what the hell...
dale houstman
kristina <smoot...@fuckemhard.com> wrote in message
news:8275r9$ecl$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
>It is a really pathetic situation, and yes, we could go on and say men are
to blame, what a >load of bull-crap! I refuse to generalise the whole thing
to such a basic response.
Well, this is a fine for you, but what about us "special" men who garner
just that extra dollop of sensual charge precisely from feeling guilty over
how every man since Og has treated "the little woman"? Huh - WHAT ABOUT US?
"If only we were nicer"
Ecstasy with a sentimental cherry on top!
"Does she secretly despise me for the way the Jewish patriarchy treated
women?"
Patent pleasure accentuated by biblical histrionics!!
"Is this really just a form of rape disguised as a very successful date?"
Throbbing cacophony of titillation underscored by romantic criminalism!!!
And so on...
DMH
kristina
by men, etc, and so on. But what do we call it when women are being
oppressive to other women? As a woman, I find it really fascinating and
tiresome more to the point, how other women respond to me. If they have a
bone to pick the usual case scenario is to take on the view that I am a
crazed bimbo out to fuck every man...What is it with women?
Seems to me alot women are afraid of another woman's openess and awareness
in her sexuality and mind. It is a really pathetic situation, and yes, we
could go on and say men are to blame, what a load of bull-crap! I refuse to
generalise the whole thing to such a basic response. I think there is such
a thing as personal "responsibility". It is time to move on with this
rubbish and start looking at the reality. I'd say that most of my life, I
have experienced more "oppression" for want of a better word, by the
so-called "sisterhood". I'm tired of dealing with such inane people.
Any thoughts anyone?
--
kristina
Leo Sgouros
Yup.
You go girl!
No really, whats the deal?
Somebody accused you on usenet about this behaviour or are you talking about
real life down under?
If usenet, you are being beseiged by jealous trolls.
If in real life, it means you are really hawt1!1!
so, dont worry about it.
or something.
kristina
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pUH14.49684$435.1...@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com...
> kristina > news:8275r9$ecl$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
It's just something that I have been thinking about lately, it's not
strictly defined to usenet or real-life. (both kind of fit in there anyway,
and vice versa). just the bigger picture really...all of it.
> If usenet, you are being beseiged by jealous trolls.
> If in real life, it means you are really hawt1!1!
> so, dont worry about it.
> or something.
Ha ha ha....you are too much! Yeah, I'm hot alright, it's boiling in
Australia at present, aside from the weather update, there is nothing more
mysterious about me to tell...the weather is horrible, and I'm really rather
dull....trust me! thanks anyway....
kristina.
>
>
>
kristina
news:8279gl$f67$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Is this really just a form of rape disguised as a very successful date?"
I feel like this when I go out with a female friend looking at potential
wedding dresses...
kristina.
...thanks for your feedback Dale.
> DMH
>
>
dale houstman
kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:827ph3$jha$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
Australia the place England sent all her felons and fools? Damn, there's a
genetic background worth fighting for! All America got was a bunch of
religious knee-jerkers and three or four fellows trying to avoid paying tax
on their tea bags. Somehow it all worked out, but I can't figure how. Must
be something in the water.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>But what do we call it when women are being
>oppressive to other women?
I've met a number of women who say they hate being friends with women.
"Women," say these women, "tend to be nice to your face, and then stab
you in the back. They try to make everyone in the group feel good,
only when you leave the group, they start bitching about what a slut
you are. They expect you to be like everyone else in the group, and
if you're different, you're wrong. That's why I prefer to hang out
with men. They'll tell you what they think, with brutal honesty."
I find that I prefer to be friends with women. Men, I feel, tend to
be overly competitive and thug-like. Everything, and I mean literally
everything, can turn into a competition between two guys. The eternal
struggle for dominance -- who gets to be the alpha male today? -- can
get pretty boring. Admit a weakness, admit some sensitivity, and the
ape-men will crush you. Weakness means you can't compete with the
others.
What these women and I actually mean, I suspect, is we don't like to
hang out with living gender stereotypes. Some people strive to be
male, some people strive to be female. This results in tartified
bimbos in hot shorts and low cut tops, giggling stupidly in bars,
deliberately cutting their IQ in half so they can be "real women".
This also results in thug like men in suit jackets with expensive
sports cars and a thousand electronic toys, drinking beer until they
puke, punching each other in the shoulder, watching a lot of football,
so they can be "real men".
Anyone striving to meet these artificial gender ideals is far from
real. They're acting. Only the acting is "real" to them.
Of course, as I struggle for some middle ground identity, something
between the male and the female ideals, I'm only acting as well. Is
there any reason to think my act is any better than theirs? Is my act
any more true, just because I call it mine?
All identity is a mask. Oh well.
>I'm tired of dealing with such inane people.
>Any thoughts anyone?
Kill these people and eat them.
Nik
---
Postcard-sized portraits -- $20.
You find the face, I pick the paint. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Mags
society but in some hypothetical situation being discussed by highly
educated professors who beside their books cannot do anything, not even
sew on their buttons.
First of all, Kristina writes about being opressed by members of her own
gender. What follows? Multiple posts from males saying either "aw,
schucks, honey, we love you", or "yeah, sexism sucks". So here I am, and
I'm going to object.
Kristina says she gets oppressed for being sexually active and not afraid
to admit it. I don't know about any of you, but I consider having sex
(aka making love?) a private thing that needs not to be discussed with
anyone short of close friends and maybe family. It seems to me that what
Kristina describes as the reason for being opressed is not her sexual
freedom but rather flaunting it shamelessly, to an extreme that is not
necessary. Like somebody trying to sue someone for patting them gently on
the shoulder on the basis of defying the bounds of personal space.
Kristina also says people consider her a "crazed bimbo out to fuck every
man". I have met those people - some of them hurt Christians, some raised
in a desert freaks, and some respectable members of the community (heh).
I am originally from New Jersey - the suburbian center of such ways of
thinking. If a guy is sexually active - it is called "experience". When
a girl does it, she's a slut. Now I live in Greenwich Village, NYC. You
can't get anymore contrasting than that. Sexual freedom is the key. But
even among the people who like sex, don't consider it a big issue, and,
well, have lots of it, there are boundaries. Boundaries between the
public and private. (Unless we count weird fetishes). To have sex, or
even to solicit anyone for it - that's an issue between the individuals
involved. To go around to anyone saying "oh, I like having sex, he's such
a hottie, I want to have sex with this person and this" might be what
is the reason for Kristina's obsession.
So, to summarize, having sex is a private issue. When you get scorned for
sexual freedom, are you sure it's the actual freedom you're being scorned
about? Or maybe you go about presenting it and making it public and
making your person the epitome thereof? I am a person, I like to have so
sex, but I also like sci-fi, and fantasy, and this newsgroup althought I
want to choke some people at times although they say not to take it
personally, and computer languages, and other stuff. If I'd make my
sexuality the primary characteristic of myself - it would be just too easy
for others to get me on that account. So deal with it, Kristina. Have
sex, and if people make fun of you - learn to do yo-yo tricks, at least
they'll opress you about something you don't care about.
Mags
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, kristina wrote:
> It has been interesting reading all this about "sexism" oppression of women
> by men, etc, and so on. But what do we call it when women are being
> oppressive to other women? As a woman, I find it really fascinating and
> tiresome more to the point, how other women respond to me. If they have a
> bone to pick the usual case scenario is to take on the view that I am a
> crazed bimbo out to fuck every man...What is it with women?
>
> Seems to me alot women are afraid of another woman's openess and awareness
> in her sexuality and mind. It is a really pathetic situation, and yes, we
> could go on and say men are to blame, what a load of bull-crap! I refuse to
> generalise the whole thing to such a basic response. I think there is such
> a thing as personal "responsibility". It is time to move on with this
> rubbish and start looking at the reality. I'd say that most of my life, I
> have experienced more "oppression" for want of a better word, by the
> so-called "sisterhood". I'm tired of dealing with such inane people.
>
> Any thoughts anyone?
>
> --
> kristina
>
>
>
>
Elephants are not camels.
el...@dialup757.globalserve.net
>
> This also results in thug like men in suit jackets with expensive
> sports cars and a thousand electronic toys, drinking beer until they
> puke, punching each other in the shoulder, watching a lot of football,
> so they can be "real men".
Okay, I know what you're getting at here, but not everyone who
likes nifty sports cars, watching football, high-tech gadgets,
and drinking beer is putting on some kind of act. I can enjoy all
those things, and I'm certainly not forcing myself to like them
just to fit in with the "real men" or give my self-image a boost.
In fact, far from all of the males of the species working themselves
up to stereotypical "thug-like" competitive bravado, I've found
just as many who try to pretend that all that is beneath them,
putting on a veneer of bland civility.
Although it seems that the ones that do put on the kind of act you
describe are the ones who soak up all the money and power.
> All identity is a mask. Oh well.
Sure, identity is a mask. But having an "identity" isn't the point.
You don't need one.
> Kill these people and eat them.
Don't kill more than you can eat!
_
dale houstman
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.991203...@is9.nyu.edu...
> Kristina says she gets oppressed for being sexually active and not afraid
> to admit it. I don't know about any of you, but I consider having sex
> (aka making love?) a private thing that needs not to be discussed with
> anyone
"Needs not to" surely, but just because any subject "needs not to" be
discussed (we "need not" discuss the shortage of ice cream in Bulgaria)
doesn't mean it cannot be discussed. No one is forcing Kristina to talk of
her sexuality, she is volunteering the information. It also follows that you
"need not" discuss your discomfort with public discussions of sexuality, but
you did anyway. So?
>It seems to me that whag Kristina describes as the reason for being
opressed is not her >sexual freedom but rather flaunting it shamelessly, to
an extreme that is not
> necessary.
To you perhaps, and maybe to most - who knows or cares? But your sense of
what is necessary or not isn't really isn't pertinent.
>
> So, to summarize, having sex is a private issue.
Then why are you talking about it at such length, in such a revoltingly
conservative manner, and in such a flat-footed style?
> When you get scorned for sexual freedom, are you sure it's the actual
freedom you're being >scorned about? Or maybe you go about presenting it
and making it public and
> making your person the epitome thereof?
Talking about something IS an actual freedom, and certainly one guaranteed
in the US constitution, if that's an issue. And I am not offended one blue
tit by Kristina's conversation. For one thing, I see the humor in it. And
another - Kristina is writing in response to an obnoxious inquisition by
some hide-bound turnip. What she has to say is pertinent.
DMH
Mags
Obviously, you have missed the point of my post. It is not to say that
limitations should be put on Kristina's actions. That post was to say
that she should be aware of the kind of society she lives in because some
actions, whether she likes it or not, will cause a conflict and other
people disliking her. Your argument against this (people objecting
KRistina) is that she has the right to say whatever she wishes and act the
way she wishes. Well, for one, the people who criticize her have the
right to do so as well. Two, can you really be so oblivious as to ignore
things like no nudity on prime-time tv and getting arrested for indecent
exposure.
As for things that need not to be talked about, well, I'm not going to get
into the human nature and how we talk about things and stuff (i.e.
newsgroups?), but instead I will ask - how often do you discuss the
shortage of ice-cream in Bulgaria?
Mags
Elephants are not camels.
dale houstman
> Dear Dale (and others),
>
> Obviously, you have missed the point of my post. It is not to say that
> limitations should be put on Kristina's actions.
Not unless you think (as I do) that telling someone she shouldn't ("needs
not") be talking about such things is a limitation.
>That post was to say that she should be aware of the kind of society she
lives in because >some actions, whether she likes it or not, will cause a
conflict and other people disliking her.
This would also be a wonderful bit of advice to give a black man in the
South say about 1935: "you should be aware that being black around certain
folks is asking for trouble." While this is undoubtedly true, I do think
taking the part of the oppressive side is not exactly a heroic, or even a
mildly ethical posture.
>a Your argument against this (people objecting
> KRistina) is that she has the right to say whatever she wishes and act the
> way she wishes. Well, for one, the people who criticize her have the
> right to do so as well.
Exaclt what I said. Thanks for the affirmation.
> Two, can you really be so oblivious as to ignore things like no nudity on
prime-time tv and >getting arrested for indecent exposure.
And can you be so oblivious as to think I give (or Kristina gives) a tapir's
colon block for the opinions of media lapdogs and "neighborhood standards"?
Be a good little girl, Kristina, and maybe you can get accepted into a
decent nunnery...
>
> As for things that need not to be talked about, well, I'm not going to get
> into the human nature and how we talk about things and stuff (i.e.
> newsgroups?), but instead I will ask - how often do you discuss the
> shortage of ice-cream in Bulgaria?
Your sense of humor would melt in the Bulgarian sun before ice cream would,
Mags... I was being amusing (just as Kristina invariably is). What are you -
the Mother Superior at a School for Wayward Teens? Obviously I don't talk
about the ice-cream supply in Bulgaria, but it ain't because "I don't needs
to." For that matter - as a rule of thumb - nothing "needs" to be talked
about at all. So?
DMH
Mags
And thanks for attributing a sense of humor to my person - I never knew I
had one.
But anyhow, I'm wondering what Kristina has to say about all of this (and
whether she has anything to say about it all).
Mags
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, dale houstman wrote:
Elephants are not camels.
Brandon J. Freels
> > All identity is a mask.
If identity is a mask, then what does it cover?
Mags
space
Mags
elag
> [snippped a whole lot here]
> Amazing how some people recommend this weak and partial kind of existence
> that is supposed to be "socailly acceptable" way of approaching
> life...."speak as long as you do not offend the sensibilities of the banal
> consumer revolution"...what a fucking joke of a revolution it is too!
The revolution will not be televised... however there will be a
streaming Web broadcast.
And remember to click through to ReVoLuTiOn.com
kristina
okay, fair point, distance does not get me out of certain things! I hear
you...how much is the bill then?
And please let me know what currency is preferable...I will accomodate
accordingly, and to the best of my abilities (as tiny and weeny as they
are...but on a positive note, it DID rain today, so once again I am feeling
better).
kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
kristina
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.99120...@is9.nyu.edu...
> Dear Dale (and others),
>
> Obviously, you have missed the point of my post. It is not to say that
> that she should be aware of the kind of society she lives in because some
> actions, whether she likes it or not, will cause a conflict and other
> people disliking her.
Mags, what are you talking about? (I can't believe this)...
> Your argument against this (people objecting
> KRistina) is that she has the right to say whatever she wishes and act the
> way she wishes. Well, for one, the people who criticize her have the
> right to do so as well. Two, can you really be so oblivious as to ignore
> things like no nudity on prime-time tv and getting arrested for indecent
> exposure.
Oh far out, you can't get passed this simple idea in your head that I am
advocating and pushing for my "sexual experiences" to be posted on this
newsgroup. I don't think at any time that I have "seriously" discussed
either my personal life or fucking, how I like it, whether or not I DO like
it, take part in it, wnat to do it with oranutangs, or chinchilla coats.
(If I want ot though I WILL!) Now, can you please stop objectifiying me into
some sort of stereotype of YOUR ideas of what I am saying here. This is
what I am talking about. Your ideas of what people "should" and "shouldn't"
be discussing are a rather good example of what I'm talking about. Reducing
everything to something totally off 'subject'. You have in essence brought
up my "sex life" all on your own, without any help from me, and without any
content from me, and are using this as the basis of your communications
here...........EXACTLY what I've been talking about. You have reduced my
post to a boring repressed screw!
kristina.
>
> As for things that need not to be talked about, well, I'm not going to get
> into the human nature and how we talk about things and stuff (i.e.
> newsgroups?), but instead I will ask - how often do you discuss the
> shortage of ice-cream in Bulgaria?
>
> Mags
>
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, dale houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
kristina
>
> Kristina says she gets oppressed for being sexually active and not afraid
> to admit it. I don't know about any of you, but I consider having sex
> (aka making love?) a private thing that needs not to be discussed with
> anyone short of close friends and maybe family.
Mags, I don't recall having said anywhere in my post that I get oppressed
for being "sexually active". The whole focus on "sex" here seems rather
bizarre to me...(and only for one reason). It was NOT what I was saying or
asking. However, I am open to fluid conversatiosn so...lets get on with
it...
> It seems to me that what
> Kristina describes as the reason for being opressed is not her sexual
> freedom but rather flaunting it shamelessly, to an extreme that is not
> necessary.
What I am and WAS talking about in the original post has nothing to do with
Fucking as such, or having SEX. I was talking about how "when" there is a
situation of tension or dissagreement in my exzperiences with women, the
first thing they pull out of thier hat seems to be some sort of attack on
"sexuality" (again, I'm not discussing fucking here, there is a
difference). And regarding your above comment, I don't think their is
anything wrong with "flaunting shamelessly" irresspective of what we are
discussing or WHO is discussing it. Was I really shameless? (I'm getting a
laugh out of that!).
> To have sex, or
> even to solicit anyone for it - that's an issue between the individuals
> involved. To go around to anyone saying "oh, I like having sex, he's such
> a hottie, I want to have sex with this person and this" might be what
> is the reason for Kristina's obsession.
No, this is all wrong Mags, you've missed the point almost entirely of what
I was saying (although this could be another interesting conversation).
I'll say it one more time. I am not talking about FUCKING! I am talking
about personal power as a human being who is aware of her needs and
comfortable (to the greater extent) in my sexuality. This covers and
encompasses all of who I am...it's not about me fucking or being obsessed
with sex, or falunting it....you have reduced this topic of conversation to
a very small area. I'm obsessed? ha ha ha....full-on!
> If I'd make my > sexuality the primary characteristic of myself - it would
be just too easy
> for others to get me on that account. So deal with it, Kristina.
Mags, my sexuality IS a primary part of myself. I don't put it on when I
get up in the morning, and take it off when i go to bed at night. it isn't
something I put away in winter when I want a red scarf instead. Far out!
I'm not talking about fucking....and No, I don't see why I should DEAL with
it as you say just for being "open" and expressing my ideas. I am not into
oppressing myself here, you may choose that road, that is fine and your
perogative, but I will not tolerate or accept being reduced to some stupid
woman with a half wit brain by others who cannot handle my expressiveness,
irrespective of the subject matter.
there is alot I haven't covered here, but I don't have the time to say
everything I wanted...
kristina.
> Mags
>
kristina
news:38477c6d....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> "kristina" <smoot...@fuckemhard.com> wrote:
> >But what do we call it when women are being
> >oppressive to other women?
>
So have I. And they tend to be rather strong women who seek out more from
life than a copy of the "new idea" with a recipe book attached.
>
> "Women," say these women, "tend to be nice to your face, and then stab
> you in the back. They try to make everyone in the group feel good,
> only when you leave the group, they start bitching about what a slut
> you are. They expect you to be like everyone else in the group, and
> if you're different, you're wrong. That's why I prefer to hang out
> with men. They'll tell you what they think, with brutal honesty."
Mags should read this. This is some of what I've been talking about. It
isn't about sex, but if a woman is going to be put down (or attempted to be)
it will focus on the topic of "slut, bitch whore, lusty wench" (all
wonderful words by the way, in another arena).
[snipped a big bit here]
Nik says:
> Kill these people and eat them.
Ha ha ha, They would taste horrible I think!
kristina.
kristina
> Hey, Dale, it's impolite to end paragraphs with a "so?".
>
> And thanks for attributing a sense of humor to my person - I never knew I
> had one.
>
> But anyhow, I'm wondering what Kristina has to say about all of this (and
> whether she has anything to say about it all).
I did post a few posts....have they not arrived?
>
> Mags
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, dale houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.3.96.99120...@is9.nyu.edu...
> > > Dear Dale (and others),
> > >
> > > Obviously, you have missed the point of my post. It is not to say
that
> > > limitations should be put on Kristina's actions.
> >
> > Not unless you think (as I do) that telling someone she shouldn't
("needs
> > not") be talking about such things is a limitation.
> >
> > >That post was to say that she should be aware of the kind of society
she
> > lives in because >some actions, whether she likes it or not, will cause
a
> > conflict and other people disliking her.
> >
> > This would also be a wonderful bit of advice to give a black man in the
> > South say about 1935: "you should be aware that being black around
certain
> > folks is asking for trouble." While this is undoubtedly true, I do think
> > taking the part of the oppressive side is not exactly a heroic, or even
a
> > mildly ethical posture.
> >
> > >a Your argument against this (people objecting
> > > KRistina) is that she has the right to say whatever she wishes and act
the
> > > way she wishes. Well, for one, the people who criticize her have the
> > > right to do so as well.
> >
> > Exaclt what I said. Thanks for the affirmation.
> >
> > > Two, can you really be so oblivious as to ignore things like no nudity
on
> > prime-time tv and >getting arrested for indecent exposure.
> >
> > And can you be so oblivious as to think I give (or Kristina gives) a
tapir's
> > colon block for the opinions of media lapdogs and "neighborhood
standards"?
> > Be a good little girl, Kristina, and maybe you can get accepted into a
> > decent nunnery...
> > >
> > > As for things that need not to be talked about, well, I'm not going to
get
> > > into the human nature and how we talk about things and stuff (i.e.
> > > newsgroups?), but instead I will ask - how often do you discuss the
> > > shortage of ice-cream in Bulgaria?
> >
> > Your sense of humor would melt in the Bulgarian sun before ice cream
would,
> > Mags... I was being amusing (just as Kristina invariably is). What are
you -
> > the Mother Superior at a School for Wayward Teens? Obviously I don't
talk
> > about the ice-cream supply in Bulgaria, but it ain't because "I don't
needs
> > to." For that matter - as a rule of thumb - nothing "needs" to be talked
> > about at all. So?
> >
kristina
kristina
with my computer here....kristina.
kristina <buzzo(nospam)@start.com.au> wrote in message news:...
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.99120...@is9.nyu.edu...
> Dear Dale (and others),
>
> Obviously, you have missed the point of my post. It is not to say that
> limitations should be put on Kristina's actions. That post was to say
> that she should be aware of the kind of society she lives in because some
> actions, whether she likes it or not, will cause a conflict and other
> people disliking her.
Mags, what are you talking about? (I can't believe this)...
> Your argument against this (people objecting
> KRistina) is that she has the right to say whatever she wishes and act the
> way she wishes. Well, for one, the people who criticize her have the
> right to do so as well. Two, can you really be so oblivious as to ignore
> things like no nudity on prime-time tv and getting arrested for indecent
> exposure.
Oh far out, you can't get passed this simple idea in your head that I am
advocating and pushing for my "sexual experiences" to be posted on this
newsgroup. I don't think at any time that I have "seriously" discussed
either my personal life or fucking, how I like it, whether or not I DO like
it, take part in it, wnat to do it with oranutangs, or chinchilla coats.
(If I want ot though I WILL!) Now, can you please stop objectifiying me into
some sort of stereotype of YOUR ideas of what I am saying here. This is
what I am talking about. Your ideas of what people "should" and "shouldn't"
be discussing are a rather good example of what I'm talking about. Reducing
everything to something totally off 'subject'. You have in essence brought
up my "sex life" all on your own, without any help from me, and without any
content from me, and are using this as the basis of your communications
here...........EXACTLY what I've been talking about. You have reduced my
post to a boring repressed screw!
kristina.
>
> As for things that need not to be talked about, well, I'm not going to get
> into the human nature and how we talk about things and stuff (i.e.
> newsgroups?), but instead I will ask - how often do you discuss the
> shortage of ice-cream in Bulgaria?
>
> Mags
>
>
kristina
[snippped a whole lot here]
Dale responds to Mags:
> And can you be so oblivious as to think I give (or Kristina gives) a
tapir's
> colon block for the opinions of media lapdogs and "neighborhood
standards"?
> Be a good little girl, Kristina, and maybe you can get accepted into a
> decent nunnery...
Yes, my mother hoped for the same thing! A good meek nunnery to keep me
clean and snowy....I thought she said "be showy, and steam up the windows"
Amazing how some people recommend this weak and partial kind of existence
that is supposed to be "socailly acceptable" way of approaching
life...."speak as long as you do not offend the sensibilities of the banal
consumer revolution"...what a fucking joke of a revolution it is too!
kristina.
> DMH
>
Nikolaus Maack
Me:
>> > All identity is a mask.
Brandon:
> If identity is a mask, then what does it cover?
Hissing vats of steaming Cool Whip.
Nik
--
Twelve contorted faces. No lines, no waiting.
Visit The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
dale houstman
>
> And thanks for attributing a sense of humor to my person - I never knew I
> had one.
I said you had one that would disintergrate on contact with pale sunlight.
Dead - or undead....
> But anyhow, I'm wondering what Kristina has to say about all of this (and
> whether she has anything to say about it all).
>
> Mags
>
Whatever it is, let us hope (for your sensibilities) that it doesn't mention
"engorgement" of any body part...
DMH
dale houstman
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Brandon J. Freels wrote:
>
> > > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
> >
>
>
>
Identity doesn't "cover" anything (since it isn't a superficial quality) but
suffuses any organism that "contain" it. As Leonard Cohen said: "I loved you
for your body / but a voice that sounds like God to me / is telling me your
body's really you." Identity is a gesture of the organism - it may involve
elements of masking - or attempting to mask - but it reveals itself
everywhere, because if it IS a mask, then something (oddly enough) has made
the decision to mask. That is the identity. To simply proclaim identity as a
mask is - as per usual in Nik's hastily spewed "ideas" - a cynical and
dismissive sub-notion.
DMH
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:g1Z14.63346$C7.27...@news1.teleport.com...
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > > All identity is a mask.
>
> If identity is a mask, then what does it cover?
In Nik's case, an off-white void with a sentimental rose pattern.
DMH
>
>
barrett john erickson
>To simply proclaim identity as a
> mask is - as per usual in Nik's hastily spewed "ideas" - a cynical and
> dismissive sub-notion.
or perhaps a submissive dis-notion.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
dale houstman
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:HCd24.2141$Sz5.2...@ptah.visi.com...
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:82bj5h$lvb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> >To simply proclaim identity as a
> > mask is - as per usual in Nik's hastily spewed "ideas" - a cynical and
> > dismissive sub-notion.
>
>
> or perhaps a submissive dis-notion.
>
>
More results of Nik's "Everything Is True" Pillosophy:
Nik is a dead marine's dream of a rose-encrusted outhouse.
Nik drinks shit from his Robot Mother's rubber "Nikky Spout."
Nik's the skinned kin of a skunk coma.
Nik's Ottawa's answer to the question "What's more wothless than a headless
head?"
Nik is Displeasure's Tumor. This is just a rumor.
If Walt Disney's frozen carcass mated with a broken desk lamp the baby would
be smarter
than Nik.
Nik has sentimental syphilis.
EVERYTHING IS TRUE!!
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
"dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> More results of Nik's "Everything Is True" Pillosophy:
I suppose the quickest way to cut through Dale's misunderstanding of my
statement "everything is true" is to change the wording of the idea oh so
very slightly.
"Approach all experiences and all ideas as though everything is true."
(I bet if I looked through Andre Breton's own works, I could find him
saying something close to the above.)
I think even Dale would probably agree with the usefulness of this notion,
although it doesn't seem to be a concept he believes in. (He's got too
much of an ego to live this way.) The sentiment is quite in keeping with
what surrealists are supposed to believe in. Keep an open mind,
experience everything without bias, etc.
Behaving as though all things are true results in a childlike
open-mindedness, making all experiences marvellous and wonderful. Believe
in magic, ghosts, monsters, and doors that lead to other dimensions. At
the exact same time, don't believe in any of it. Believe everything all
at once, if you can.
In my way of speaking, saying "everything is true" and "behave as though
everything is true" is more or less the same thing. It's unfortunate that
my lack of distinction between these two statements has filled Dale with
some weird bitterness. I have never seen someone hold on to an idea for
so long, shaking it between their teeth for MONTHS now. I have to admit
that surrealists like Dale -- who seem hyper rational and hyper logical,
unable to bend their minds around the very concepts they are supposed to
be believing in -- make me laugh.
Isn't the following, after all, what Dale is saying?
"How can we believe EVERYTHING is true, Nik? That isn't logical or
rational or reasonable! If everything is true, then a skunk is a turkey,
and we should carve it up for Christmas dinner, ignoring the smell!"
Right, Dale. Isn't that the way a surrealist should behave? Shouldn't a
surrealist consider carving skunks for Christmas dinner? Isn't this an
essential component of surrealism? Isn't the image of a skunk for
Christmas dinner a beautiful one? Let go of the rational, logical, and
reasonable side of your brain, and think intuitively for a moment. If we
walk around NOT believing that "everything is true", we miss out on the
wonder that a skunk for Christmas dinner really is.
Ah well. If someone would be so kind as to quote the entirety of this
message, then Dale will read it, and perhaps he can find something else to
mock other than this one belief of mine. Or maybe it would be more fun to
leave him in the dark. Let him spend the rest of his life not
understanding, constantly making idiotic jokes about "everything is true!"
"Everything is true! Then dogs are cats and I'm the king of Spain, Nik!
Hahahaha!"
It's like Dale's desperately trying to prove to the world just how much of
a surrealist he isn't.
dale houstman
kristina <starf...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:82cijd$1l0$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
>
> barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> news:HCd24.2141$Sz5.2...@ptah.visi.com...
> > "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:82bj5h$lvb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >To simply proclaim identity as a
> > > mask is - as per usual in Nik's hastily spewed "ideas" - a cynical and
> > > dismissive sub-notion.
> >
> >
> > or perhaps a submissive dis-notion.
>
him
> out, in private of course, and only if she discusses it with close friends
> and family afterwards....damn, sure wish I was related!!! ha ha ha).
>
> kristina
> (still trying to communicate)
At least your communication problems are merely mechanical, rather than the
cognitive "thirty miles of bumpy road" that represents Nik's puerile
amusement pork.
DMH
elag
When I watch a Film based on the existance of magic I believe in magic
for the duration of the film, even though I don't come anywhere near
actually believing in it.
<sneeep>
>
> "Everything is true! Then dogs are cats and I'm the king of Spain, Nik!
> Hahahaha!"
<sneeep>
elag
> >> > All identity is a mask.
>
> > If identity is a mask, then what does it cover?
>
Too late...
elag
I replied to heaps of posts yesterday, and at least two rather
> straight forward responses to Mags post, (which I thought was somewhat banal
> and illustrated too well WHAT I've been talking about in the first
> place)...but they never showed up! Damn computer-internet is not working.
> I think jesus is dressing the nuns while sifting through how many times I
> say "cock"......it engorges him...damn the hypocrisy of censorship! I'd
> rather like an engrossment right now.....conversations are tiresome when you
> are re-posting the same thing fifty times....talking to your self.
So I says to myself... self I says... self you're selfish... selfish...I
say selfish... and far too fond of shellfish... If I do say so myself.
elag
>
> (this is the third time I'm posting this, lets hope it fucking works this
> morning!)
FYI, this is the 3rd time I'm seeing this... I at least am being served.
Brandon J. Freels
> perhaps Nik needs a damn good engorged spanking! (maybe Mags will help
him
> out, in private of course, and only if she discusses it with close friends
> and family afterwards....damn, sure wish I was related!!! ha ha ha).
Or perhaps Nik simply needs a damn good enema.
kristina
news:82acip$dt1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Yes. I agree with you, Kristina. Women are the more oppressive to
> other women. On Usenet it's probably some tired parody of so-called
> 'real' life.
> IRL I mostly watch the competition--and machinations--of other women
> trying to prevent 'their man' or 'their partner' from looking elsewhere,
> and I haven't spotted the 'sisterhood' in years.
This is a really unfortunate hang over from growing up. My mother was so
traditional in regards to relationships, and mostly incredibly unhappy in
her marital-so-called-bliss, it was somewhat confronting growing up and
trying to make sense of why adults do what they do...(stay in unhealthy
relationships). Obviously this was a learning point, and also through
personal experiences we get a deeper awareness (one would hope) of what we
"need" so to speak.
I can't think of the right word here to describe the horrible feeling I have
when faced with a woman who thinks I want her man...it's like the setting
ground, or stone that defines the friendship, or lack of that I have with
her. Everything is false and the air of suspicion and neurosis is
overwhelmingly hard to get past....
> In real life I first had this melodrama thrust on me in fifth grade,
> when the Campfire Girls troop leader began being a poisonous bag because
> her husband liked to talk to me. She was noxious, that is, to me, and
> all in front of the other kids; all was sunny and peachy in her attitude
> toward the old breadwinner. He wasn't some creepy old perv, he was
> probably just bored and I was an iconoclast, who made faces and read
> during the godawful troop meetings my mother made me go to.
Yeah, been there too...
> In high school a boy, 'Rik', wouldn't leave me alone, and finally, after
> 'suffering' in silence, I slugged him.
Ha ha ha, there used to be this kid in grade two for me, his name was
Darrell and he would sit and stare at me for the whole day, it was fucking
creepy actually. I was not interested, it was my earliest experience of
being "stalked". ha ha ha....he had these huge looking eyes, and millions
upon millions of freckles, he looked like a great speckled fly on the
carpet, with his tongue hanging out ready to lick me dead like a lizard....I
can still remember it vividly. (makes me smile now).
> In college the women were so competitive for 'husbands', professors'
> praise, the highest mark (even by one stinking point), etc., that I
> gave up the rebel tactics and didn't attempt tackling their seemingly
> immovable system.
This makes me think of another interesting area: "competetion amongst
women". Perhaps somewhat off topic, but relevant and connected I guess all
the same. God little girls step aside for their friends, and don't shake
the boat too much...only to their own detriment. Who fucking taught us this
crap anyway??? Who do I kill?
> So, any recommendations?
> But obviously, whatever any woman who's different, or for that matter
> any 'special' man 'is' to the outside world, hoards of jealous people
> won't like it and often their biggest desire is to say so, not to wake
> you up, but to 'make' you feel lousy so they feel less pathetic. We
> might be so busy fighting with each other that we don't do anything
> about them. These people are obviously retarded but yes it all gets to
> be a headache.
Retarded is a good word to describe them, amongst others. Too many words
really would be applicable. I don't know, I think with time maybe this sort
of bullshit won't be so important to me, it is something that pops up from
time to time, and ruffles my feathers somewhat...
(it's late here tonight...probably way past my bedtime).
I'll stop here, before I write a whole essay on what I'm thinking
tonight...not pretty by any means, but then it doesn't have to be either
does it...
thanks.
kristina.
>
> Suggestion box below--
>
>
> --
> cythera
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
kristina
morning!)
(yesterday I said)......I'm re-posting this, sorry if it has arrived
twice.....more damn problems
with my computer here....kristina.
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
kristina
dead!!! this is a pain....
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
kristina
Well engorgement is a part of the posts yes (my patience is rather engorged
at present). I replied to heaps of posts yesterday, and at least two rather
straight forward responses to Mags post, (which I thought was somewhat banal
and illustrated too well WHAT I've been talking about in the first
place)...but they never showed up! Damn computer-internet is not working.
I think jesus is dressing the nuns while sifting through how many times I
say "cock"......it engorges him...damn the hypocrisy of censorship! I'd
rather like an engrossment right now.....conversations are tiresome when you
are re-posting the same thing fifty times....talking to your self.
kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
>
kristina
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:HCd24.2141$Sz5.2...@ptah.visi.com...
> >To simply proclaim identity as a
> > mask is - as per usual in Nik's hastily spewed "ideas" - a cynical and
> > dismissive sub-notion.
>
>
> or perhaps a submissive dis-notion.
perhaps Nik needs a damn good engorged spanking! (maybe Mags will help him
out, in private of course, and only if she discusses it with close friends
and family afterwards....damn, sure wish I was related!!! ha ha ha).
kristina
(still trying to communicate...)
Leo Sgouros
Appearances are deceiving, I do admit.
--
Choose mind control, often.
www.mkshadows.net
kristina <starf...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:82cijd$1l0$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
>
kristina
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Y9l24.13283$KV.7...@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
> Careful Kristina, it is bordering on fixation.
> Appearances are deceiving, I do admit.
ha ha ha...yes, you may be right, I am fixated with engorgements of all
shapes and sizes. (and I'm not talking about the physical kind)
I'm getting my nipples pierced tomorrow...any one care to comment on how
that makes me "sexually active"? ha ha ha...
Yes, Leo you are right, appearances are decieving, deliciously so, and
sometimes ironically as well...
ahhh, enough information for one day.
kristina.
kristina
elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3849D734...@concentric.net...
> kristina wrote:
> >
> > (this is the third time I'm posting this, lets hope it fucking works
this
> > morning!)
>
>
thank you for telling me...
kristina.
dale houstman
> This reminds me of the Cinematic concept of "suspending disbelief".
> When I watch a Film based on the existance of magic I believe in magic
> for the duration of the film, even though I don't come anywhere near
> actually believing in it.
>
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
> > "dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> > > More results of Nik's "Everything Is True" Pillosophy:
> >
> > I suppose the quickest way to cut through Dale's misunderstanding of my
> > statement "everything is true" is to change the wording of the idea oh
so
> > very slightly.
> >
> > "Approach all experiences and all ideas as though everything is true."
> >
The reason Nik's "ideas" are misunderstood - and he accidentally reveals
this himself by realizing he has to reword the phrase - is that he expresses
whatever they are supposed to be in the lamest language possible. So it is
by his own admission that he is incapable of expressing a clear thought.
DMH
dale houstman
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
>
> > "Approach all experiences and all ideas as though everything is true."
> >
> > saying something close to the above.)
Maybe - but your expressions of the idea have obfuscated its intent. At
any rate, Breton spends more time telling us that ALL ideas have to be
re-investigated, to be accepted or rejected according to scientific
scrutiny. This is NOT "approach all experences as though everything is
true." Why investigate at all then? Actually the scientific method teaches
us to approach all ideas as tentative, and to put everything to the test.
You are quite incorrect.
> >
> > I think even Dale would probably agree with the usefulness of this
notion,
> > although it doesn't seem to be a concept he believes in. (He's got too
> > much of an ego to live this way.)
No, I just like to live in a world that is marvelous yet real, rather than
in one where fairies float through your hair like dust bunnies in a tepid
breeze. I don't find the notion useful at all. In fact I find it to be
egotistical on your part. I like to believe that even my own ideas are
tentative and liable to be incorrect until they have been proven. If one
believes that everything is true - or even only approaches it in this
manner - all incentive to affirm actuality has been eliminiated, and ONLY
the ego remains to ascertain its reality. You've got it quite backwards, but
I think it's a good fit for you.
>The sentiment is quite in keeping with what surrealists are supposed to
believe in. Keep an >open mind, experience everything without bias, etc.
But to approach the world as if everything were true IS a bias; a bias in
favor of credulity and ignorance. An open mind is one that admits of fault,
not of pre-perfected assumption. What you are spouting no doubt satisfies a
deep need in you for pre-digested "events" but it really has nothing to do
with surrealists, because there is a reason why they spoke of the
"surrealist experiment" and it has to do precisely with this notion. Those
"complexities" you so loathed in Breton's writings are usually semantic
equivalents to constant testings of even his own thoughts. His texts are
actually replete with beautifully expressed insecurities about his own
ability to grasp he full breadth of an experience, NOT (as you so
incorrectly state) with naive "blowing sunshine up my own ass" blurts of
puerility and ego. You've already admitted - on many occasions - that you
find Breton impenetrable to your cognition, and yet you continue to expound
on him as if you have understood.
At any rate - if you really believe that you should approach experience and
ideas as if everything were possible why are you denying that I may be right
about the limpness of your ideas: isn't THAT also possible? Or are there
exceptions in this "everything?"
> >
> > Behaving as though all things are true results in a childlike
open-mindedness, making all >experiences marvellous and wonderful.
Quite honestly, you have a strange notion about childhood. Children DON'T
actually view the world this way at all. There is a very good reason why
children strike matches to burn certain animals, and break watches to look
inside: they are curious as to the reality of their world. Any magician will
tell you that it is adults who are the most credulous, and children who will
say out loud "he hid it in his hat!" Children are always searching for
fundamental causes behind things and processes. The classic "WHY WHY WHY" of
obnoxious children in itself puts the lie to your candy-coated crap.
>Believe in magic, ghosts, monsters, and doors that lead to other
dimensions. At
>the exact same time, don't believe in any of it. Believe everything all
> at once, if you can.
Total nonense: "approach everything as if it could be both possible and
impossible." Don't you ever want to test the validity of your beliefs, or is
being an idiot really quite enough for you?
> > In my way of speaking, saying "everything is true" and "behave as though
> > everything is true" is more or less the same thing.
>It's unfortunate that my lack of distinction between these two statements
has filled Dale with
> > some weird bitterness. I have never seen someone hold on to an idea for
> > so long, shaking it between their teeth for MONTHS now.
Actually - you little mook - you keep bringing it up. But now that you
have - here you admit that these two statements are the same! So how could
you have distinguished between? You foul your sense every time you post. You
muddy the water the fish in your brain can't breathe in. I am not bitter - I
am amused at your truly innocuous self-importance based on such little
reasoning.
>I have to admit that surrealists like Dale -- who seem hyper rational and
hyper logical
> > unable to bend their minds around the very concepts they are supposed to
> > be believing in -- make me laugh.
Show me in surrealism the passages that reveal that a belief in ghosts,
magic and monsters is a defining substance of surrealist thought. This is
total crap.
> >
> > Isn't the following, after all, what Dale is saying?
> >
> > "How can we believe EVERYTHING is true, Nik? That isn't logical or
> > rational or reasonable! If everything is true, then a skunk is a
turkey,
> > and we should carve it up for Christmas dinner, ignoring the smell!"
> >
> > Right, Dale. Isn't that the way a surrealist should behave? Shouldn't
a
> > surrealist consider carving skunks for Christmas dinner?
No... But I'd like to see you eat one alive... Or do you never follow
through on any of your beliefs? What a hollow tube toward a petty madness
that is.
>Isn't this an essential component of surrealism? Isn't the image of a
skunk for
> > Christmas dinner a beautiful one? Let go of the rational, logical, and
> > reasonable side of your brain, and think intuitively for a moment. If
we
> > walk around NOT believing that "everything is true", we miss out on the
> > wonder that a skunk for Christmas dinner really is.
You're such a tool of limited fantasy and trivial imagination. I've posted
my poetry here; you know - for a fact - that I do not have a
"hyper-rarional" consciousness. Your insistence that I do - in the face of
all evidence to the contrary - is quite alarming. I fear or your sanity...
Anyway why don't you approach everything I say as if it were a paean to your
superior being? Why don't you start putting your "philosophy" to the test"
eat some strychnine and pretend it's ice cream. Let me know the results of
this fine experiment.
DMH
kristina
> kristina wrote
> > perhaps Nik needs a damn good engorged spanking! (maybe Mags will help
> him
> > out, in private of course, and only if she discusses it with close
friends
> > and family afterwards....damn, sure wish I was related!!! ha ha ha).
>
stop it! Now you're just turning me on....!!! ha ha ha....
kristina.
>
>
>
Nikolaus Maack
"dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> The reason Nik's "ideas" are misunderstood - and he accidentally reveals
> this himself by realizing he has to reword the phrase - is that he expresses
> whatever they are supposed to be in the lamest language possible. So it is
> by his own admission that he is incapable of expressing a clear thought.
Translation: "Even when Nik is right, I still win."
*weary sigh*
Nikolaus Maack
"dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Maybe - but your expressions of the idea have obfuscated its intent. At
> any rate, Breton spends more time telling us that ALL ideas have to be
> re-investigated, to be accepted or rejected according to scientific
> scrutiny.
(Am I still in your killfile? If so, why are you writing me?)
So you're telling me that when Breton and friends started playing with
automatic writing, seances, and astrology, that it was all in the name of
"science"? It seems unlikely.
Breton talks about pursuing poetic truths, not scientific ones.
Presumably, if Breton were genuinely interested in science, he would have
finished his medical degree and become a doctor. Breton was very big on
the idea of living your life as though it were poetry. This comes from
his obsession of Rimbaud, right? But it was something he held to -- there
are POETIC truths, as opposed to scientific ones.
Approaching everything as though it were true does not mean shutting off
your critical faculties. Not entirely. I have said this before. Your
failure to understand that is what has been causing you to RANT on this
topic for many a moon.
Consider: why did Breton look at seances in the first place? Most
scientists consider this stuff hokum. So why look at it?
Breton thinks there is something in there. No, not necessarily ghosts,
but something. In other words, he approached it as though it were true,
but also not.
He kept his sense of wonder. Maybe there are poetic truths in this seance
room. Let's go inside and look for them.
Why do you think breton and friends went on walkabouts, looking for poetic
meaning in the world around them? Why do you think, when he saw a white
cockroach, Breton took it to be a sign, and was filled with terror?
Because for that moment, he was approaching reality as though everything
were true.
Approaching experience this way can be turned on or off. When the event
is over, then, as you said, we can tear the Mexican jumping bean apart to
see what's inside. The critical faculties stay intact. However,
initially, all events should be approached as though they have incredible
significance. All events should be approached as though they are TRUE,
capital T, R, U, E. As though they are messages from inside your own mind.
Then, THEN, only after, turn on the critical nature. After you experience
it with wonder, question it.
Does this help you make sense of what I am saying?
(Perhaps Elag will now quote this entire message so you can read it.)
> Actually the scientific method teaches
> us to approach all ideas as tentative, and to put everything to the test.
> You are quite incorrect.
Except that's what I've been saying. The key, in my mind, is in the
initial approach, the tenativeness. HERE is where the surrealist part
happens. Most people dismiss everything out of hand. "Seances are shit!"
But if we keep our eyes open to possibility, then we can explore it. Be
critical after, but be wide eyed and naive at the start.
> I like to believe that even my own ideas are
> tentative and liable to be incorrect until they have been proven. If one
> believes that everything is true - or even only approaches it in this
> manner - all incentive to affirm actuality has been eliminiated, and ONLY
> the ego remains to ascertain its reality.
Quite the opposite. If a crazy drunken homeless man approaches you on the
street, what do you do? Do you run away? Most people would. Without a
sense of wonder, most people would think, "Drunk, crazy man. No need to
talk to him. He has nothing of value to tell me."
Approaching the guy as though his reality is true, and has significance,
is a shedding of your own ego. His ideas are of equal worth to yours.
Maybe he really does have something of value to say.
So you talk to him. This way you get a NEW experience.
Something exciting and real.
Because the drunk is approaches with an "everything is true" sentiment,
your own ego is pushed to the background.
Later, after the experience, you can reassert your critical nature, if you
must. "Boy, he was a drunk, he smelled bad, and he was fairly
incoherent." But I think you'll find that, because you allowed yourself
to experience the situation, you'll find your critical nature slightly
changed as well. "You know, no one else talked to the guy. Everyone
walked past us as if neither of us existed. And he seemed so grateful,
just to have someone talk to him like he was a human being. And he kept
wanting to shake my hand, make that contact with me. How profoundly alone
he must be."
Do you see what I'm driving at?
> At any rate - if you really believe that you should approach experience and
> ideas as if everything were possible why are you denying that I may be right
> about the limpness of your ideas: isn't THAT also possible? Or are there
> exceptions in this "everything?"
Of course it is. But you're not saying anything. You're merely being
skeptical. Your approach appears to be one of, "Let's prove Nik wrong."
There isn't anything useful, there isn't anything I can bite into, when
you communicate in this manner.
A man with beliefs says, "The world is round."
The skeptic says, "No it's not."
Can the man of belief accept the perspective of the skeptic for a while,
consider the skeptic's point of view? No, because all the skeptic has
said, is, "No, the world is not round," leaving nothing to believe in.
If, on the other hand, the skeptic said, "The world is not round, it's
flat," then there is an experience that the man of belief can try
believing in.
If you were offering me an alternative, instead of merely telling me
"You're wrong," then I'd give believing in your ideas a shot.
> You're such a tool of limited fantasy and trivial imagination. I've posted
> my poetry here; you know - for a fact - that I do not have a
> "hyper-rarional" consciousness. Your insistence that I do - in the face of
> all evidence to the contrary - is quite alarming. I fear or your sanity...
You play with big words, not ideas. You say things at random, and think
they are pretty merely because they are random. There is nothing
particularly poetic in this. In my opinion, your attempts at being
"irrational" are actually a ruse. You're still hyper-rational.
Hell, you're promoting science in your response to me! Science, not poetry.
Do you ever approach your own random poetry streams critically, after
you've written them? A number of your random streams seem to be about
sex. In fact, almost all of them seem to eventually lead to a description
of a naked woman. Do you ever ask yourself why this might be?
I'm not suggesting that you're sexist, so much as under sexed, or sex
obsessed. Is this a possibility?
> Why don't you start putting your "philosophy" to the test"
> eat some strychnine and pretend it's ice cream. Let me know the results of
> this fine experiment.
I might pour myself a bowl of strychnine, and pretend it's ice cream. But
I'd probably stop and think about it critically before I eat it. I
suspect you'd never so much as buy strychnine for poetic purposes, and in
this, I feel pity for you.
Morpheal
"kristina" <starf...@start.com.au> wrote:
> > > (this is the third time I'm posting this, lets hope it fucking
works this morning!)
> > FYI, this is the 3rd time I'm seeing this... I at least am being
served.
> thank you for telling me...
> kristina.
Everything seems to happen in threes.
That probably means that every three of anything
will repeat three times. And every one of those
again three times....
And soon we will have created a whole universe
in which the only truly sacred shape is the triangle.
--
Bob Ezergailis morp...@bserv.com Canada
kristina
> <snip for now>
>
> were You in my family? where'd they hide you?
Cythera, I know what you mean...I used to ask myself the same question. I
often thought that I MUST have been adopted, and that my parents just
weren't real...perhaps some of it is true...it always makes more sense when
you grow up into a well adjusted cynical human beaver. As it does now...
kristina.
>
> --
> cythera
Fascinan
>in which the only truly sacred shape is the triangle.
And, the ritual behaviour surrounding the triangle will become overblown.
Sects of the Great Three will become divided, and all will lose connection to
the symbolic power of the triangle. The Trianglo-Saxons will invade the lands
of indigenous people; all will assimilate, learning to forget the heart while
accepting commodity and commodity's wave of collusion.
"Awww, dog gone it Jerry, quit breakin down my door man!"
kristina
Morpheal <morp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82ev5t$b81$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <82cpas$2tq$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
> "kristina" <starf...@start.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > (this is the third time I'm posting this, lets hope it fucking
> works this morning!)
>
> > > FYI, this is the 3rd time I'm seeing this... I at least am being
> served.
>
> > thank you for telling me...
> > kristina.
>
> Everything seems to happen in threes.
>
> That probably means that every three of anything
> will repeat three times. And every one of those
> again three times....
I fucking hope not...at that rate I shall be hung up by the toes by the
group for re-sending constantly. i have given in to the internet's little
fitfull gestures of affection towards me, and we have an understanding that
if a message doesn't get posted through, my internet kisses me five times
with honey text shaped like letters of "alt.surrealism"....
kristina.
>
> And soon we will have created a whole universe
> in which the only truly sacred shape is the triangle.
>
> --
> Bob Ezergailis morp...@bserv.com Canada
>
>
Galactor5
>> > > (this is the third time I'm posting this, lets hope it fucking
>works this morning!)
>
>> > FYI, this is the 3rd time I'm seeing this... I at least am being
>served.
>
>> thank you for telling me...
>> kristina.
>
>Everything seems to happen in threes.
>
>That probably means that every three of anything
>will repeat three times. And every one of those
>again three times....
>
>in which the only truly sacred shape is the triangle.
>
Have you been reading Pythagorams again?
kristina
news:82e64a$11l$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
[snipped a whole section]
Nik says:
> Breton thinks there is something in there. No, not necessarily ghosts,
> but something. In other words, he approached it as though it were true,
> but also not.
True but not true? what exactly is that supposed to imply?
> He kept his sense of wonder. Maybe there are poetic truths in this seance
> room. Let's go inside and look for them.
>
> Why do you think breton and friends went on walkabouts, looking for poetic
> meaning in the world around them? Why do you think, when he saw a white
> cockroach, Breton took it to be a sign, and was filled with terror?
Fuck, you make Breton sound like some little fairy air-head who walked about
"looking" for poetics....hot damn!!! It's interesting how you can reduce a
thinking and adventurous highly intellectual, creative person to such meager
little wonderless visions....breathing must be hard for you Nik!
>
> Because for that moment, he was approaching reality as though everything
> were true.
Prove it! You are always going on about this so-called "truth" of yours. I
really don't think you can jeep saying this, without elaborating on WHAT it
is you are REALLY talking about. Or are you planning on starting your own
cult of "true but not true, but true nevertheless".....???
>
> Approaching experience this way can be turned on or off. When the event
> is over, then, as you said, we can tear the Mexican jumping bean apart to
> see what's inside. The critical faculties stay intact. However,
> initially, all events should be approached as though they have incredible
> significance. All events should be approached as though they are TRUE,
> capital T, R, U, E. As though they are messages from inside your own
mind.
This is the biggest load of shite I've read all day...what you are
advocating here, in my opinion goes against "surrealism". IF YOU have to
approach everything in such a way, you are pushing aside all other possible
outcomes and responses in life, and this is pertinent to surrealism, for me.
I don't think you understand this though...You say: "All events should be
approached as if they are true?" Why, tell me why this is a way to approach
life? And WHAT am I going to gain from this "overly-repressed and self
concious excercise"?
>
> Then, THEN, only after, turn on the critical nature. After you experience
> it with wonder, question it.
This is ridiculous too. Questioning before or after or during.....they
occur simultaneously, and if you have a reasonably unlimited approach, this
is an AUTOMATIC way of life. There is no designated area or time frame in
which we question. Again, it sounds rather contrived...
> Does this help you make sense of what I am saying?
No, it's just the same box from you all over again.
> If you were offering me an alternative, instead of merely telling me
> "You're wrong," then I'd give believing in your ideas a shot.
Fucking bullshit you would! Alot of people here have offered everything
from the personal to the more intellectual, to the deeper aspects of
communication, and yet, you have not outstretched yourself even a millimetre
in the time I've been here. Nothing has changed with you, you are just the
same old stories...
> You play with big words, not ideas. You say things at random, and think
> they are pretty merely because they are random. There is nothing
> particularly poetic in this. In my opinion, your attempts at being
> "irrational" are actually a ruse. You're still hyper-rational.
You have no idea do you poor little Nik...
> Hell, you're promoting science in your response to me! Science, not
poetry.
> Do you ever approach your own random poetry streams critically, after
> you've written them? A number of your random streams seem to be about
> sex. In fact, almost all of them seem to eventually lead to a description
> of a naked woman. Do you ever ask yourself why this might be?
ha ha ha, do you ever ask yoursself why you are about as charming as a brand
new k-mart carpet? You might like to try it sometime...you lack wit, charm
and sensuality.
> I'm not suggesting that you're sexist, so much as under sexed, or sex
> obsessed. Is this a possibility?
I'm tired of this fascination with sex. If you insist on discussing sex,
can you at least make it interesting, as opposed to purely dull and
defensive? I doubt you even know how to!
> I might pour myself a bowl of strychnine, and pretend it's ice cream. But
> I'd probably stop and think about it critically before I eat it. I
> suspect you'd never so much as buy strychnine for poetic purposes, and in
> this, I feel pity for you.
Ha ha ha.....pitiful nik, yes, there is no doubt about that. But I reserve
my pity for the mule next door! Oh so you wouldn't get into the strychnine
first without thinking about it? didn't you just say up further in the
post, that all things should be approached with wonder, experienced and
thought about later? ha ha ha....you are too much!!! ...go ahead, I'll
second that, prove it!
You are so into criticising some of the others here, and going on about how
some dislike you, but you really do bring it upon yourself. I think your
"I"m so good and better than you" attitudes come through really well....
kristina.
Nikolaus Maack
"kristina" (starf...@start.com.au) writes:
> True but not true? what exactly is that supposed to imply?
The cryptic messages of dreams, which I do not understand, are not in code
and are easy for me to understand.
What is poetry, Kristina?
Breton and his friends decided to wander through Paris, without direction,
without purpose. They found it difficult to deliberately be aimless. Aim
kept creeping into their decisions. Everything they encountered became
significant. Everything was rife with meaning. This tended to make them
very paranoid. They jumped at the sight of their own shadows. Breton
decided to call off the experiment because he was worried about where it
was going.
I read about the above in a biography of Andre Breton. In my mind, it
accurately describes a state of mind I'm trying to promote. It has its
uses, and, obviously, it has a historical basis in surrealism.
So what are you talking about?
> You say: "All events should be
> approached as if they are true?" Why, tell me why this is a way to approach
> life? And WHAT am I going to gain from this "overly-repressed and self
> concious excercise"?
In your response to my message, you cut out the section where I describe
talking to a drunken homeless man. It was a good example of the benefits.
> I'm tired of this fascination with sex. If you insist on discussing sex,
> can you at least make it interesting, as opposed to purely dull and
> defensive? I doubt you even know how to!
I recently read an article in BITCH magazine, which my girlfriend reads,
that talked about women having their genitals surgically altered for
cosmetic purposes. It was profoundly disturbing. Some women have their
labia cut off, trimmed, puffed. The pubic fat is sculpted, reshaped. The
hair is removed. Wrinkles in the labia are burnt out. All sorts of
bizarre horrors.
The desired result, the author noted, are genitals that look like those of
a twelve year old girl.
Many women seem to be convinced that their genitals are ugly and abnormal.
They seem to base this conclusion on pornographic magazines and heresay.
For some reason this reminds me of the pussy colouring book I saw in a
strange comic book store. Many drawings of female genitals, each
different, that you can colour. Based on the genital surgery article I
read, many women might benefit from owning such a colouring book.
There was one medical mishap described in the article where a woman's cunt
caught gangrene, and she had to have most of her genitals removed. The
idea makes me shiver in revulsion.
One of the most interesting sex acts I ever had took place in a hotel
room, in downtown Ottawa. The woman could orgasm just from penetration.
This amazed me. She more or less wanted to skip foreplay altogether.
Sticking it in was what she wanted.
She came several times, just from straight sex. I was holding back my own
orgasm, as I usually do with a new partner, because I wanted to satisfy
her before I came. She was exhausted, and I hadn't come yet. We ended up
going to sleep in seperate beds -- she said she couldn't sleep with
someone next to her. I lay there, still hard, marvelling over the
experience.
I have never met a woman so orgasmic before or since.
>I think your
>"I"m so good and better than you" attitudes come through really well....
I am better than you. You are also better than me.
dale houstman
coat-tailing again!
Nik spittled:
> >
> > Approaching experience this way can be turned on or off.
But this is precisely where your vapid incoherency breaks down: if you
approach an experience AS IF it were already true (whatever this could
possibly mean!) there is no incentive to discover otherwise: i.e. you remain
ignorant. If you can turn it "off and on" then you are not approaching
experience as truth but as potential, which is an entirely different matter,
and the one which the mexican jumping bean story actually illustrates.
Potentiality is poetic (as is science) in a way that "Truth" is never:
poetry asserts its energies through automatic responses, now the paralyzing
preconception of "Truth." We have already discussed your miscomprehension of
the childhood state, in which your madly crude dualisms have little sway.
Potential, Nik, capital P, O, T, E, N, T, I, A, L. This is not "truth." Your
language betrays your ineptitude.
>When the event is over, then, as you said, we can tear the Mexican jumping
bean apart to
> > see what's inside. The critical faculties stay intact. However,
> > initially, all events should be approached as though they have
incredible
> > significance. All events should be approached as though they are TRUE,
> > capital T, R, U, E. As though they are messages from inside your own
> mind.
What is the matter with you, capital Y, O, U? The process you are describing
is NOT the one you have been promoting. And please explain to me how
informed curiousity and incredible significance are mutally exclusive.
Dualism has led you to a deadend: something (for you) must be TRUE or
UN-TRUE; the "truth" is one should advance upon experience in a state that
precludes advocations of TRUTH. Your philosophy is confounded by your
intriguing inability to give life to it through language. First you speak of
TRUTH then naive wonder, then doing it all with "critical faculties intact"
and so on: all different states which you seem unable or unwilling to
separate. The Cloud of Unknowing indeed!
> > If you were offering me an alternative, instead of merely telling me
> > "You're wrong," then I'd give believing in your ideas a shot.
Why don't you assume that they are TRUE, capital T, R, U, E? As for giving
my ideas a shot, you must realize your advocacy of them would make me
question their veracity. There isn't a rotting idea in the world that you
seem unwilling to rub your shitty little housefly feet upon.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
"dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Dualism has led you to a deadend: something (for you) must be TRUE or
> UN-TRUE
No, no, no. Something must be 1) true, 2) false, or 3) both at the same
time. And if I have a preference, I'd say that I tend to prefer when
things are both true and false simultaneously, so I go out of my way to
make sure things sit in this third category.
In other words, I'm using the words TRUE and FALSE in a poetic,
metaphorical way, and for some reason you seem unable to understand this.
Oh well.
It's just like the time when Kristina got mad because I said, "Listen to
the silence to determine what kind of silence it is."
"But silence doesn't make a sound! How can I listen to it?"
In this case I'm saying, "I prefer when things are true and false at the
exact same time."
And you respond: "You're stuck in a dualism! Things have to be either
TRUE or FALSE for you!"
Except I've stated repeatedly that the statement "Everything is true" also
includes the statement "Everything is false", which means that
both words, POW! become meaningless on a logical level. But as this
happens, they become meaningful on a metaphorical level.
Really, all I am saying -- just in a poetic way that seems to grate on
your soul -- is keep an open mind.
It bothers me that I can't get you (or Kristina, or Brandon) to understand
this level of communication. Poetic metaphor. Ah well.
> There isn't a rotting idea in the world that you
> seem unwilling to rub your shitty little housefly feet upon.
Ideas are like hats. We should try all of them on. In fact, it's fun to
try them all on. Going around in life with one hat, insisting that it is
THE hat, is stupid.
Nikolaus Maack
cythera (luk...@earthlink.net) writes:
> I was CONVINCED I was adopted, until, in my late teens,
> mother in disgust foraged for the birth certificate, the paper with
> the tiny footprints, etc., and shoved them in my face. A few days
> later I began to smoke pot.
I laughed out loud at this. Fun-knee.
During my adolescence, I was briefly convinced I was from outer space. I
noticed that the number-letter combination "x-13" appeared around me quite
a bit -- in science fiction stories, in my own writing, etc -- and I
assumed it was a telepathic message from my real alien parents. They'd
dropped me off on earth as an experiment, and were going to come and get
me soon, take me away from all of this mad earthling stupidity. We'd
spend the next six months going over the data I'd collected, and write a
book about earth culture.
I walked around a lot, looking at the sky, waiting for this to be rescued.
Everytime it didn't happen, I was extremely disappointed.
I think during puberty, we all go a little mad.
Nikolaus Maack
"kristina" (starf...@start.com.au) writes:
> what I said was "you can't listen to another's silence" as it is for them.
> We can try and imagine or assume, presume what it means, (if you are that
> way inclined, I am not), but we can't really listen to another's silence and
> grasp in all entirety what that means for the individual. This is what I
> said, very clearly and concisely as well...it is not my fault that you do
> not bother to read it and fully grasp its simplicity...
Where on earth did I say you can "grasp in all entirety what that means
for the individual" by listening to their silence? I don't think this is
possible when listening to someone who isn't silent.
If the above is what you meant, when we spoke on this before, it's
certainly not what you said. Or, at least, you didn't state it clearly.
I've gone and had a peek in Deja News, and what you actually said was:
>You can't listen to the silence of another...that is impossible. You can
>imagine what your own silence says to you, if you listen, but what you
>propose here is just not 'possible'. That is what I call 'assumption'.
>Very nasty thing at times.
Which is pretty unclear.
I went on to explain "listening" to non-verbal cues, body-language, and
even "extra textual features" of internet communication, in order to get a
feel for what the other person is thinking or feeling. (I didn't mean to
imply somehow totally understanding them with mystic clairity.)
When I was finished clarifying, you said:
> Your clarification does help, and I do agree with you Nik.
Now back to modern times:
>> In this case I'm saying, "I prefer when things are true and false at the
>> exact same time."
>
> this is just NOT possible if you ask me.
Is Mr. Shroedinger's cat in the box dead or alive? What is the state of
information you don't have access to? If all you have is opinion X, and
all your friend has is opinion Y, but neither of you has the facts, which
opinion is true, and which is false?
These are but a few examples in a potential list of many. And I think, if
we're honest with ourselves, we live more in a world of wishy-washy
opinion (factlessness) than a world made up of truths.
> You mis-quoted me and
> simplified it to your own understanding,
Not exactly. I worked with what you gave me, no more, no less.
Brandon J. Freels
> And if I have a preference, I'd say that I tend to prefer when things are
both true and
> metaphorical way . . . they become meaningful on a metaphorical level.
Idealist bullshit. Pathetic. If this is true, that you prefer things when
they are both true and false, then this statement is equally false. You can
say nothing that holds any value, for if it will be both true and false,
i.e. meaningless. You are both lying and being honest. Making vague
pseudo-philosophical comments would be useless to you, if you really did
prefer things when they are both true and false, and you would just shut up
and leave the newsgroup. I think you are a sophist, and just full of shit.
That's exclusively true. And how are you using these words in a poetic,
metaphorical way? They are a metaphor for what? What are you *secretly*
referring to? How does the use of metaphor make something more meaningful?
The irony, Nik, is that you've never said anything that is exclusively
thought provoking. I've heard so many "doped-up high school drop-outs turned
white trash pseudo-Buddhists" say the exact same stupid bullshit that's
pouring out of your finger tips, and its making me rather sick to my stomach
to think your intelligence has dwindled this much. Sure, okay, everything is
true. Where do you go from there? Sure, okay, true and false are the same.
Where do you go from there? I don't want to play your game, Nik. I'm not
interested in playing with logic, or turning it back on itself. You may be
manipulating the prison guards to fight amongst themselves, but you are
still in the prison.
Brandon J. Freels
talking about?
It seems to me that Nik is using these terms in a rather general way to
which they mean almost nothing. If he was truly [no pun intended] using
these words metaphorically, they would be standing as symbols for something.
So tell us Nik, what do you "really" mean by "true and false"? Try
separating what you mean to say from what you have actually said.
Maybe he needs a little brushing up on his English, or possibly he is using
the word "metaphor" as a metaphor for something else . . . no wonder he has
communication problems.
METAPHOR
A word which does not precisely or literally refer to the entity to which it
is supposed to refer. Metaphors are sometimes thought to exist only in works
of literature, but is actually prevalent in language in general. One engages
in the metaphorical use of language, for instance, when one says that one is
feeling 'down'.
[from http://www.ablemedia.com/ctcweb/index2.html ]
***
FALSE
Not according with truth or reality; not true; fitted or likely to deceive
or disappoint; as, a false statement.
[from http://www.graylab.ac.uk/omd/index.html ]
You see Nik, "false" does actually mean something. Don't tell me, now you're
going to explain how "nothing" and "something" are really the same thing . .
. SHIT!
dale houstman
> Nik claims he is using "true and false" metaphorically. What the hell is
he
> talking about? It seems to me that Nik is using these terms in a rather
general way to
> which they mean almost nothing.
This is just a truism: People who go about talking errant and abstracted
nonsense such as "everything is true/everything is false" are trying to
cover up for a rather loose habit of mind by claiming no thought is possible
because all thought is possible. Nik is stuck inside his self-defined hell
of self-replicating tautological diarrhea. He probably is so deluded that he
thinks he is being productive when he says such crap, and (oddly enough)
everyone misunderstands him AGAIN and AGAIN! Personally - as I said - I
think he is an entirely new species of troll in that he is convinced of his
statements although they have no weight in the least. The guy is frankly at
a total loss to comprehend art, surrealism, or even the simplest aspects of
an open-ended conversation leading to consensus or understanding: his
rhetoric disallows movement of any kind. He will never see this, because
blindness to it is crucial to his delusion. I doubt if Nik truly understands
what a metaphor is: he appears to use it as a synonym for "abstract
presentation" or "shoddy thought."
> So tell us Nik, what do you "really" mean by "true and false"?
He has said it again and again: they are the same thing and they mean
nothing. I think that clears it up pretty well.
DMH
kristina
>
> "dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> > Dualism has led you to a deadend: something (for you) must be TRUE or
> > UN-TRUE
>
> No, no, no. Something must be 1) true, 2) false, or 3) both at the same
> time. And if I have a preference, I'd say that I tend to prefer when
> things are both true and false simultaneously, so I go out of my way to
> make sure things sit in this third category.
>
> In other words, I'm using the words TRUE and FALSE in a poetic,
> metaphorical way, and for some reason you seem unable to understand this.
> Oh well.
>
> It's just like the time when Kristina got mad because I said, "Listen to
> the silence to determine what kind of silence it is."
bullshit!
>
> "But silence doesn't make a sound! How can I listen to it?"
what I said was "you can't listen to another's silence" as it is for them.
We can try and imagine or assume, presume what it means, (if you are that
way inclined, I am not), but we can't really listen to another's silence and
grasp in all entirety what that means for the individual. This is what I
said, very clearly and concisely as well...it is not my fault that you do
not bother to read it and fully grasp its simplicity...
>
> In this case I'm saying, "I prefer when things are true and false at the
> exact same time."
this is just NOT possible if you ask me. I don't care anymore either...
> And you respond: "You're stuck in a dualism! Things have to be either
> TRUE or FALSE for you!"
>
> Except I've stated repeatedly that the statement "Everything is true" also
> includes the statement "Everything is false", which means that
> both words, POW! become meaningless on a logical level. But as this
> happens, they become meaningful on a metaphorical level.
>
> Really, all I am saying -- just in a poetic way that seems to grate on
> your soul -- is keep an open mind.
>
> It bothers me that I can't get you (or Kristina, or Brandon) to understand
> this level of communication. Poetic metaphor. Ah well.
I don't understand, I must INDEED be a moron, I can live with that...
>
> > There isn't a rotting idea in the world that you
> > seem unwilling to rub your shitty little housefly feet upon.
>
> Ideas are like hats. We should try all of them on. In fact, it's fun to
> try them all on. Going around in life with one hat, insisting that it is
> THE hat, is stupid.
no one insists this, you mis-represent the views and thoughts of what we are
talking about when we disagree with an idea of yours. You mis-quoted me and
simplified it to your own understanding, and of course, you insist on going
on with the same true is true, and it's also simultaneously, all at once
false, lets try every friggin hat in the world idea. Okay, go ahead
Nik....it is really your choice, no skin off my nose...but when you post
something to the newsgroup, it is open for debate, conversation etc....be
prepared for the fact (truth) that not everyone will agree with you, or see
the merit in your words, as they currently stand in this posting.
kristina
> In article <82er1h$jrc$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
> "kristina" <starf...@start.com.au> wrote:
> > cythera <luk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:82elh9$4sj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > <snip for now>
> > >
> > > were You in my family? where'd they hide you?
> >
> > Cythera, I know what you mean...I used to ask myself the same
> question. I
> > often thought that I MUST have been adopted
>
> mother in disgust foraged for the birth certificate, the paper with
> the tiny footprints, etc., and shoved them in my face. A few days
> later I began to smoke pot.
I'm rather lame compared to that, I just took up smoking...the rest did
follow rather quickly upon their break up though...ahh life is tough when
you seek out as much trouble as you possibly can.....a curious nature is
somewhat exciting nonetheless....leads to all sorts of mischief! And a
dollop of cleaning in between. A lesson in there somewhere, fucked if I
know what it is though...
kristina.
>
>
>
> and that my parents just
> > weren't real...perhaps some of it is true...it always makes more sense
> when
> > you grow up into a well adjusted cynical human beaver. :) As it does
> now...
> > kristina.
> > >
> > > --
> I
>
>
> cythera
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> cythera
kristina
>
> "kristina" (starf...@start.com.au) writes:
> > what I said was "you can't listen to another's silence" as it is for
them.
> > We can try and imagine or assume, presume what it means, (if you are
that
> > way inclined, I am not), but we can't really listen to another's silence
and
> > grasp in all entirety what that means for the individual. This is what
I
> > said, very clearly and concisely as well...it is not my fault that you
do
> > not bother to read it and fully grasp its simplicity...
>
> for the individual" by listening to their silence? I don't think this is
> possible when listening to someone who isn't silent.
>
> If the above is what you meant, when we spoke on this before, it's
> certainly not what you said. Or, at least, you didn't state it clearly.
> I've gone and had a peek in Deja News, and what you actually said was:
>
> >You can't listen to the silence of another...that is impossible. You can
> >imagine what your own silence says to you, if you listen, but what you
> >propose here is just not 'possible'. That is what I call 'assumption'.
> >Very nasty thing at times.
>
> Which is pretty unclear.
No it isn't unclear. It says basically the same thing. "you can't listen
to the silence of another". Simply put, means the same thing.
>
> I went on to explain "listening" to non-verbal cues, body-language, and
> even "extra textual features" of internet communication, in order to get a
> feel for what the other person is thinking or feeling. (I didn't mean to
> imply somehow totally understanding them with mystic clairity.)
>
> When I was finished clarifying, you said:
>
> > Your clarification does help, and I do agree with you Nik.
yes, the reason I picked up on this in your post yesterday was because you
said that I had said:
>>>>>>>"But silence doesn't make a sound! How can I listen to it?"<<<<<<<
which is not something I ever would have said in such simple terms....so I
pointed it out. (You mis-represented and mis-quoted something I said, what
more needs be said on that matter?.....not much I don't think).
>
> Now back to modern times:
>
> >> In this case I'm saying, "I prefer when things are true and false at
the
> >> exact same time."
> >
> > this is just NOT possible if you ask me.
>
> Is Mr. Shroedinger's cat in the box dead or alive? What is the state of
> information you don't have access to? If all you have is opinion X, and
> all your friend has is opinion Y, but neither of you has the facts, which
> opinion is true, and which is false?
The cat is either dead OR alive. It most certainly cannot be BOTH. So your
argument doesn't work here. It might be sleeping, it might have broken
ribs, it might be having fanatsies about mocca coffee, or cocoa. Whatever,
but it is either dead OR alive, one or the other. It can't be both....if
it's BREATHING, it is alive for fucks sake. Are you telling me you don't
know the difference between something that is dead and something that is
alive?
>
> These are but a few examples in a potential list of many. And I think, if
> we're honest with ourselves, we live more in a world of wishy-washy
> opinion (factlessness) than a world made up of truths.
Don't agree with this. Again, you apply one train of thought such as this
to all of life.
>
> > You mis-quoted me and
> > simplified it to your own understanding,
>
> Not exactly. I worked with what you gave me, no more, no less.
whatever Nik.....onto other things.
Nikolaus Maack
"kristina" (starf...@start.com.au) writes:
> Are you telling me you don't
> know the difference between something that is dead and something that is
> alive?
Yes, that's what I'm telling you. I often mistake dead people for lives
ones and vice-versa. This gets very embarrassing at funerals, for
example, when I point at the widow, and whisper to the corpse, "She looks
very life-like, very peaceful."
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
>How does the use of metaphor make something more meaningful?
We must eat every rose we encounter, and chew most vigorously on the
thorns. Yes, this will tear open our gums, our lips, our cheeks, but this
is necessary. It is our blood, from our mouths, that make the roses so
very red.
Drool blood into the snow at your feet, and watch a rose bloom in the dead
of winter. It's a miracle. Doing so makes you Jesus, if not God Himself.
I create, therefore I rule the universe.
> The irony, Nik, is that you've never said anything that is exclusively
> thought provoking.
Ah, but at least I have spoken, where you have only mumbled.
Climb out on the limb, dear boy, knowing the branch will break. The view,
as you cling to the trunk, must be so dreadfully boring. You spend your
days counting the leaves around you, while I grow dizzy on the taste of
stars.
I know I will fall. I know I open myself to attack. How you must long to
push me from these heights! I invite you to push me. At least I would
soar through the air as though flying. You will always know the security
of the trunk, but never the rush of wind through your hair.
> Sure, okay, true and false are the same.
> Where do you go from there?
Down. Possibly up. Or maybe to the canvas, brush in hand.
> I don't want to play your game, Nik.
You're not interested in play, period. That's why you're no fun at
parties. Stay home and sulk, then. I'll try to sneak you some of the
caviar and a bottle of wine, if I can, but while I can bring it to you,
there's no way I can make you enjoy it.
> You may be
> manipulating the prison guards to fight amongst themselves, but you are
> still in the prison.
I am my own prison guard. Fortunately, I manage to sneak out at night and
get a cream soda float before sneaking back in again and drifting off to a
dreamy sleep.
elag
>
> "kristina" (starf...@start.com.au) writes:
> > Are you telling me you don't
> > know the difference between something that is dead and something that is
> > alive?
>
> Yes, that's what I'm telling you. I often mistake dead people for live
> example, when I point at the widow, and whisper to the corpse, "She looks
> very life-like, very peaceful."
This is priceless.
dale houstman
elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:384DF015...@concentric.net...
And I think we both realize that it is also lamely contrived...
DMH
elag
It is just the image which I like. I am not involved in this particular
debate at this particular point in time.
dale houstman
An image lamely contrived is a lame image. Nik's supposedly "poetic"
effusions are invariably the stuff of drunken late-night suburbanite yahoos
with lingering artistic pretensions. One doesn't expect you to be "involved
in this particular debate" (which could only be worthy of the name if it
involved two thinking sides at the very least: Nik doesn't qualify.
Also it is undoubtedly one of Nik's self-promotions: I do not believe for a
minute that he pulled off even this insipid moment, seemingly based on a
bad 1950's joke.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
to be seen as contradictions" he did not mean things would "cease to be
different."
A dog and a cat are different, but they are not opposites.
Water and fire are different, but they are not opposites.
Cars and buses are different, but they are not opposites.
Man and woman are different, but they are not opposites.
Child and adult are different, but they are not opposites.
True and false are different, but they are not opposites.
This is the main problem with Taoism, as it holds on to the theory that
opposites in nature exist and that they need to be balanced. Only
rationalism, both Eastern and Western, gives us the false idea of opposites
as it organizes the information we take in, and categorizes that
information.
Things are natural different, but things aren't naturally categorized. Nik's
pseudo-psychological *identity* theory is based on this sort of categorical
rationalism also, as he has fallen in love with theories that say *you're
this* and *you're that*. These theories hold no truth [no pun intended] in
the natural world. They are as good as a cockroach's broken testicle.
Leo Sgouros
> opposites in nature exist
This is not possible for nature
No piece of the tao is ever all the way one side
Nikolaus Maack
> opposites in nature exist and that they need to be balanced.
Um, not precisely. One of taoism's leading beliefs is that all things
were once one. Naming things, dividing them up into their opposites, only
muddles the world. In other words, there are no opposites in nature, only
in our perception of nature.
You know, if you and Dale spent as much time talking about surrealism as
you did talking about me, this newsgroup might start making more sense.
Nikolaus Maack
I once said:
>> I often mistake dead people for live
>> ones and vice-versa. This gets very embarrassing at funerals, for
>> example, when I point at the widow, and whisper to the corpse, "She
>> looks very life-like, very peaceful."
Several days later, Dale's criticism of this one joke continues:
> An image lamely contrived is a lame image. Nik's supposedly "poetic"
> effusions are invariably the stuff of drunken late-night suburbanite yahoos
> with lingering artistic pretensions.
(Remind me which one of us has "lingering artistic pretentions" again?)
This one joke of mine, written in haste, and for my own amusement, sure
seems to be getting Dale's dander up. It reminds me of the time Dali made
a suit jacket studded with shot glasses full of milk, which inspired one
surrealist -- a communist surrealist -- to mourn that the milk could have
fed many a suffering proletariat child.
If I were to construct a list of sins, real sins, sins against art,
surrealism, and life, they might read like this:
1. There is no excuse for being boring.
2. If you can't laugh at yourself, you can't laugh. Your tongue shall be
cut out.
3. Never forget that you fart, and so does the queen of England. So did
Andre Breton, Freud, and Einstein. Don't take anything or anyone too
seriously.
Anyone care to add to the list of surrealist sins?
elag
>
> I once said:
> >> I often mistake dead people for live
> >> ones and vice-versa. This gets very embarrassing at funerals, for
> >> example, when I point at the widow, and whisper to the corpse, "She
> >> looks very life-like, very peaceful."
>
> Several days later, Dale's criticism of this one joke continues:
> > An image lamely contrived is a lame image. Nik's supposedly "poetic"
> > effusions are invariably the stuff of drunken late-night suburbanite yahoos
> > with lingering artistic pretensions.
>
> (Remind me which one of us has "lingering artistic pretentions" again?)
>
> This one joke of mine, written in haste, and for my own amusement, sure
> seems to be getting Dale's dander up. It reminds me of the time Dali made
> a suit jacket studded with shot glasses full of milk, which inspired one
> surrealist -- a communist surrealist -- to mourn that the milk could have
> fed many a suffering proletariat child.
The one that I know of included shot glasses full of Creme de Menthe...
http://www.kunstmuseum-wolfsburg.de/ausstellungen/englisch/av_fr3za.html
dale houstman
> In article <82o8on$epq$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> >
> > I once said: I often mistake dead people for live ones and vice-versa.
This gets very >embarrassing at funerals, for example, when I point at the
widow, and whisper to the >corpse, "She looks very life-like, very
peaceful."
> >
> > Several days later, Dale's criticism of this one joke continues:
This is incorrect. I really only said it once; the other comment (two in
total: you spend much more bandwidth saying fundamentally nothing with no
complaints from your peanut gallery) was a response to elag's comments. A
quite legitimate response. Now - if you respond to this, I could claim you
are being obsessive by going on about my comment for days? Sort of borders
on the ridiculous...
> >
> > (Remind me which one of us has "lingering artistic pretentions" again?)
Okay: Nik. You asked... By the way, you're the one who crawls about
proclaiming yourself an artist, not I. So the phrase appears to suit you
just as tightly.
At any rate none of this would be important at all if it weren't for the
fact that Nik's "jokes" are indistinguishable from his "serious thoughts."
Any - again - why are you and Nik so upset about this: if everything is
true, then Nik's jokes are lame, and all I have said is another truth (which
is also a falsehood). Why protest at all? Why get up in the morning? Why
breathe?
As for the entire subject of "jokes": this group attracts far too many who
think surrealism is a series of empty quips, so it is a serious subject to
one who realizes (as Nik is incapable of) that surrealism is not the empty
bag his head seems to be.
The rest of Nik's quoted comments are - as usual - pointless.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
"dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> At any rate none of this would be important at all if it weren't for the
> fact that Nik's "jokes" are indistinguishable from his "serious thoughts."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Perhaps the funny/serious split should be yet another pairing of opposites
destroyed when the surrealist revolution comes. (Any day now the
surrealists will put down their lattes, rise up from the coffee houses,
and liberate the subconscious, or the imagination, or something. (No one
seems to know what needs liberating, nowadays.) I can feel revolution in
the air, friends. I can taste it. No wait, that's my mocha latte with
extra foam.)
Not only will the real and the imagined become one, but the serious and
the funny will blur into a single unit. We will watch the evening news
and giggle. Saturday morning cartoons will be greeted with concerned
looks and furrowed brows.
"But what is Bugs Bunny *really* saying? 'What's up doc,' I suspect, is a
reference to Doctor Freud."
Serious and funny as one? Some say this has already happened. Last
weekend, while visiting my parents, I happened to catch "When Pets Go Bad
2" on television. It was a FOX production, and one of accidental comedy.
The narrator, in a voice dripping with dark drama, described the story of
how a woman visiting a drugstore was attacked by a cat. There was a
reinactment of the tale, showing a cat upon a high shelf, ready to jump on
the woman's head. They also had the black and white surveillance camera
footage, which they showed over and over again.
The narrator described the event as chilling, horrifying, shocking.
Because it all took place in a drugstore, he said amusing things like,
"She went in to pick up her medication, but instead she got a prescription
for terror!"
My favorite part of the tale was when they showed the trauma caused by the
cat. There was a photograph of the woman with her assortment of wounds
and gouges. The narrator said, "A gash to the forehead required 18
stitches." The camera then zoomed in quickly on the forehead wound, and a
("MRROW!") cat screech sound effect was played. "A second wound, on her
neck, required 12 stitches!" Zoom in. "MRROW!"
By the fourth wound, I was laughing so hard I thought I was going to piss
my pants.
What made this whole cat scratch comedy so incredibly funny was the
knowledge that some octogenarian out there was watching this episode with
lips grimly pressed together, wondering if maybe it was time to say
goodbye to Fluffy, a feline companion for so many years. If you can't
trust your cat, who can you trust?
(Trust in surrealism, my friends. Know that Andre Breton loves you like
no other. Andre Breton hung out in cafes for your sins. It was like
hanging on a cross, only much more comfortable. That's why I want you to
reach into your hearts, and your wallets, and find the love to buy this
commemorative Salvidore Dali plate, featuring Lenin with a butt cheek as
big as Breton's ego. Yes friends, surrealism will save you. It surely
will.)
> As for the entire subject of "jokes": this group attracts far too many who
> think surrealism is a series of empty quips, so it is a serious subject to
> one who realizes (as Nik is incapable of) that surrealism is not the empty
> bag his head seems to be.
You're right, Dale. It's time the people in this newsgroup realized
surrealism isn't about "empty quips". It's about posturing,
grandstanding, and shallow, meaningless, "intellectual" debate. Let us
hang our heads in shame that we have wandered so far from the path. No
more empty quips, no more jokes, no more comedy. Henceforth, I shall
quote Breton at great length, and then add a tearful, "Isn't the man
masterful?" at the end.
> The rest of Nik's quoted comments are - as usual - pointless.
Damn you. I have to know -- where do you stand on the "peas" versus
"potatoes" issue that Andre Breton raised? You can't avoid this, merely
because taking a stand frightens you. Peas or potatoes, Dale? PEAS OR
POTATOES?
elag
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> "dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> > At any rate none of this would be important at all if it weren't for the
> > fact that Nik's "jokes" are indistinguishable from his "serious thoughts."
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> Perhaps the funny/serious split should be yet another pairing of opposites
> destroyed when the surrealist revolution comes. (Any day now the
> surrealists will put down their lattes, rise up from the coffee houses,
> and liberate the subconscious, or the imagination, or something. (No one
> seems to know what needs liberating, nowadays.) I can feel revolution in
> the air, friends. I can taste it. No wait, that's my mocha latte with
> extra foam.)
>
> Not only will the real and the imagined become one, but the serious and
> the funny will blur into a single unit. We will watch the evening news
> and giggle.
Controversial Statue Shows Diana As Virgin Mary... story at ten.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991209/od/diana_1.html
> Saturday morning cartoons will be greeted with concerned
> looks and furrowed brows.
N.H. Schools Ban Pokémon Cards -
Principals Says ‘Pocket Monsters’ Beget Schoolyard Monsters
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/pokemonban990928.html
dale houstman
>
>
> > "dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> > > At any rate none of this would be important at all if it weren't for
the
> > > fact that Nik's "jokes" are indistinguishable from his "serious
thoughts."
> >
> > You say that like it's a bad thing.
I am convinced you think this is clever and apt. I think it is a Usenet
cliche of a riposte and quite beside any point that might lie buried beneath
Nik's (obviously infectious!) notions that "everything is everything else."
The indistinction in Nik's "thoughts" is not due to a creative and marvelous
"intrafusion" of satire (Jarry and Swift) but from a genuine lack of
cognitive ability. They may look the same to you, but that is your loss.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
I said:
[What's wrong with being unable to tell the serious from the comical? And
then I rambled on endlessly.]
"dale houstman" (dm...@mindspring.com) writes:
> I am convinced you think this is clever and apt. I think it is a Usenet
> cliche
[snip]
Ask yourself these questions, Dale: how often do I say something serious
inside a joke? How often do I joke, because the other person in the
conversation is so painfully serious? (The Dalai Lama used to squirt
serious, awe-filled western tourists with a bright blue water pistol. I
like this.) How often do I joke because I know the other person can't hear
me, so I may as well have some fun and play the fool?
One of the main criticism laid against Andre Breton, in his lifetime and
beyond, was that he was painfully serious. An intellectual's
intellectual. He was utterly incapable of laughing at himself. It seems
to me that many of his "followers" are exactly the same way.
Thank God for Dali, then. Yes, he was a crass commercial self-promoter,
but he had a sense of humour. Thank God for Joan Miro, who said, "The
world of grown-ups is a horror." His childlike nature tended to piss off
Breton. Thank God for all the surrealists who knew how to laugh.
Oh, sorry. We can't thank God. That's wrong. Surrealists are supposed
to hate religion.
el...@localhost.localdomain
> Nik claims he is using "true and false" metaphorically. What the hell is he
> talking about?
Hey, what do you know. I've been reading all these reports of Nik
claiming that "Everything is True" but I didn't really know whether
to believe that he'd said it so simply. Anyway, I guess he did.
It's true enough, in a way. Telling people that "Everything is true,
and everything is false" can be useful I guess. Any kind of pseudo-
mystical crap can be useful for some subset of people who aren't used
to these ideas.
Nik: Brandon is right here.... the readers of this group are not
in need of a contrived logical enigma to illuminate the limitations
of truth and falsity. I'm pretty sure anyone who's following this
already knows that there is more to life than true and false. Or
if not, that they can handle an explicit description of what lies
beyond, if you've got one.
_
Nikolaus Maack
(el...@localhost.localdomain) writes:
> It's true enough, in a way. Telling people that "Everything is true,
> and everything is false" can be useful I guess. Any kind of pseudo-
> mystical crap can be useful for some subset of people who aren't used
> to these ideas.
The thing, in my mind, about the statement "everything is true *and*
false" is that it promotes a certain approach to reality. Every
experience encountered could be EVERYTHING and NOTHING. This means that
when some drunken homeless person (to use the example I keep using )
approaches you, it can be a marvellous experience, if you keep an open
mind.
Do not say, "Uh oh, homeless beggar. Don't make eye contact."
Say, "Hmm. Homeless beggar. What does this hold for me? What does it
hold for him? What's going to happen when we meet? I'm going to be
entirely in this experience, no holds barred."
I also said -- and it caused just as much havoc as anything else I've said
-- that we know nothing. Later I had to qualify it slightly. Behaving as
though you know nothing is a good thing. Approach every experience as
though you were just born two seconds ago. Make it new, make it alive,
make it vital, by forgetting all previous experiences and biases.
In my mind, saying, "We know nothing," and "Everything is true," and
"Everything is false," all amount to the same statement. Also, despite my
desire to be in this state perpetually, I know that I can't. Having the
world rife with meaning, spewing significance in my face 24 hours a day,
gets strenuous. Taking a break once in a while is a good thing.
Why do I keep harping on this idea? Because I keep getting mocked for it,
despite the fact that it seems quite in line with surrealist thought.
Breton spoke a great deal about what he called "objective chance". Dali
referred to it in his paranoiac" method. Jung called it "synchronicity".
Some religious folk call these coincidences "messages from God".
I adore such experiences. For some reason, they no longer seem to be in
favour among the surrealists. They insist on telling me things like, "You
know it's all in your own head, right? You know that objective reality
doesn't send you messages, right? You know that you're doing this to
yourself, right?"
Yes, yes, yes. But who cares? What difference does it make? Reminding
yourself over and over again that it's just a mental game, just some
exercise, some play, is tedious. To really enjoy it, you have to live it.
And who knows? Maybe the divine works through my subjective perceptions
of the universe?
(The reason surrealists seem to hate God and religion so much is because
they're convinced that God is merely the subconscious. But isn't a deity,
by any other name, just as sweet?)
And so, saying this, defending this, I am told that I am an idiot. Dale
says (over and over) the tedious joke, "If everything is true, then you
must agree with me when I tell you you're an asshole dripping green shit
on to a blank piece of paper."
And yes, yes, I do have to admit that. Why not? But this ignores the
marvellous stuff I am attempting to describe. Despite the fact that what
I am detailing is a major part of surrealism, why is it no one wants to
talk about it?
> Nik: Brandon is right here.... the readers of this group are not
> in need of a contrived logical enigma to illuminate the limitations
> of truth and falsity. I'm pretty sure anyone who's following this
> already knows that there is more to life than true and false. Or
> if not, that they can handle an explicit description of what lies
> beyond, if you've got one.
Probably what makes them hate what I'm saying is I'm not using their
surrealist language, that faux scientific jargon that makes the mystical
seem scientific. There's a reason Freud patted Breton on the head and
said, "Nice little artist theory you got there. Has nothing to with
psychitherapy and science. Have a nice day." It isn't science.
Did you see the thread where Barrett talked about "authentic desire" and
"inauthentic desire"? This jargon that he was using looks vaguely like
psychological terms of profound significance. When stripped bare, they
amount to what in new age speak is, "being true to your heart,"
in buddhist speak "being true to your nature," and "following the path
that is yours."
In many cases, surrealism seems to pretend that is demystifying the
mystical, when in fact all it's doing is sticking new labels on to old
experience. Breton himself said at one point that surrealism is about
finding the interior landscapes of the mind. Is this a scientific feat?
But anyway, back to your statement of what lies behind true and false,
then. Well, from my experience with dreams -- specifically lucid dreams
-- I know that if you expect something to happen, it will happen. If you
define limitations to your dreams, you will find those limitations. If
you believe, for example, that hearing your own name in a dream will wake
you up, then by gum, hearing your name WILL wake you up.
And if you go into Freudian therapy, and your therapist starts analyzing
your dreams with Freudian symbols, suddenly, magically, all your dreams
become Freudian! And if you get a Jungian therapist, all your dreams
become Jungian. And if you get a therapist who doesn't give a shit about
dreams, your dreams will seem meaningless.
What does all of this mean? In my mind, it's somewhat clear, but who
knows? Here's what I see beyond truth and falsehood --
If you believe it, it's true. If you look for it in reality, you will
find it. If you suddenly decide satan is secretly controlling your life,
and start looking for evidence, there will be evidence of this all around
you. If you decide that people are genuinely good, you will see proof
everywhere. If you decide they are evil, suddenly they are all evil.
What you choose to believe, what you make your reality, becomes your
reality.
This is why, in my mind, it's so enjoyable to shut off all these beliefs.
believe nothing. Just walk around in the world and look. Shutting off
belief has this bizarre effect of making everything, even the
most insignificant nothing, intensely powerfully knock-you-on-your-ass
meaningful.
To be a surrealist, to want to explore the way your dreams overlap with
reality, and to ignore all of this stuff I am spewing, is to miss what it
is you're experiencing.
For example, many surrealists in this newsgroup recognize, that identity
is a myth. We watch our own behaviour and sculpt identity around it. We
try to act consistently with our beliefs, but sometimes, in doing so, we
realize that we are merely following a poorly laid out map written on
toilet paper with a blow torch.
Does this not lend credence to the statement that "everything is true"?
I'm going to shut up now and go to bed.
Nikolaus Maack
cythera (luk...@earthlink.net) writes:
> Re: Nik, just when Nik begins to say something that is interesting to
> me or seems to make sense, he runs it off the road and into a ditch.
This is usually because I get sick of defending myself. I don't know if
you've noticed, but the usual pattern in this newsgroup, with me, goes
like this:
1) I post a thought.
2) Someone tells me it's a stupid fucking thought. Usually this involves
a bunch of questions, requests for me to "define my terms", requests for
clarification, etc.
3) Sometimes I try to explain. (Lately, I don't bother. There seems to
be no point. I would rather play than fight. And explanations always
lead to a fight.)
4) The person tells me my explanation is stupid and demands further
explanation.
5) This could continue on endlessly, these requests for clarification and
my attempts to do so. But it becomes rapidly clear that the clarification
asked for isn't actually wanted. I get a lot of "bullshit!" and "That's
not true!" and "Fuck you!" and "You're an idiot," which doesn't actually
promote communication.
6) So I make a joke, I cut it short. Fuck it.
You don't have the time to spend the rest of your life reading this
newsgroup and I -- though you might have trouble believing me -- don't
have the time to spend explaining myself for the rest of my life.
And why should I explain myself, really? Because I want to communicate?
More and more I'm convinced that there's no such thing. So why log on?
Why talk to anyone? You got me. The only answer that I can see is to
make a game out of being here. Play, joke, dance, and if someone shows
some genuine interest in what I say, only then try to explain it to them.
Otherwise, play the fool. Dance in the text and pretend there is no
meaning in the words.
(How do you live your life?)
> Amendment: I'll breathe in your face occasionally, Nik. To ignore you
> is as limp as logging on to Remarq and voting for who in this newsgroup
> writes the best posts.
I would like to encourage other people to post their thoughts and beliefs.
What I find weird is that most people would rather attack me than talk
about themselves. For a long, long time I have complained about people in
this newsgroup being impersonal, distant, and unwilling to talk about
their experiences and beliefs and art. (All newsgroups, for the most
part, are like this.)
People love posting one liners. People love attacking others. People
like looking cool and distant. People do not like saying, "I live in
Florida and yesterday I went out into the world and I saw a duck sitting
in a pond and I thought about my ex-girlfriend and how she used to give me
blowjobs in the bathroom at work."
People like to pretend to share. For example, questions like, "What's
your favourite kind of cheesecake?" are greeted with hundreds of responses
of delight. The list of flavours never ends! Questions like, "What do
you do, think, and feel? Where do you go when you're scared? Do you love
anyone, and how do you know it's love? Why do you create art? Do you
think art has any meaning, any purpose? How do you know you're not
wasting your life? Do you ever feel a presence inside your own skull,
looking at you, like some sort of pagan god lives inside your own bone
marrow?"
Questions like these are greeted with terror.
Yes, I'm generalizing. But I'm tired, and I'm bored. Yes, there are
people worth talking to. Most people aren't, not because they are of no
value, but because they don't want to talk about anything.
Surrealism shouldn't be about a textbook.
> here's one of your turkey bones I'll pick at:
> 'Surrealists hate God'. A sweeping generalization, and more to the
> point, to hate God implies that a person believes in God to begin with.
Change it to "surrealists hate the concept of god", if you must.
It's still a sweeping generalization, but it's one that some of the
surrealists in this newsgroup have been actively promoting. You weren't
around for the "religious wars" of many moons ago, when Brandon, Dale, and
Barrett tried to explain to us all that surrealism (by definition)
involves no religious belief. Religion, they said, is bad, and if you
like religion in any way, you can't be a surrealist.
(Andre Breton once got a wedding invitiation from a friend. It was going
to be a religious ceremony. He tore up the card and mailed it back,
without comment. This is pretty typical of Breton's feelings about
religion.)
Saying that surrealism and religion don't mix inevitably resulted in
people saying, "Well, what about Dali? He was a surrealist and he liked
religion." The response: "Dali wasn't a surrealist. Anyone who believes
in religion isn't a surrealist."
> So in closing, Mr. Maack, if you would like actual dialogues with me
> (not that you do), I'd appreciate it if you include footnotes, and
> definitions of some of your terms.
*sigh*
"Loosie! You got some 'splainin' to do!"
el...@localhost.localdomain
>
>> (el...@localhost.localdomain) writes:
>> > It's true enough, in a way. Telling people that "Everything is true,
>> > and everything is false" can be useful I guess. Any kind of pseudo-
>> > mystical crap can be useful for some subset of people who aren't used
>> > to these ideas.
>
What, you don't agree that Nik has fallen for the literal truth of
what is really a pseudo-mystical piece of crap? (Or maybe he is
just pretending to, in order to make a joke. But he never drops
the pretense.)
I say "pseudo-" because the most widely-known popularization in
modern Western culture of the idea "everything is true" is
basically a sarcastic mockery of conventional mystical religions.
Nik continually makes a sarcastic mockery of his own ideas.
Re: true vs. false again. I think Brandon(?) said it well
when he wrote "true and false are different, but they are not
opposites".
Here's a similar statement with more chewy goodness:
Here, then, is where Nietzsche's an(archy) comes in. ...
As Nietzsche writes:
Habit of seeing opposites. -- The general imprecise way of
observing sees everywhere in nature opposites (as eg., "warm
and cold") where there are, not opposites but differences or
degrees...
It is living in the (/) of differance, that is, beyond... that
makes life dangerous, and yet it is precisely this that Nietzsche
challenges us to undertake.
The dangerous and uncanny point has been reached where the
greater, more manifold, more comprehensive life transcends
and *lives beyond* the old morality...
One must live dangerously, says Nietzsche. One must be willing
to walk the rope over the abyss (Abgrund) and in so doing deny
the spirit of the reactive forces that pull us down. And for
this one must have courage. Why? Simply because to live
*beyond* in the (/), is to live no-where: to live as a human
being independant of the morality of exclusive binary
oppositions, foundations, and institutions. However, this
is not to say that Nietzsche's project involved the wholesale
dissolution of moral hierarchical oppositions.
What Nietzsche wanted above all was (1) to go beyond moral
hierarchical oppositions so as to disseminate them in order
to make them free flowing rather than fixed; and (2) to
go beyond the inscription of institutional hierarchical
structures in order to undermine the repressive coding of
institutions.
Rolando Perez, ON ANARCHY AND SCHIZOANALYSIS. Nice little book.
_
el...@localhost.localdomain
okey, this should probably go to email at this point, but I'm lazy.
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
I know well the state you are trying to describe, but that it gets
"strenuous" is a sign that you are doing it wrong. I haven't quite
figured out what you're doing wrong yet, but there's definately
something. Maybe it's taking your own jokes too seriously.
> I am detailing is a major part of surrealism, why is it no one wants to
> talk about it?
No one wants to drag it through the mud.
I think "everything is true" has lost its meaning for you. Go study
some zen koans.
> This is why, in my mind, it's so enjoyable to shut off all these beliefs.
...
Ah, I get it. You have forcibly shut off belief. Better to let
belief come and go freely. Or transcend belief in some way. Just
believing "nothing" as hard as you can is useless.
You know, the homeless bums I typically see on the street in Toronto
are quite different from the ones you're used to. They don't come up
and talk to you. THey keep to themselves, keep their eyes on the
pavement, never say a word. They've probably been beaten down that
much harder.
> Does this not lend credence to the statement that "everything is true"?
No, not really. "Everything is true" is not a statement that means
anything. It is a joke crafted to reveal the non-absolute nature of
what is usually meant by "truth". Stop taking it so literally.
_
Nikolaus Maack
(el...@localhost.localdomain) writes:
> No, not really. "Everything is true" is not a statement that means
> anything. It is a joke crafted to reveal the non-absolute nature of
> what is usually meant by "truth". Stop taking it so literally.
Funny, that's what I thought everyone else was doing.
Brandon J. Freels
represents a hierarchical system. All hierarchical systems are repressive.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm
2) Due to his lack of interest in freedom the late Dali is not a Surrealist.
First, he becomes a catholic, and bends over for a hierarchical system as it
fucks him up the ass. Second, he reproduces and imitates pre-existing
motifs, abandoning the idea of freeing the mind for personal 'discovery.'
Third, he lets artistic merit and financial gain direct his ambitions,
abandoning, yet again, the idea of freeing the mind for personal
'discovery.'
http://www.ionet.net/~jellenc/dali.html
3) Psychoanalysis is not a science but a psuedo-science. Freud isn't
science.
http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html
4) I have never heard of any problems between Andre Breton and Joan Miro.
http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Miro.html
5) The Taoist concept of "Yin and Yang" is itself a rational construct, set
up to create an understanding of how nature functions. Since there are no
opposites in nature to be balanced the concept is false, and bares no
resemblence to the real world it attempts to explain.
http://www2.cybernex.net/~jefkirsh/symbol.html
6) Maybe Nik means that everything is 'relative'? Here's the definition of
'Relativism': "The philosophical doctrine that perceptions of things vary
with circumstances, especially the social formation and its hypothetically
infinite diversity, but also embracing most conceptions of subjectivity."
[from http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/gloshome.html ]
7) The Surrealist at this newsgroup have nothing against 'objective chance.'
What we do find embarressing is when someone rationalizes a 'chance'
experience with god, or the supernatural.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/welcome.html
http://www.chance-caldwell.com/
Leo Sgouros
Love
Leo
--
Choose mind control, often.
www.mkshadows.net
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:jeC44.73731$C7.31...@news1.teleport.com...
kristina
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:82tmbo$nmq$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> cythera (luk...@earthlink.net) writes:
> > Re: Nik, just when Nik begins to say something that is interesting to
> > me or seems to make sense, he runs it off the road and into a ditch.
>
> This is usually because I get sick of defending myself. I don't know if
> you've noticed, but the usual pattern in this newsgroup, with me, goes
> like this:
you are such a liar, you LOVE it! otherwise you would have left ages
ago....but no! instead you shed your little thoughts here, repeating the
same thing over and over, never nothing new...
>
> 1) I post a thought.
if you can call it that...
>
> 2) Someone tells me it's a stupid fucking thought. Usually this involves
> a bunch of questions, requests for me to "define my terms", requests for
> clarification, etc.
questions are considered rather normal aspect of communicating...and yes,
when something is not CLEAR, and is GROSSLy generalised, people will seek
further clarification, which part of that process do you NOT understand Nik?
>
> 3) Sometimes I try to explain. (Lately, I don't bother. There seems to
> be no point. I would rather play than fight. And explanations always
> lead to a fight.)
rather play than fight? what give out free smiles, and you are such a
"good" person...oh please go and play with the other defensive little
trlibites and spare me your fickle, flippant remarks...there is a difference
in "playing" and just coming across as an empty stupor of vile and corrosive
boredom that verges on the paranoid and insane...get some help boy!
>
> 4) The person tells me my explanation is stupid and demands further
> explanation.
that is because you have such a way of repeating yourself, and NEVER really
clarifying anything in that process....rather remarkable don't you think.
You could have saved yourself heaps of time and wanked elsewhere with just
putting all your posts into one! Really, it is that basic. Nik's apptroach
to life: "everything is true and false at once, be the fool, play and
pretend to be something you are not, wear your mask"........I don't think
I've missed anything there. (less than two lines worth!)
>
> 5) This could continue on endlessly, these requests for clarification and
> my attempts to do so. But it becomes rapidly clear that the clarification
> asked for isn't actually wanted. I get a lot of "bullshit!" and "That's
> not true!" and "Fuck you!" and "You're an idiot," which doesn't actually
> promote communication.
you don't inspire thought provoking communication, and please do not forget,
you can come across rather rude and on the ATTACK yourself. So don't be a
hypocrite here as well. I DO read your posts, and your way of dealing with
responding on many occasions is to personally "attack" other members of the
group. You can be very straight forward in your insults. The porblem with
this, is you pretend you DON"T have this capacity as a person. You have
some very strange ideas about people, your responses clearly indicate an
obsessiveness to "control". Boring!
>
> 6) So I make a joke, I cut it short. Fuck it.
your jokes are not funny!
>
> You don't have the time to spend the rest of your life reading this
> newsgroup and I -- though you might have trouble believing me -- don't
> have the time to spend explaining myself for the rest of my life.
good, then stop posting such inane repetitions.
>
> And why should I explain myself, really? Because I want to communicate?
> More and more I'm convinced that there's no such thing. So why log on?
> Why talk to anyone? You got me. The only answer that I can see is to
> make a game out of being here. Play, joke, dance, and if someone shows
> some genuine interest in what I say, only then try to explain it to them.
> Otherwise, play the fool. Dance in the text and pretend there is no
> meaning in the words.
yes, the eternal fool. Good on you nik...yet another insight of the same
old of how you see life.
>
> (How do you live your life?)
certainly not as you do...
>
> > Amendment: I'll breathe in your face occasionally, Nik. To ignore you
> > is as limp as logging on to Remarq and voting for who in this newsgroup
> > writes the best posts.
>
> I would like to encourage other people to post their thoughts and beliefs.
> What I find weird is that most people would rather attack me than talk
> about themselves. For a long, long time I have complained about people in
> this newsgroup being impersonal, distant, and unwilling to talk about
> their experiences and beliefs and art. (All newsgroups, for the most
> part, are like this.)
This is the biggest load of shit seriously. Please point me in one
direction where you REALLY reveal yourself as an individula with your deeper
thoughts, fears, desires, etc. All i read is a bunch of baloney and
meaningless words on "fucking philosophies" where nothing is revealed. You
are perhaps the most shallow person in this newsgroup...
>
> People love posting one liners. People love attacking others. People
> like looking cool and distant. People do not like saying, "I live in
> Florida and yesterday I went out into the world and I saw a duck sitting
> in a pond and I thought about my ex-girlfriend and how she used to give me
> blowjobs in the bathroom at work."
maybe you need more sex....see I can respond accordingly to your banal
posts...
>
> People like to pretend to share. For example, questions like, "What's
> your favourite kind of cheesecake?" are greeted with hundreds of responses
> of delight. The list of flavours never ends! Questions like, "What do
> you do, think, and feel? Where do you go when you're scared? Do you love
> anyone, and how do you know it's love? Why do you create art? Do you
> think art has any meaning, any purpose? How do you know you're not
> wasting your life? Do you ever feel a presence inside your own skull,
> looking at you, like some sort of pagan god lives inside your own bone
> marrow?"
get fucked, none of your views regarding any of these issues is expressed or
shared with the group. The greater problem is that oyu have no "specific"
views to anything, approaching life like a crushed up empty bag, screaming
"everything is true".....go away, and get a REAL feeling, a real DESIRE. Do
you know what that even is?
>
> Questions like these are greeted with terror.
yeah, you are a terror....one marvels at the emptiness that can exist within
a person when they meet you.
>
> Yes, I'm generalizing. But I'm tired, and I'm bored. Yes, there are
> people worth talking to. Most people aren't, not because they are of no
> value, but because they don't want to talk about anything.
you always generalise...without really clarifying anything ten posts later
either...
>
> Surrealism shouldn't be about a textbook.
ha ha ha.....what? This coming from YOU? don't make me laugh...
>
> > here's one of your turkey bones I'll pick at:
> > 'Surrealists hate God'. A sweeping generalization, and more to the
> > point, to hate God implies that a person believes in God to begin with.
>
> Change it to "surrealists hate the concept of god", if you must.
>
> It's still a sweeping generalization, but it's one that some of the
> surrealists in this newsgroup have been actively promoting. You weren't
> around for the "religious wars" of many moons ago, when Brandon, Dale, and
> Barrett tried to explain to us all that surrealism (by definition)
> involves no religious belief. Religion, they said, is bad, and if you
> like religion in any way, you can't be a surrealist.
as usual, you put a vast area of conversation into one paragraph of
meaningless crap. I personally don't believe in organised anything, and
growing up a catholic has done nothing but leave a bitter taste in my mouth
and make me even more a seeker of the supposedly "forbidden"....so I kind of
like that, but as concepts of god go, well, that is a rough one for me. It
has been drummed into my head for years, a conditioning that makes me
uncomfortable. I have only started looking at this area in my life. But no,
I have no need for "salvation" nor do I believe that some god is watching
over me....it all feels rather empty. As far as anything organised goes,
fuck the church is my opinion....I like the images in it all though...wings
are good, just depends how you use them...
well nik, I guess you'll be getting onto your next new twist of philosophies
here, to attempt to eduacte us poor losers...spare yourself the trouble.
sit down even for three minutes and really, be honest with yourself FOR
once.
kristina.