a certain age - have
developed a ethos or a philosophy or a set of reality-tools of some kind,
and - in a public forum - they are more than likely - unless they are hollow
people - to take certain stands. So the predictability is inherent, not
external. Truth be told, that old nutopian nag has been flogging the same
tired old idea forever now, and it hasn't become any truer. And - when I see
her name after one of my posts I KNOW it will be the same carping
irrelevance about power and puppetry. If it is after Nik's post, it will be
full of insincere massaging of her puppy-acolyte. It never varies!
Who's the puppet, Leo?
DMH
Dale Houstman
"mike..." <mik...@coconet.com> wrote in message
news:38B5000B...@coconet.com...
>
>
> an intellectual pursuit is supposed to work something like this, i
believe:
> 1) person starts with no opinion
> 2) person examines facts for and against question at hand
> 3) person follows most logical conclusion
>
system that only yields good results if you have good input. What you are
failing to get - as Nik fails to get over and over and over - is that
intellectuals, contrary to his superficial understanding, do not deny the
emotional life, as Nik wishes to deny the intellectual life. But the "raw"
matter of biography that Nik wants to uncover again and again is really only
barely intriguing, and for reasons already explained: the facts of a
person's early life do not "explain" that person. They never have. It is
what a person does with that matter that is reall;y interesting to a full
human. Again and again you see the truth of this: there is very little
discoverable in Hitler's childhood that would have led to his mania,
Rimbaud's great visionary poetry grew from a slogging middle-class education
in a small town full of pedants, and they still argue vociferously over that
great lout Shakespeare's ability to have written all those plays. What they
forget - and what Nik MUST (I assume) forget is the role of the imagination
in the transformation of a life. and where does this imagination, this set
of mental resources, come from? Why do children from the same family seem to
have different degrees of it? Why do some learn to rise above abuse and
neglect, while others fall below it, and begin their own lives of abuse and
neglect? These questions cannot be answered by Nik's clumsy biographical
approach. Especially on Usenet: you could lie to him about your background
all day and night! And many do I take it. So his program is doubly useless.
And it always will be. But - like his UberMother Andrea - he only has one
idea. If he gives that up then he lost. So let him hold on to it.
As for Tzara, he was easily one of the most intellectual of the Dadaists.
And -as he would be the first to tell you - you should never take what he
says at face value. He believed firmly in his own opinions. If he hadn't I
think a few less altercations might have taken place.
DMH
mike...
>Intellectualism is not just logic: logic is a rather simple mathematical
>system that only yields good results if you have good input. What you are
>failing to get - as Nik fails to get over and over and over - is that
>intellectuals, contrary to his superficial understanding, do not deny the
>emotional life
i wasn't really (or least not intending to) attack intellectualism so much as i
was attempting to defend emotionalism and "personal accounts." if i was
attacking anything, it was "raw logic," which i personally find specious and
annoying. more to the point, i was trying to say that emotionalism and logic are
equally valid arguments. and no, that doesn't mean i find emotionalism specious
and annoying. i'm just tired of seeing logic being lauded as somehow "better" or
more convincing than an emotionalist argument. i apologize for interchanging the
words, "logical pursuit" with "intellectual pursuit" in my previous post.
>the facts of a person's early life do not "explain" that person.
true, not every abused child will grow up to abuse or kill, but how many serial
killers /didn't/ have really traumatic childhoods? how many child abusers
/weren't/ abused themselves? i don't claim that our entire personality is based
on our childhood, but it seems that there is at least a fragment of truth to the
claim. telling or doing [x] to a child will probably increase the likelihood of
the child doing [y] as an adult. increase the severity or frequency of x, and
the likelihood of y will probably also increase.
>It is what a person does with that matter that is reall;y interesting
what i find intriguing is why the person chooses to do what they do, or think
what they think. their actions and ideas are of course important, but i wonder,
just for the sake of wondering i suppose, why they've chosen to adopt those
particular ideas. why they choose, from thousands of options, this one
particular path? psychology has attempted to answer the question, and to date,
hasn't been able to. at least not enough to satisfy me. you (i think) find
psychology to be total bullshit, as do i. but i suppose i'm still taken in by
the possibility of a genuine answer.
why do you dislike psychology? you can say "logical argument [hitler]," and
"logical argument [rimbaud]," but what made you choose to adopt those arguments?
this is what i (and nik?) am getting at. by introducing the personal aspect,
you've helped us understand why you don't like psychology. it may have no
bearing on the logic or your argument, but i find it interesting and worthwhile.
it seems grossly unreasonable that you would consider me less than a "full
human" because of that interest.
(this all of course assumes that you a) haven't lied about your past and b) have
infact said you dislike psychology. if i'm wrong about a or b, well then, i
guess it still serves as a fine hypothetical example.)
>Especially on Usenet: you could lie to him about your background
>all day and night! And many do I take it.
i've been lurking on and off here for awhile. i seem to remember, at one time,
there was a lot of confusion over your gender? if that wasn't you, then, uh,
sorry.
>As for Tzara, he was easily one of the most intellectual of the Dadaists.
>And -as he would be the first to tell you - you should never take what he
>says at face value.
i don't know...what tzara had to say about objectivity, "i detest greasy
objectivity, the science that finds everything in order. make love and bash your
brains etc etc..." i don't see how you could /not/ take that at face value. but
maybe that's just me wanting it to mean exactly what it says. the question of
what he really meant seems unresolvable, even if he were alive and we were to
ask him.
>He believed firmly in his own opinions. If he hadn't I think a few less
>altercations might have taken place.
believing firmly in your own opinions (by virtue of them being your own opinion)
is a rather subjective stance, i'd say. i've formed opinions on all kinds of
things; i constantly gripe about consumerism, i loathe casual sex (i've lost my
temper on more than one occasion), i don't eat meat.
why? hell if i know. like i've said, i used to rationalize rationalize
rationalize until i started to sound like fucking activist-robot. but i've
gotten over that, and i've come to realize that i'd probably hold these opinions
whether there were logical supporting arguments or not, and that these logical
arguments don't really make any difference at all. they probably never have.
hoping i've fixed that choppy post problem, mike.
elag
events from w/in your perspective is transforming my bemusement into
amusement. You know, this really could make for an interesting script.
I think I'd cast Buster Keaton in my role.
Fascinan wrote:
> Oh shit, I can't stop laughing. Things are getting good. I can see it all
> playing out as the first Surrealist soap opera: The Days of our Donk.
>
> Starring:
>
> Dale as Norman "On Golden Pond" Falkins (an angry surrealist)
>
> Andrea Chen as Inga Eagle (Pete's very intellectual and sardonic ex-wife)
>
> Nik as Alex Di Grassio (Pete's intellectual nemesis, advocator of emotion)
>
> Barrett as Nihls Thiessen (compadre of Pete, advocator of rational/intellectual
> pursuit)
>
> Brandon as Nathan Dernier (writer, vehemently denounces Alex's opinions)
>
> John as Jerry Baron (probably the most stable of the characters, inquisitive by
> nature)
>
> Mags as Nenah Vick (free spirit, lover of arts, poetry, and strangely, camels)
>
> Cythera as Laura O' Teal (the most curious of the lot, and the most upbeat)
>
> Elag as Brock Townes (visionary eclectic, visual artist)
>
> Morpheal as Stanislav Klack (super prolific, haunted by the memories of love)
>
> Fas as Teek Lanios (quiet dishwasher who laughs too easily)
>
> ......and many others.
Fascinan
My brain has been on a shitdrip lately.
Fascinan
>I'm glad that you can see the amusing side of this, Fas. Looking at
>events from w/in your perspective is transforming my bemusement into
>amusement. You know, this really could make for an interesting script.
>I think I'd cast Buster Keaton in my role.
heh. Johnny Depp could be someone. Martin Sheen as Dale's character.
Although, it's weird that we don't really know what everyone looks like. I
think that would be an interesting experiment: submit photos to everyone, but
without the names. I wonder if it would be easy to put the person with the
picture. Of course, people would inevitably submit pictures if Ahhnold, Gary
Coleman, and Fiona Apple. etc.
john adams
>
> my favourite tzara quote, which i will now misquote because i don't feel like
> looking it up, goes something like this:
>
> "the dialectic is an amusing mechanism, which guides us, in a banal kind of
> way,
> to the opinions we held in the first place."
>
> i agree with tzara, and nik, probably because i want to (although this all
> becomes
> very circular), that we are incapable of being objective.
>
> 1) person starts with no opinion
> 2) person examines facts for and against question at hand
> 3) person follows most logical conclusion
>
> whatsoever on a subject that he is pursuing. if he doesn't, then there is a
> very good
> chance that he will continue to suspend his judgment after looking over the
> evidence (see: pyrrhonism).
Yes, o fcourse the person will have opinions regarding the matter. And
to proceed to go about weighing the importance and variables of it, a
certain amount of suspending final judgement is necessary, where humanly
possible.
Logical or intellectual discussion need not be concerned with battle or
defeat of an individual but rather falsities and arriving at truths.
>
> lately, i've been keeping a bit of a journal - i've been analyzing my
> personality. for years, i had
> everything rationalized to perfection. x because y, y because z...but i'm
> getting over that, and
> getting to the core of why i /really/ think they way i do. what led me to make
> these choices?
> to hold these opinions? it certainly wasn't the logic, which all came /after/
> i had formed my
> opinions, so that i could feel secure in them. casting off the logic-armor and
> taking a good
> look at yourself may not be very intellectual, but it's certainly a lot more
> fulfilling.
>
> naked, mike.
I'll be the first to admit we attempt too often to consciously control
our lives, to an extent that oftentimes the result is bundled up stress,
and spontaneity/creativity the victim. I am also of the school of
thought that emotions are a very very great great thingle.
john
mike...
john adams wrote:
> > this is not possible! i implore anyone to show me a person who has no opinion
> > whatsoever on a subject that he is pursuing. if he doesn't, then there is a
> > very good
> > chance that he will continue to suspend his judgment after looking over the
> > evidence (see: pyrrhonism).
>
> Yes, o fcourse the person will have opinions regarding the matter. And
> to proceed to go about weighing the importance and variables of it, a
> certain amount of suspending final judgement is necessary, where humanly
> possible.
a "certain amount" of suspension just won't suffice, though. if the person can't
purge all bias, then they cannot be objective, and therefore will be more inclined
to accept the logical argument that supports their preference.
if one /completely/ suspends judgment, purges themselves of all bias and preference,
then they won't be inclined to accept one logical argument over another, and will
probbaly find themselves unable to choose at all. again, i point to the pyrrhonists.
by playing no favourites, the inquirer will realize that the two opposing logical
arguments are equally (un)sound, and that he is absolutely no better off now then he
was before his logical inquiry began. logic doesn't help someone make a choice, it
only makes them feel more secure in the choices that they would have made anyway.
> > the only reason, i think, that we're generally expected to say, "x is wrong
> > because [pile
> > of rhetoric]" rather than, "i don't like x because [personal reason]" is
> > because personal
> > reasons can't be argued with. if someone says, "i don't like it." there's not
> > a damn thing you
> > can do about it, other than say, "well...i do!" and, for people who are more
> > interested in
> > besting others in intellectual combat, this makes for terribly boring arguing.
> > people want to
> > hear "logic" from their adversaries because it gives them something to defeat.
>
> Logical or intellectual discussion need not be concerned with battle or
> defeat of an individual but rather falsities and arriving at truths.
i maintain that most people have already decided, based on emotional preferences,
what those "truths" should be. and so the falsities have also been arrived at,
subjectively, prior to the introduction of any logic.
i hate to say this, because the retort is obvious, but, how many times have you seen
two people, who firmly believe in opposing ideas, argue to the point where one says,
"hey, i do see it your way." it doesn't happen, because we're emotionally stubborn,
and we won't change our minds until our feelings on a subject are changed.
> I'll be the first to admit we attempt too often to consciously control
> our lives, to an extent that oftentimes the result is bundled up stress,
> and spontaneity/creativity the victim. I am also of the school of
> thought that emotions are a very very great great thingle.
>
> john
so you have no problem with someone acting irrationally or tossing logic to the
dogs?
"because i want to!" mike
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38B7528B...@aol.com...
> Furthermore, on the topic, i will say (in agreement with many that is)
> logic can be quite the stumbling block when we try to fit ideas inside
> and pull back out of it's synthetic-like intellectual mold. Though it
> can come in quite handy at times when considering two opposing matters.
> An example: two individuals are having a discussion. One is stubborn, in
> the manner you may say (like before) everyone is, the other attempting
> to penetrate a constant misunderstanding occuring between them. Person A
> (stubborn) insists upon a notion, such as all grass grows straight
> upwards into the air and is only then affected by earthly events such as
> wind to alter it's angular direction and bending. Person B claims this
> is not *true*, and that it grows from the ground at varying angles to
> the earth to begin with. Person B shows this to be true with substantial
> evidence of it and therefore after having been shown his previous false
> notion, person A concludes he was wrong afterall and is more
> knowledgable for it, thanks to his good friend B. He also had a strong
> revelation: his stubborn nature was affecting his judgement more than he
> had ever considered before today (the 35 minute defense of his unfounded
> notion and his friend's coaching helped him realize), and now intends to
> consider other perspectives more thoroughly in the future. And thus we
> have learning! And the way logic can be referred to to help out in
> situations. How did emotion play part to all of this? In Person B's
> case, it was his emotional stamina which carried him through to the end
> of the 35 minutes for his friend. Did i just make sense? Perhaps i am
> dreaming right now, beneath a tree, trunk made of stacked lambs. Must
> chop the tree...must eat now.
>
> john
All I have to add is that there is entirely too much confusion in this group
between intellectualism and logic. Logic is a narrow-banded mathematical
tool for figuring only the most basic problems. Intellectualism is a complex
system of experience, interpreted experience, projection, reading retention,
intuition (yes Nik, emotion!), second-guessing, means testing, and a myriad
of other processes. The two have little in common, and the confusion makes
for a lot of silly talk.
Intellectualism is as much a dream or an organ of the imagination as it is a
dry pounding of a limited number of facts into a utilitarian and momentary
"solution" to some localized "problem."
DMH
john adams
>
> john adams wrote:
>
> > > this is not possible! i implore anyone to show me a person who has no opinion
> > > whatsoever on a subject that he is pursuing. if he doesn't, then there is a
> > > very good
> > > chance that he will continue to suspend his judgment after looking over the
> > > evidence (see: pyrrhonism).
> >
> > Yes, o fcourse the person will have opinions regarding the matter. And
> > to proceed to go about weighing the importance and variables of it, a
> > certain amount of suspending final judgement is necessary, where humanly
> > possible.
>
> a "certain amount" of suspension just won't suffice, though. if the person can't
> purge all bias, then they cannot be objective, and therefore will be more inclined
> to accept the logical argument that supports their preference.
So there is no making sense of any situation or using knowledge to our
benefit to make decisions? They aren't always conscious ones - they are
based on previous impressions and imaginitve knowledge.
>
> if one /completely/ suspends judgment, purges themselves of all bias and preference,
> then they won't be inclined to accept one logical argument over another, and will
> probbaly find themselves unable to choose at all. again, i point to the pyrrhonists.
> by playing no favourites, the inquirer will realize that the two opposing logical
> arguments are equally (un)sound, and that he is absolutely no better off now then he
> was before his logical inquiry began. logic doesn't help someone make a choice, it
> only makes them feel more secure in the choices that they would have made anyway.
>
Would it be correct to say there are levels of objectivity then? And
that as we juggle ideas within our minds, it would be prudent to set
aside our emotional reactions and unreasonable biases for those moments?
It is true logic has a linear connotation attached with it and it's
process, and it can be. But we may also weigh in our ideas and opinions
and in doing so imagine new possibilities using our active imaginations.
I'm not going to sit here and say emotion and feeling are not relevant
to our actions and decisions. But, i will say that they are spurred by
belief and previous experience, and yes thought. What constitues our
preferences has to do with our experience throughout life + other
factors, such as perhaps genetics (i'll postulate), for instance.
> > Logical or intellectual discussion need not be concerned with battle or
> > defeat of an individual but rather falsities and arriving at truths.
>
> i maintain that most people have already decided, based on emotional preferences,
> what those "truths" should be. and so the falsities have also been arrived at,
> subjectively, prior to the introduction of any logic.
>
> i hate to say this, because the retort is obvious, but, how many times have you seen
> two people, who firmly believe in opposing ideas, argue to the point where one says,
> "hey, i do see it your way." it doesn't happen, because we're emotionally stubborn,
> and we won't change our minds until our feelings on a subject are changed.
How do you propose our feelings are changed on the subject? Because the
sensations felt about it seem to correspond with our emotions?
>
> so you have no problem with someone acting irrationally or tossing logic to the
> dogs?
>
> "because i want to!" mike
Indeed not! "I want to be like Mike", as the commercial went...(tossing
logic is good).
john
john adams
Fascinan
>All I have to add is that there is entirely too much confusion in this group
>between intellectualism and logic. Logic is a narrow-banded mathematical
>tool for figuring only the most basic problems.
I don't think Spock would agree with this.
log*ic (noun)
[Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from
Greek logike, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at
LEGEND]
First appeared 12th Century
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of
inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
(2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal ~> <Boolean ~>
(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS
(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty
(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or
predictable
d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for
computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason
<the ~ of war>
john adams
Yes, the last one is what i was referring to. Brain circuits, switching
power, intellectualism - it's all the same within the electric slab of
meat.
john
mike...
john adams wrote:
> So there is no making sense of any situation or using knowledge to our
> benefit to make decisions? They aren't always conscious ones - they are
> based on previous impressions and imaginitve knowledge.
judging by the things you've said, including the follow-up posts to your original, i think
we're mostly in agreement. logic, i suppose (yes, that's resignation you hear), can be
used to come to conclusions about basic "a or b" problems, like in the example of the
grass. there's no significant "what if?" to muddy the waters (although i think there's
always a chance for some error or over-looked factor - scientific "laws" are always being
shattered). but when it comes to "bigger" questions, such as god, art, morality, etc. no i
don't think there is any chance of coming to a logical solution.
the (preferencial)solutions to these "big" questions (i'm sorry for being so repetitive)
are formed solely on emotional bias, and everything else just sort of follows it up. dale
calls these follow-up/supporting arguments "intellectual clarification," whereas i've been
much narrower in my wording, calling it "logic."
(dale)
>"When I told him about my "epiphany" at thirteen that led to my emancipation
>from theism, he missed the entire point: that my intellectualizing about a
>vague feeling led to a clarification of that feeling and a new field of both
>thought and emotion. He is just plain wrong about intellectualization being
>the enemy of feeling. Adult feelings are not mere endrocinal seepages, but a
>collaborative action between experience, ideas, and base emotions")
i don't necessarily disagree, and i would even go so far as to say that these
"clarifications," when done correctly, can be helpful and interesting. unfortunately, to
me, it usually seems as if "clarification" is nothing more than a human's attempt at
making itself feel secure with it's ideas, because, as we've been taught, simply saying,
"i feel this way," just isn't supposed to be a good enough reason.
> Would it be correct to say there are levels of objectivity then?
i don't know, i would be inclined to say that you're either objective, or you're not.
> that as we juggle ideas within our minds, it would be prudent to set
> aside our emotional reactions and unreasonable biases for those moments?
not in the least! i certainly never meant to imply that all of this preference and bias
was a bad thing. if emotional preference causes us to act irrationally, i really have no
problem with that, and infact, i kind of like the idea.
> I'm not going to sit here and say emotion and feeling are not relevant
> to our actions and decisions. But, i will say that they are spurred by
> belief and previous experience, and yes thought. What constitues our
> preferences has to do with our experience throughout life + other
> factors, such as perhaps genetics
i agree, i think.
emotion + feeling + experience + perhaps genetics + [?] = belief and preference.
thought, as in raw logic, is just our way of patting ourselves on the back.
thought, as in intellectualization (that's not a word, is it?), could be mental
masturbation, or something much more (namely: "clarification").
> > and we won't change our minds until our feelings on a subject are changed.
>
> How do you propose our feelings are changed on the subject? Because the
> sensations felt about it seem to correspond with our emotions?
i'm not sure if this is a proper answer to your question or not, but, as i've said before,
i really don't know how we form our opinions. i suppose some traumatic emotional
experience can change our view of a subject (quicker and stronger than any logic, i'm sure
you'll agree), or at least act to shape our view. someone may be against legalized
abortion until their daughter dies during an illegal one. someone may support equal rights
for women, until they become bitter and angry at being rejected by the girl they love.
(think how different things may be if the first girl nietzsche asked to marry him had said
yes!)
i think this is a terribly fascinating question to ask oneself, and can serve as a
wonderful experiment in self discovery. "why do i feel this way?"
and don't answer logically!
for example, what brought on dale's "epiphany?" since he was only 13, i suspect that there
was little logic or intellectual inquiry involved. how did it happen? what are the real
driving forces behind our seemingly logical conclusions?
this self-analysis, to me, seems very reminiscent of dale's "intellectual clarification,"
and when you say
> It is true logic has a linear connotation attached with it and it's
> process, and it can be. But we may also weigh in our ideas and opinions
> and in doing so imagine new possibilities using our active imaginations.
i get the feeling that we all may be saying almost the same thing, but with different
words, and on varying degrees.
(dale)
>All I have to add is that there is entirely too much confusion in this group
>between intellectualism and logic
i've already apologized for mixing the words "intellectual" and "logic," and for any
confusion that may have caused.
king of run-on sentences, mike
john adams
>
> judging by the things you've said, including the follow-up posts to your original, i think
> we're mostly in agreement.
Yes, i think so...
>
> the (preferencial)solutions to these "big" questions (i'm sorry for being so repetitive)
> are formed solely on emotional bias, and everything else just sort of follows it up. dale
> calls these follow-up/supporting arguments "intellectual clarification," whereas i've been
> much narrower in my wording, calling it "logic."
>
> (dale)
> >"When I told him about my "epiphany" at thirteen that led to my emancipation
> >from theism, he missed the entire point: that my intellectualizing about a
> >vague feeling led to a clarification of that feeling and a new field of both
> >thought and emotion. He is just plain wrong about intellectualization being
> >the enemy of feeling. Adult feelings are not mere endrocinal seepages, but a
> >collaborative action between experience, ideas, and base emotions")
>
> i don't necessarily disagree, and i would even go so far as to say that these
> "clarifications," when done correctly, can be helpful and interesting. unfortunately, to
> me, it usually seems as if "clarification" is nothing more than a human's attempt at
> making itself feel secure with it's ideas, because, as we've been taught, simply saying,
> "i feel this way," just isn't supposed to be a good enough reason.
>
> > Would it be correct to say there are levels of objectivity then?
>
> i don't know, i would be inclined to say that you're either objective, or you're not.
The reason i asked this is because you said objectivity was impossible.
I took this to mean complete objectivity on the part of a human, whereas
now you are changing drawing the discrete line of it's existence.
>
> i've already apologized for mixing the words "intellectual" and "logic," and for any
> confusion that may have caused.
>
> king of run-on sentences, mike
That's ok, they are not always as clear cut as they seem.
john
mike...
john adams wrote:
> > > Would it be correct to say there are levels of objectivity then?
> >
> > i don't know, i would be inclined to say that you're either objective, or you're not.
>
> The reason i asked this is because you said objectivity was impossible.
> I took this to mean complete objectivity on the part of a human, whereas
> now you are changing drawing the discrete line of it's existence.
yeh, i was uhm...being a bit hasty, when i said that. i realized that even in the post where i
said, "this is not possible!" i later went on to say that the pyrrhonists were, for the most
part, objective. i pretty quickly changes my story from, "you can't" to, "you can, i guess, but
why?"
mike
john adams
> > > "solution" to some localized "problem."
> >
> >
> > http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/logicv10.html
> >
> > -- barrett
> >
> > BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
>
> I sensed that one coming. But then, this is in relation to the creative
> process. Humans are a logical being by nature, depending how we
> *construct* that idea of logic; there are "logical" processes going on
> all the time that are reactions to our environment-most learned and
> automatic. Is this also contrived and non-existant? Unless you mean to
> say our construction of the definition of logic is an invention and
> therefore does not exist. It doesn't fit well in your existing theory
> anyway, but can you simply dismiss it completely? The link isn't
> sufficient enough to explain this completely.
>
> john
Ok, after going and re-reading this page of yours, i partially retract
what i've said, because your point is well made there and valid from one
standpoint, although i don't think it helps clear up some matters. Our
brain HAS to make distinctions and analyze the world in order to act to
it and therefore is logical by nature in many of it's processes.
barrett john erickson
creative
> process. Humans are a logical being by nature, depending how we
> *construct* that idea of logic; there are "logical" processes
going on
> all the time that are reactions to our environment-most learned
and
> automatic. Is this also contrived and non-existant? Unless you
mean to
> say our construction of the definition of logic is an invention
and
> therefore does not exist. It doesn't fit well in your existing
theory
> anyway, but can you simply dismiss it completely? The link isn't
> sufficient enough to explain this completely.
actually, i'm not sure i'd even agree with that text anymore. i
just have a fondness for it and took the opportunity (however
slim) to add it to the mix.
-- 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
==============================================
barrett john erickson
retract
> what i've said, because your point is well made there and valid
from one
> standpoint, although i don't think it helps clear up some
matters. Our
> brain HAS to make distinctions and analyze the world in order to
act to
> it and therefore is logical by nature in many of it's processes.
yes, quite right. this is pretty much the same objection i would
raise against it today also.
the very process of cognition is about making such "choices" at
the most fundamental levels.
Dale Houstman
> I sensed that one coming. But then, this is in relation to the creative
> process. Humans are a logical being by nature, depending how we
> *construct* that idea of logic; there are "logical" processes going on
> all the time that are reactions to our environment-most learned and
> automatic. Is this also contrived and non-existant?
No - but if we ARE logical by nature surely this doesn't mean we cannot
challenge that nature at every turn. This is probably the line of reasoning
that led Baudelaire to despise the "natural" and celebrate the "artificial."
>Unless you mean to say our construction of the definition of logic is an
>invention and therefore does not exist.
It certainly doesn't "feel" that the basic Aristotlean logic describes what
my life is made of, and - as AI researchers long ago found out - logic
doesn't drive most human cognition, as there exist uncategorizable "gaps"
and "ellipses." The prolific parade of poetry surely doesn't show either a
great pile of or regard for logic as it applies to human creativity. The
fact is most human creativity is more a matter of parodying (nonsense) or
ignoring (dreams, visions, collage techniques) these logical connections.
So while a series of logical statements might get us from here to the moon
and back, this merely mathematical process will never quite explain the uses
of the moon in poetry or its strange (and abiding) seductive powers.
DMH
john adams
>
> "john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:38B995F6...@aol.com...
>
> > I sensed that one coming. But then, this is in relation to the creative
> > process. Humans are a logical being by nature, depending how we
> > *construct* that idea of logic; there are "logical" processes going on
> > all the time that are reactions to our environment-most learned and
> > automatic. Is this also contrived and non-existant?
>
> No - but if we ARE logical by nature surely this doesn't mean we cannot
> challenge that nature at every turn. This is probably the line of reasoning
> that led Baudelaire to despise the "natural" and celebrate the "artificial."
This is certainly true, we can, and should. There are those
self-evidencing instances it would not be recommended to, however.
> >Unless you mean to say our construction of the definition of logic is an
> >invention and therefore does not exist.
>
> It certainly doesn't "feel" that the basic Aristotlean logic describes what
> my life is made of, and - as AI researchers long ago found out - logic
> doesn't drive most human cognition, as there exist uncategorizable "gaps"
> and "ellipses."
Because what we learn, perceive, and construct becomes part of the
automatic response for future doing, reacting, retrieving (that)
knowledge, and deriving immediate certain notions and conclusions from
abstract forms and non abstract forms, though i was not construing it to
mean this IS your life and to leave out the component of imagination and
creativity either, nor that all cognition was based on it.
>The prolific parade of poetry surely doesn't show either a
> great pile of or regard for logic as it applies to human creativity.
I don't approve of this use of alliteration here. It is a) sacrificing
the mathematical symmetry
of the rest of the sentence and b) a little bit strong, given p's are
always so pronouncably prevocalic.
> The
> fact is most human creativity is more a matter of parodying (nonsense) or
> ignoring (dreams, visions, collage techniques) these logical connections.
>
> So while a series of logical statements might get us from here to the moon
> and back, this merely mathematical process will never quite explain the uses
> of the moon in poetry or its strange (and abiding) seductive powers.
>
> DMH
Much in agreement. Much!
john
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > "john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:38B995F6...@aol.com...
> >
> > > I sensed that one coming. But then, this is in relation to the
creative
> > > process. Humans are a logical being by nature, depending how we
> > > *construct* that idea of logic; there are "logical" processes going on
> > > all the time that are reactions to our environment-most learned and
> > > automatic. Is this also contrived and non-existant?
> >
> > No - but if we ARE logical by nature surely this doesn't mean we cannot
> > challenge that nature at every turn. This is probably the line of
reasoning
> > that led Baudelaire to despise the "natural" and celebrate the
"artificial."
>
> This is certainly true, we can, and should. There are those
> self-evidencing instances it would not be recommended to, however.
Some people "must" rely on logic more than others I suspect, simply because
it is more difficult for some to get from point A to point B without
wandering off into point Z. But - often - this very waywardness is what
reveals to us new possibilites. At least this is true in my writing process.
>
>
> >The prolific parade of poetry surely doesn't show either a
> > great pile of or regard for logic as it applies to human creativity.
>
> I don't approve of this use of alliteration here. It is a) sacrificing
> the mathematical symmetry of the rest of the sentence and b) a little bit
strong, >given p's are always so pronouncably prevocalic.
This is pretty funny: when I wrote it originally it was merely an accident
caused by the hurried nature of e-mail. Yet I didn't like it much myself!
Truth is, given a little bit of time I would probably re-write most of what
I say here. Excuse my intellectual intrusion on the automatic!>
> >
> > So while a series of logical statements might get us from here to the
moon
> > and back, this merely mathematical process will never quite explain the
uses
> > of the moon in poetry or its strange (and abiding) seductive powers.
> >
>
> Much in agreement. Much!
Stop it! Now you're making me nervous...
DMH
john adams
>
> Some people "must" rely on logic more than others I suspect, simply because
> it is more difficult for some to get from point A to point B without
> wandering off into point Z. But - often - this very waywardness is what
> reveals to us new possibilites. At least this is true in my writing process.
Yes, true, although i was referring to (in response to challenging the
logical nature at every turn) such things as like when to apply the
brakes or duck when an unwanted cranial collision would otherwise be
imminent and messy.
> >
> > >The prolific parade of poetry surely doesn't show either a
> > > great pile of or regard for logic as it applies to human creativity.
>
> This is pretty funny: when I wrote it originally it was merely an accident
> caused by the hurried nature of e-mail. Yet I didn't like it much myself!
> Truth is, given a little bit of time I would probably re-write most of what
> I say here. Excuse my intellectual intrusion on the automatic!>
> > >
> > > So while a series of logical statements might get us from here to the
> moon
> > > and back, this merely mathematical process will never quite explain the
> uses
> > > of the moon in poetry or its strange (and abiding) seductive powers.
> > >
> >
> > Much in agreement. Much!
>
> Stop it! Now you're making me nervous...
>
> DMH
(Collision!)
john