Clarifications
Nikolaus Maack
hearing people's stories. I wish people were more likely to tell their
stories. People don't like to talk about this stuff. I don't know why.
It was nice to read a bunch of first hand accounts of drug use. Thanks,
everyone. Yes, even you, Kristina.
2) I do not believe that emotions are king. I feel that most people
over-intellectualize. We have been taught, in high school and university
and elsewhere, that being OBJECTIVE is king. Never use the word "I" in an
essay. Never speak about your experiences, only your ideas. This is
flawed. Ideally, we should strike a balance between intellect and
emotion. This seems -- in my mind -- to be an essential component of
surrealism.
Intellect can be used to rationalize. Form a theory and stick to it,
because it allows you to avoid certain uncomfortable feelings. Debate and
argue -- instead of exhange and dialogue -- because that way someone can
be declared a winner.
Emotions can be used to rationalize. I enjoy crying 24 hours a day,
although really it is an inconvenience for me and the world. Logically,
weeping all the time is of no benefit. "You hurt my feelings and so you
suck!" Well, logically, perhaps my feelings needed to be hurt.
Intellect and emotion should temper each other. I see a world where
intellect is crowned king, at the cost of emotional experience. Hence I
promote emotionalsm. "Sprinkle a little feeling on that dry sack of logic."
3) I do not hate Dale. That I am, once again, in his killfile is a strain
on our friendship, I'll admit, but so be it. I find it funny that he
feels he understands me. I find it depressing that he fails to see I am
trying to understand him.
4) Barrett is prone to using terminology that deliberately excludes the
world -- example from recent memory: "authentic" and "inauthentic" desire.
I have looked at his webpage, magneticfields.org. It is a frustratingly
pompous place, and it irks me. And it is more of what we get from Barrett
in this newsgroup -- rhetoric, politics, speeches, posturing. Where is
the imagination in this?
"If you can't see it, then it only goes to show what a poor reader you
are."
Or perhaps it only goes to show what a poor communicator you are, Barrett.
Take at least half of the blame, and stitch it to your flesh.
5) I only paint celebrities? Somerset Maugham is a celebrity? I paint
what faces fall before me. Karsh is but one source of faces. I also
paint "nobodies" from August Sander's books. These are ordinary German
people. I have also done work based on faces I've seen in Ottawa. My
girlfriend snapped pictures, I did paintings based on them. I adore
faces, period. Famous faces are the ones most likely to be photographed
and put on display. I try to use all "interesting" faces I see.
The other day I was in a mall and saw a dozen old immigrant men around a
table, talking. Their faces were incredible. As my girlfriend described
it later -- "Nik was surrounded by all these old men and he nearly came in
his pants."
6) I took the weekend off from alt.surrealism. It was a liberating
experience. I highly recommend it.
7) I will now go eat breakfast.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Brandon J. Freels
>1) I do not believe that autobiography is God.
And just how are you using the word "god" in this sentence. "I do not
believe that autobiography is an imaginary friend"? That just doesn't sound
right. You see, Nik, you do use the word "god" as a representation of
"power" and "authority." Even if you deny it this sentence is evidence.
My only conclusion is that this whole "imaginary friend" bullshit you've
been putting on for the last six months or so is nothing but a sock full of
piss!
Aeon
>hearing people's stories. I wish people were more likely to tell their
>stories. People don't like to talk about this stuff. I don't know why.
>
>It was nice to read a bunch of first hand accounts of drug use. Thanks,
>everyone. Yes, even you, Kristina.
I saw we dedicate this thread to sharing experiences then.
Is there anything in particular you'd like to explore?
Personally, I would like to explore fears and nightmares, and possibly
embarassment... as those are often the things you are least likely to
hear much about when it comes to conversations with strangers.
There is nothing more in this world that terrifies me more than death.
Any form of death, in any one of its guises, is a source of unbridled
fear if I am to allow myself to think upon it for too long.
It all started in grade four, with the poem about that man (I forget the
name, but it's famous) who gets cremated. (it's called the Cremation of
Sam Something-or-Other) I think it may have been that day, but possibly
a day or two later, I was laying in my mother's bed (she was doing house-
work, so I assume I must have been sick) thinking about the poem. My
mind wandered to thoughts about cremation, and how I definately didn't
want to be cremated when I died. I feared the fire in case I was
actually still alive. I began to think about how this was silly,
considering you shouldn't be able to feel anything when you are dead. I
took this thought further, and came to the realization that if there is
no "god", then there is NOTHING after death. I pondered and pondered.
I thought about how long my life is.... (too short) and how long death
is. I thought about how life on earth would continue without me... and
that the universe would continue existing forever, while I lay rotting
in the ground. I FREAKED! I suddenly realized what we all are doomed
to realize, that we are not going to last forever. I cried, and I
spazzed out. I shook my head violently in attempts to get this thought
out of my head.
From that point on, I spent nights crying, keeping my parents up with
my worries. My mother attempted console me by telling me that when I
was dead, I wouldn't even know it. She told me it would be just like
before I was born, or like a tomato.... I'd feel nothing. Unfortunately,
that was exactly what bothered me about it... I was comprehending the
concept of "nothing" for the first time in my life, and it scared the
shit out of me.
My father tried his best to console me as well. He settled my mind
slightly by asking me if my life so far seemed to have taken a long
time. (yes) He asked how long I thought I would live. I said around
80 (oh please please please that long) He said, so why don't you
worry about it later, because you are going to live a LONG time. It
helped a little.
I spent nights trying to sleep, shaking my head hard, trying not to
think about it. When I went to school, I was thankful that my brain was
occupied most of the time. When I went out to play with friends, I often
came home because the awful feeling just followed me around wherever I
went. When my younger sister would ask me what was wrong, I'd tell her
that I couldn't tell her. I was terrified of causing this much fear
to haunt her as well.
I kept telling myself that when I was older, I wouldn't be scared. I
was wrong.
Over that year, things got better, and eventually I thought about it
less and less. Within two years, I'd say I was back to normal.
To this day though, if I lay awake at night, and I allow myself to think
to long upon my death, I panic. I have to start talking to someone,
or occupy myself somehow in an attempt to clear my brain of the terror.
If I find myself scared of something in life, I often will attempt to
compare it to death, and realize that nothing is as scary as that.
orlan
--
- What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
- remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
Leo Sgouros
feelings in a given space changed as though I was observer on the wall with
similar transformations of train of thoughts-
whats interesting is there have been epiphanies with LSD, in particular some
very fresh blue windowpane, but these various frames "out of frames of
referance", snapshots of the exact time a thought was tracked through states
of change and looking at this snapshot again through different frames,
happens under great stress.
An eternity ago I was in a situation with others where there were people
shooting to kill us.
It was in the woods, and I can tell you that at some of those times the mind
becames so sharp and so crystal clear of purpose it is almost a similar
sensation to tripping.
Leo Sgouros
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:AEIu4.25664$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> Nik wrote on Aeon's post:
> >1) I do not believe that autobiography is God.
>
> And just how are you using the word "god" in this sentence. "I do not
> believe that autobiography is an imaginary friend"? That just doesn't
sound
> right.
You see Brandon, when you take complex meta concepts and turn them into
fingerpaint and claymation, you can easily get a real chip on your shoulder
to want to always battle with these concepts you have so endeared.
Like this imaginary friend stuff.
And Gee I thought God was the big bad guy that allows pain and suffering.
You see, Nik, you do use the word "god" as a representation of
> "power" and "authority." Even if you deny it this sentence is evidence.
>
You see brandon, you cannot leave it alone.
> My only conclusion is that this whole "imaginary friend" bullshit you've
> been putting on for the last six months or so is nothing but a sock full
of
> piss!
>
>
>
My conclusion is your head is full of piss, and thus every time you feebly
try to make comparisons in your quest for putting down the dumb magik
worshippers, it comes out shit, piss, and porno movies.
How liberated surrealism has made you!!
Brandon J. Freels
> My conclusion is your head is full of piss, and thus every time you feebly
> try to make comparisons in your quest for putting down the dumb magik
> worshippers, it comes out shit, piss, and porno movies.
> How liberated surrealism has made you!!
Ah, well Nik and I may have a problem with your denial of "shit, piss, and
porno movies." Don't run away from these things! Be honest with yourself!
You shit everyday, what's wrong with that? You piss everyday! Hey, nothing
wrong with that! Why be ashamed? You get yourself off, nothing wrong with
that either...
I simply called Nik on a blunder. So what? Does his "imaginary friend"
theory only exist in the certain thread of which he discusses it? I expected
this to be a part of Nik's life. I expected this to be how HE thinks, but in
the last post he showed me otherwise, which makes me think he has just been
putting me on the entire time. At least I'm honest in my posts.
That's what I thought Nik was about. I trusted him. I thought he was being
honest, and telling the truth.
HOW LIBERATED SURREALISM HAS MADE ME!
Unlike you, Leo, I am able to deal with "shit, piss, and porno movies."
Unlike you I'm not offended by dirty words. Unlike you I can see through the
bullshit this culture pumps into you from the time you are two till you
finish high school. They tell you there is a proper way to act, to dress, to
speak. There is a proper way to live your life: get a job! Work 5 days a
week! 10 hours a day! My father spent his whole life in this system and I've
never seen him happy.
HOW LIBERATED SURREALISM HAS MADE ME!
I now know what really matters: Love, Freedom, Imagination!
FIGURE IT OUT LEO. YOU TALK SHIT.
Didn't you recently say something about "tolerance" to Dale. Oh, a hippie's
bullshit keyword.
FUCK OFF. You come around her talking down about "shit, piss, and porno
movies" but where is your "tolerance"? Why aren't you "tolerant" of my
"shit, piss, and porno movies"?
Leo Sgouros
> Unlike you I'm not offended by dirty words. Unlike you I can see through
the
> bullshit this culture pumps into you from the time you are two till you
> finish high school. They tell you there is a proper way to act, to dress,
to
> speak. There is a proper way to live your life: get a job! Work 5 days a
> week! 10 hours a day! My father spent his whole life in this system and
I've
> never seen him happy.
>
> HOW LIBERATED SURREALISM HAS MADE ME!
>
> I now know what really matters: Love, Freedom, Imagination!
>
> FIGURE IT OUT LEO. YOU TALK SHIT.
>
> Didn't you recently say something about "tolerance" to Dale. Oh, a
hippie's
> bullshit keyword.
>
> FUCK OFF. You come around her talking down about "shit, piss, and porno
> movies" but where is your "tolerance"? Why aren't you "tolerant" of my
> "shit, piss, and porno movies"?
>
>
that was very nice brandon
i dont know exactly where you got this image of me there, considering I have
been posting for quite a while here.
my implication stands, that the more you superficially treat certain issues,
the easier your arguments are going to be based on some other jumble of
memes than what your own logic should have told you, this is an element
which develops over time, meaning you should know by now i have no issues
with pr0n or any reason to be anti-anything taking into account the
understanding that you are always the same you, and can even remember
anything in the first place, or are actually not just being caustic for the
hell of it.
you seem to have forgotten it does no good to argue with nik but hey if you
continue to do it dont bitch at the same time-
or bitch,whatever
"they" tell "you" then to do this, its all so simple see, you can cut right
through the befuddled dogma that makes up this puritannical
proto-hillbilly.....
kristina
I actually prefer really coarse rope and latex to buttons. A more
scintillating combination, but oh so hard to find in the right mix.
Certainly no bargain basement job -- there are enough of those already!
Kristina.
"cythera" <lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:257c52c0...@usw-ex0104-026.remarq.com...
> Kristina! In Sydney, you might want to pick up some new buttons!
> The old ones sure are wearing thin.
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Nikolaus Maack
> Personally, I would like to explore fears and nightmares, and possibly
> embarassment... as those are often the things you are least likely to
> hear much about when it comes to conversations with strangers.
Something happened this morning, rather insignificant, but it frightened
me for some reason. Human beings lie to themselves. It disturbs me every
time I see it.
Arthur is the eleven year old boy I look after. At his school there are
several children who are deathly allergic to peanuts. We got a notice from
the school -- trace amounts of peanut can kill these kids. If someone
eats a peanut butter sandwich, and touches a doorknob, and one of these
kids touches the doorknob, it can cause a reaction.
So we -- the authorities who guide Arthur through life -- told Arthur he
can't take peanut butter sandwiches to school.
"But there's a special table," Arthur explained, "where the kids with
peanut butter eat! That way we aren't near the kids. And if I wash my
hands after, then it's safe, right?"
Arthur almost always has an inch of black crud under each fingernail.
Forget finding the holy grail -- get an eleven year old boy to wash his
hands and cut his nails on a regular basis.
Arthur's parents convinced him, finally, that no, he would not take peanut
butter to school. It was clear he didn't understand WHY, no matter how
many times it was explained to him. In the end he decided not to do it
because those are the rules his parents made. We went through all of this
in September, when school started.
This morning, Arthur wanted to take peanut butter to school. He asked me
if it was okay. I said no.
"I'm willing to risk it," he said.
"But you're not the one taking the risk," I tried to explain. "You're
risking someone else. You're risking those kids who can die from
peanuts."
"There's the special table..." Arthur started.
"Which makes more sense, Arthur? Putting on a bullet-proof vest, or
taking the bullets out of the gun?"
"Taking the bullets out of the gun," he answered, obviously not
understanding what this had to do with peanut butter.
"Okay. Now what makes more sense -- bringing peanut butter to school, and
taking precautions, or just not taking peanut butter to school?"
"But I *want* peanut butter," he said.
"What if you were one of those kids?" I asked. "What if you were allergic
to peanut butter? Say you were so allergic that it could kill you. What
would you think, and how would you feel if Arthur brought a peanut butter
sandwich to school?"
"But *I'm* Arthur," he said.
I can't entirely explain how this sent a chill of horror through me. His
utter inability to empathize with these kids, to imagine himself in their
situation, scared me. Sometimes I look around me, and I wonder about the
people I see. They seem to be entirely unaware of others.
The guy who smokes in the bus shelter, oblivious to how it irritates
everyone else. The person in the crowded supermarket who stops in the
middle of the aisle, blocking traffic in ALL directions, utterly oblivious
to his own actions. The high school kid who leaves all her garbage on the
table at the fast food place, never stopping to think of how someone else
will have to clean up her mess.
This kind of thing SCARES me.
Arthur asked me, "Is there a rule that I can't take peanut butter to
school?"
I blinked at him. I didn't know what to say.
He said, "Because if there's a rule that I can't do it, then I won't do
it."
It was as if my trying to describe it to him, the reasoning, meant
nothing. He wanted a rule to follow. Give him a rule, and he'd be happy.
"There's a rule," I said. He handed me the peanut butter, and I put it in
the cupboard.
I went to the dining room table and went back to the short story I was
reading. "The Unconquered", by Maugham. In it, a German soldier rapes a
French woman. Later on, he decides to go and visit her. She, quite
naturally, hates his guts. The German is lonely, wants human
companionship, and thinks it would be sort of amusing to make her fall in
love with him.
He doesn't understand why she hates him. "Come on, be reasonable," he
says. He brings her and her family food and water and tobacco. He tries
to help them out. He doesn't understand why she won't touch the things he
brings her. He refers to his having raped her as "an accident,
understandable under the circumstances. It's war, after all." He knows
he's an attractive guy, can pretty much have any woman he wants, and finds
it amusing that she hates him.
When he finds out she is pregnant with his child, he offers to marry her.
He doesn't understand why this makes her laugh until she's sobbing.
Reading this immediately after the peanut butter experience with Arthur
only pounded the concept home -- people lie to each other. People lie to
themselves. People will do whatever is most convenient.
I do it too. I know I do. Everyone lies to themselves. I have yet to
meet a person who doesn't. So, logically, I must be doing it too. I
can't see it. There are hints here and there -- I want to take my art to
one of the local galleries, but I don't, because I'm afraid, and I make up
excuses -- but overall, I cannot see my lies.
And that scares me.
> If I find myself scared of something in life, I often will attempt to
> compare it to death, and realize that nothing is as scary as that.
I have a friend who tells me that he's sometimes unable to sleep, because
he thinks to himself, what if I never wake up? What if this is it, I
close my eyes, drift off, and it's nothingness for ever and ever? And so
he lies there, eyes wide open, staring at the ceiling in horror.
I went through something similar as a kid. My parents tried to reassure
me, just like yours did.
"Everybody dies," was one of their reassurances. "We all die someday.
I'll die, you'll die, Mr. Rogers will die, everybody dies."
That didn't really help.
I think, on some level, the idea of death changes everything. Why do I
have to do my homework if everybody dies? Why do I have to keep my room
tidy, if some day I'll be dead? Why shovel the driveway, if tomorrow we
could all be corpses?
I found solace in the idea that I couldn't do a damn thing about it. What
was the point in worrying about death, if there was no way for me to avoid
it? That helped, but seeing an In-Search-Of episode where Leonard Nimoy
asked if there was life after death helped too. No one knows what's next.
Maybe there is something. There could be something, couldn't there?
Nikolaus Maack
> I simply called Nik on a blunder. So what? Does his "imaginary friend"
> theory only exist in the certain thread of which he discusses it? I expected
> this to be a part of Nik's life. I expected this to be how HE thinks, but in
> the last post he showed me otherwise, which makes me think he has just been
> putting me on the entire time. At least I'm honest in my posts.
My mother owns a dog. Sometimes I eat hot dogs. The dog, which is hot,
is not the same thing as the dog that my mother owns. Will you nail me to
the cross because I used the word "dog" differently?
"Biography is not a God to me."
God is a word. It has many uses and definitions. All words are like
this. Get used to it.
Interestingly enough, I often think you're silly when you (and Barrett,
and Dale) get angry when someone refers to a "surrealist painting" or a
"surrealist poem" or a "surrealist sculpture".
You bellow: "Objects are not surreal! Objects are made by surrealists
under the influence of surrealism! The object itself is not surreal!"
A quick fix to this problem: when someone says a "surreal poem", read it
as "a poem made by a surrealist".
Language is a liquid. You seem to be a solid. Therein lies the problem.
Brandon J. Freels
Aeon wrote
> How has surrealism liberated you? What process did you go through in
order
> to reach a point that you were able to deal with shit piss and porno
movies?
By helping me see through the bullshit. By attacking the lies of what it is
to be free. By helping me recognize that "morals" are socially programmed
and unnatural. Shit is natural. Piss is natural. Sex is natural.
Surrealism is the mind in its natural state. All that try to take it out of
this natural state are opposed to Surrealism.
Brandon J. Freels
> Without getting into the obvious problems of those religio-non-grata
> statements on their own, your comments regarding them sound even less
> coherent than some fundamentalists.And you still havent gotten squared
away
> with what Nik seems to represent, at least for you.
I see both Nik and psuedo-religions [i.e. mystical bullshit] as representing
counter-revolutionary activities.
Nik has not shown me any reason why his "god hand-puppet" theory should be
considered a Surrealist device. It doesn't create chance motifs or force
inspiration. I wish he would explain in depth how it works so I could
dismiss it further.
I am hostile to all religions because they do not care for "truth" but for
filling in the blank with an unforeseeable answer. If you don't know the
answer to the question don't answer it. We don't know the answer then any
forced answer will only act as a front to the reality. Surrealism has always
been after truth which can only be achieved through freedom. Reality is
Surreality when the mind has finally become free.
Brandon J. Freels
> But precisely how has surrealism helped you to see through the bullshit?
Simply by showing me that I was not crazy in believing that the American
system is bullshit. This cultural mistake we call a country tries and tries
to tell us we must work, feel pain, and suffer. On top of that most
Americans seem to be Christians, and have to deal with being "sinners!" I am
now able to see through this bullshit of negativity. I try to focus mainly
on what comes natural. I know that the concept of sin is not natural, but I
am led to believe that empathy is. It doesn't have to be taught.
I see no religion as being natural. The oldest depiction of "gods" must date
to the Sumerian period or Pre-Dynastic Egypt. The two oldest cities in the
world, Jericho and Catal Huyuk, have no "gods" but do have cult icons. They
dated to 8000 bc. For all we know the theory of gods is only 8000 years old.
Man as he exists today has been around for 3 MILLION YEARS! There are no
deities at Lascaux, or any other Paleolithic rock painting sites. Some
portable art can be interpreted as a "Venus" but really they are just "sex
dolls" [as one prof. put it]. I'm rambling and I don't think you asked about
religion.
> I've watched myself going through a process over the years of discovering
> just how much society has controlled my life, and how silly many of the
> unwritten laws are.
Then you understand where I'm coming from...
Aeon
>
>Unlike you, Leo, I am able to deal with "shit, piss, and porno movies."
>Unlike you I'm not offended by dirty words. Unlike you I can see through the
>bullshit this culture pumps into you from the time you are two till you
>finish high school. They tell you there is a proper way to act, to dress, to
>speak. There is a proper way to live your life: get a job! Work 5 days a
>week! 10 hours a day! My father spent his whole life in this system and I've
>never seen him happy.
How has surrealism liberated you? What process did you go through in order
to reach a point that you were able to deal with shit piss and porno movies?
orlan
Aeon
>everyone else. The person in the crowded supermarket who stops in the
>middle of the aisle, blocking traffic in ALL directions, utterly oblivious
>to his own actions. The high school kid who leaves all her garbage on the
>table at the fast food place, never stopping to think of how someone else
>will have to clean up her mess.
>
>This kind of thing SCARES me.
This kind of thing pisses me off. I think it's human nature to a certain
degree, and to another it's ignorance.
We all have difficulties with empathy... but on different levels. For
some its the smelly guy on the street asking for change... for others it
is smoking in a non-smoking zone. For me... I think I have trouble
empathsizing (sp?) with ignorant people. (heh... )
>Reading this immediately after the peanut butter experience with Arthur
>only pounded the concept home -- people lie to each other. People lie to
>themselves. People will do whatever is most convenient.
I think it is more of a case of people ignoring what they know, and doing
what they want. It is a complete disregard for others... not necessarily
a lie.
>I do it too. I know I do. Everyone lies to themselves. I have yet to
>meet a person who doesn't. So, logically, I must be doing it too. I
>can't see it. There are hints here and there -- I want to take my art to
>one of the local galleries, but I don't, because I'm afraid, and I make up
>excuses -- but overall, I cannot see my lies.
>
>And that scares me.
We all do... and for many reasons.
>I think, on some level, the idea of death changes everything. Why do I
>have to do my homework if everybody dies? Why do I have to keep my room
>tidy, if some day I'll be dead? Why shovel the driveway, if tomorrow we
>could all be corpses?
Because if we didn't do some of those things, our lives would suck and
then it would matter.
Aeon
>to be free. By helping me recognize that "morals" are socially programmed
>and unnatural. Shit is natural. Piss is natural. Sex is natural.
But precisely how has surrealism helped you to see through the bullshit?
I agree with what you are saying above.
I've watched myself going through a process over the years of discovering
just how much society has controlled my life, and how silly many of the
unwritten laws are.
>Surrealism is the mind in its natural state. All that try to take it out of
>this natural state are opposed to Surrealism.
That sounds like a war cry my friend... heh.
Leo Sgouros
> By helping me see through the bullshit. By attacking the lies of what it
is
> to be free. By helping me recognize that "morals" are socially programmed
> and unnatural.
Then why is it your respond to certain lines of thought with the flimsiest
of passed around baggage?With "society's" very words and concepts, even
boiled down further?Talking about culture and what 'they" throw at you.
The stuff about jesus wanting to be god, about god the imaginary
friend?About how you "expected" how Nik thinks, when you know you arent
getting the straight dope with Nik on these things???
Without getting into the obvious problems of those religio-non-grata
statements on their own, your comments regarding them sound even less
coherent than some fundamentalists.And you still havent gotten squared away
with what Nik seems to represent, at least for you.
Shit is natural. Piss is natural. Sex is natural.
>
> Surrealism is the mind in its natural state. All that try to take it out
of
> this natural state are opposed to Surrealism.
>
>
>
I refuse to believe your minds natural state tosses these concepts, and hope
that there is a surrealist perspective somewhere.
Fascinan
>I see both Nik and psuedo-religions [i.e. mystical bullshit] as representing
>counter-revolutionary activities.
What you are quick to label mystical bullshit is an integral part of the human
quest. The religious impulse has been one of the most compelling forces
driving human history and culture. In spite of the myriad distortions and
maladaptive expressions of religiosity, it reflects a very fundamental aspect
of humanity -- a connection to the non-human. One does not have to subscribe
to a religion to appreciate the desire to connect to ritual, to investigate and
juxtapose personal beliefs within a system of belief, to study the history and
teachings of a religion, etc.
More importantly, one can appreciate these things about religion, and not be
bound to particulars. The imagination can be enhanced by the positive aspects
of world religion/spiritual systems, just as it can be with the positive
aspects of a scientific framework.
>I am hostile to all religions because they do not care for "truth" but for
>filling in the blank with an unforeseeable answer. If you don't know the
>answer to the question don't answer it.
Then there would be an astounding silence. The scientific method is an amazing
tool, but it is unable to provide any more "truth" than religion concerning
metaphysical inquiries. Modern science, stemming from mechanism and material
philosophy is great for giving us probabilities within a theoretical framework,
but when you look at something like the question of origin, scientific
explanations are on just as shaky ground as religion is.
Does it make any more sense to say that the universe exploded into being 15
billion years ago from a singularity, than saying a divine intelligence created
humanity, or that life was always in an eternal universe with energy and
matter, or that there is re-incarnation? Each system of thought is ripe with
"problems".
All answers concerning origin are then "forced answers". And, this is the case
with other "tough" questions, like consciousness, evolution, etc.
>Surrealism has always
>been after truth which can only be achieved through freedom. Reality is
>Surreality when the mind has finally become free.
I hear this quite a bit: Freedom. Freedom from convention, freedom from that
which shackles the mind/imagination, freedom from that which inhibits the
surrealist project, etc. I haven't the faintest notion of what, exactly, that
means.
Just by ascribing to any surrealist project you are bound to a certain
paradigm. Your imagination is thus shaped by the principles of your surrealist
project. If one was able to achieve complete freedom from any convention or
acquiescence of thought, one would be floating around in ether -- obtaining a
complete alien consciousness.
For all of your efforts to find any type of "truth" through freedom, you will
still find yourself doing cut and paste work of previous paradigms that cater
to your own aesthetic sensibilities. In your search to conjur an epistemology
that's free of inherent limitations, you are guilty of projecting your project
upon every other, shackling potentialities of a "next" project.
Fas
Nikolaus Maack
> But precisely how has surrealism helped you to see through the
>bullshit?
Brandon:
> Simply by showing me that I was not crazy in believing that the American
> system is bullshit.
Does anyone else see weirdness here?
"How has surrealism helped you to see through bullshit?"
"By showing me that the bullshit is bullshit."
"But how did it do that, precisely?"
"By doing it."
But, HOW, Brandon? HOW, specifically, did the tools of surrealism teach
you to see that bullshit is bullshit? Did it help you form critical
thinking? Did it teach you to question everything? Did it help you
realize that personal experience has value, perhaps more value than
so-called "social truths" and "social laws"?
Because what you're saying isn't exactly an answer. What you're saying
seems to be:
"Surrealism taught me to see bullshit by pointing at bullshit and saying,
'This is bullshit!' Therefore, I have learned to see through bullshit."
If this is actually the case -- and I don't think it is -- then you really
haven't learned to see through bullshit at all. What you have learned is
that surrealism sees certain things as bullshit, and you happen to agree
with these statements. You don't seem to have actually "learned"
anything.
I doubt that's the case. And I think this is what Aeon is driving at --
how, precisely, does one see through bullshit?
In my experience, surrealism promotes the idea of trusting your own
understanding of the world. Follow your conscious, trust your
subconscious, and explore. Your personal experience has value. Don't
accept other people's answers. Question everything. Be willing to take
risks. Ask when something doesn't seem to make sense.
Trust your dreams, trust your perceptions, trust your instinct. Use the
random -- tarot cards, stream-of-consciousness, the iching -- to dig
deeper into your own psyche. Find you.
All of this promotes a mindset that cuts through crap.
> I see no religion as being natural.
(And so therefore it's true?)
Surrealism has the unfortunate side-effect of making us egocentric loons.
On the path of exploring self, we tend to get a tad self-absorbed.
Sometimes we trust ourselves TOO much, I think.
mike...
Aeon wrote:
> I think it is more of a case of people ignoring what they know, and doing
> what they want. It is a complete disregard for others... not necessarily
> a lie.
...this is a nearly unrealted. but this is what sprung to mind when i read the
above, so here it is.
the thing i can't understand about people is thier ability to throw up this
"art shield" when exposed to non-mainstream ideas in art, even when the ideas
are offered to them via a mainstream platform (radiohead, for example). this
"shield" is applied quite liberally, i'd say. to art, music, philosophy, and
even religion. people read about buddhism and think, "that sounds really
wonderful, oh, but that's just some abstract philosohpy." they listen to
radiohead and think, "yeh, things would be much better that way." and then
trudge off to work. it's like we've been conditioned to take everything as
"just entertainment." these ideas all sound quite respectable when given to us
in our sugary enterainment pills, but don't take it too seriously, no matter
how undeniable they are. no matter how much we may even want things to be the
way the songs and poems tell us they could be. it's "just entertainment" after
all. thoreau is respectable. radiohead is respectable. burroughs is respectable
-- respectable entertainers. anyone who wants to follow their example, though,
is a fool! (yes this is bitter and personal.)
the reason i bring it up, i suppose, is because i was talking to a friend of
mine, trying to explain my "emotivist" standpoint, and she just wasn't
understanding it. after getting frustrated with me, she said:
"you've been reading too many of those damn philosophy books."
"you read them too."
"they're just books."
not famous enough to think for myself, mike
barrett john erickson
news:20000301101949...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> Brandon:
>
> >I see both Nik and psuedo-religions [i.e. mystical bullshit] as
representing
> >counter-revolutionary activities.
>
> What you are quick to label mystical bullshit is an integral
part of the human
> quest. The religious impulse has been one of the most
compelling forces
> driving human history and culture. In spite of the myriad
distortions and
> maladaptive expressions of religiosity, it reflects a very
fundamental aspect
> of humanity -- a connection to the non-human. One does not have
to subscribe
> to a religion to appreciate the desire to connect to ritual, to
investigate and
> juxtapose personal beliefs within a system of belief, to study
the history and
> teachings of a religion, etc.
there is no "religious impulse".
you are confusing this with what might be called the basic
"motivation" of all cognition (which is essentially to enhance
experience) that, at far more complex levels, becomes also the
desire to understand our experience.
religion (and all other mysticism) is a perversion of this. it
assumes that in order to understand experience, we _must_ find
that understanding in reference to something beyond the experience
itself. it rejects the marvelous (as experienced), in favor of a
counterfeit awe (of something beyond experience).
[and in doing this, it encourages the acceptance of social
hierarchies and serves to stabilize the existing order.]
i think this is simply untrue. the most modern science (in the
convergence of enactive cognition, autopoiesis, chaos theory,
quantum physics) has gone quite a bit beyond the point where
religion remains impotent -- clearly showing how the complex order
we experience may have emerged and evolved while leaving us
forever unable to define what came before as anything but chaos.
these are not "forced answers" but conclusions that flow easily
from observation and the results of physical and mathematical
experiment. of course, further experimental research may modify
these conclusions, but this is certainly not the same as saying
science and religion are on equally "shaky ground" relative to
these matters. religion has clearly been left behind in our quest
to understand our experience.
how can you make this claim after exposure to autopoiesis and
enactive cognition via Capra?
[and this question is not simply rhetorical.]
> Just by ascribing to any surrealist project you are bound to a
certain
> paradigm. Your imagination is thus shaped by the principles of
your surrealist
> project. If one was able to achieve complete freedom from any
convention or
> acquiescence of thought, one would be floating around in
ether -- obtaining a
> complete alien consciousness.
>
> For all of your efforts to find any type of "truth" through
freedom, you will
> still find yourself doing cut and paste work of previous
paradigms that cater
> to your own aesthetic sensibilities. In your search to conjur
an epistemology
> that's free of inherent limitations, you are guilty of
projecting your project
> upon every other, shackling potentialities of a "next" project.
the problem with your argument here is that you confuse the
descriptive with the proscriptive. i won't speak for brandon
(although i think he could make a similar argument), but i have
offered nothing but _descriptive_ definitions of the surrealist
project as a process with a certain observable "attractor". there
is no validity to any argument that this is in any way limiting
anyone or anything. it is merely an attempt to identify the
observable boundaries of the specific terminology being used --
something most people would agree is beneficial to discourse.
we do before we are.
one identifies a surrealist by the _attractor_revealed_ by his/her
actions (which includes theoretical explorations) -- not by how
those actions match up to a pre-existing template. in fact, the
more a person tries to match a "surrealist" template, the further
he/she is from being a surrealist.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Fascinan
>how can you make this claim after exposure to autopoiesis and
>enactive cognition via Capra?
>
Actually, Barrett, I attended a lecture given by Capra, and he made that exact
claim. With the tough metaphysical questions you are working with untestable
material; hence, a mechanistic framework is bogus.
That is not to say that one can't speculate, and hold a relative degree of
certainty from within a theoretical model that x, y, and z will likely happen.
But, to think that any current scientific breakthrough is leading to some key
for the lock of objectivity is naive at best.
>the problem with your argument here is that you confuse the
>descriptive with the proscriptive. i won't speak for brandon
>(although i think he could make a similar argument), but i have
>offered nothing but _descriptive_ definitions of the surrealist
>project as a process with a certain observable "attractor". there
>is no validity to any argument that this is in any way limiting
>anyone or anything. it is merely an attempt to identify the
>observable boundaries of the specific terminology being used --
>something most people would
>agree is beneficial to discourse.
If, in fact, you are offering descriptive and not proscriptive definitions of
your project, why then do you so readily denounce any other description than
your own?
>there is no "religious impulse".
>
>you are confusing this with what might be called the basic
>"motivation" of all cognition (which is essentially to enhance
>experience) that, at far more complex levels, becomes also the
>desire to understand our experience.
Odd; we use different terms to describe something, and you translate that as my
"confusion". Again, that would be more proscriptive than descriptive.
> it [religion]
>assumes that in order to understand experience, we _must_ find
>that understanding in reference to something beyond the experience
>itself. it rejects the marvelous (as experienced), in favor of a
>counterfeit awe (of something beyond experience).
I think a religious/spiritual experience embraces the mystery of the marvelous.
The awe is subjective, and is itself an experience.
>[and in doing this, it encourages the acceptance of social
>hierarchies and serves to stabilize the existing order.]
A maladaptive ramification. I think that infusing science with knowledge
garnered in spiritual systems (1,000s of years of inner transformation and
investigation as opposed to 300 years of material philosophy) can be
beneficial, adding a vibrant, dynamic quality -- bridging the cognitive/emotive
gaps. From what I've experienced, I see this as occuring more and more.
Fas
Aeon
>to tell us we must work, feel pain, and suffer. On top of that most
>Americans seem to be Christians, and have to deal with being "sinners!" I am
>now able to see through this bullshit of negativity. I try to focus mainly
>on what comes natural. I know that the concept of sin is not natural, but I
>am led to believe that empathy is. It doesn't have to be taught.
I agree with what you are saying. Society today is a capatalist world
which happens to push consuming to the max. All we do is work and consume.
It's sick.
But how did surrealism show you that this system is bullshit? Did you see
it by reading about surrealism? Was this someone else's belief and by
learning their belief you saw the truth within it? Did you discover it
while gazing upon surrealist works?
>I see no religion as being natural. The oldest depiction of "gods" must date
>to the Sumerian period or Pre-Dynastic Egypt. The two oldest cities in the
>world, Jericho and Catal Huyuk, have no "gods" but do have cult icons. They
>dated to 8000 bc. For all we know the theory of gods is only 8000 years old.
>Man as he exists today has been around for 3 MILLION YEARS! There are no
>deities at Lascaux, or any other Paleolithic rock painting sites. Some
>portable art can be interpreted as a "Venus" but really they are just "sex
>dolls" [as one prof. put it]. I'm rambling and I don't think you asked about
>religion.
On the contrary, we have no reason not to believe that the paintings of
bulls and animals were some form of worship. Maybe they believed the animals
to be gods.
At the same time, you have to consider the fact that maybe the idea of
expressing certain beliefs in paintings or carvings never occured to anyone
at that point in time.
Also, if you look back further, you will see that there were no recordings
of anything, but that does not mean a lack of religion.
I feel that fear of death is quite natural, and facing this fear can make
spiritual beliefs a rather natural protective mechanism.
Unfortunately, I don't see how we got onto the religion topic ;)
>> I've watched myself going through a process over the years of discovering
>> just how much society has controlled my life, and how silly many of the
>> unwritten laws are.
>
>Then you understand where I'm coming from...
Of course. I imagine my questions might have made you feel challenged.
I'm simply trying to get a feel for how surrealism itself helped you to
see the wrongs of the system.
Aeon
>you to see that bullshit is bullshit? Did it help you form critical
>thinking? Did it teach you to question everything? Did it help you
>realize that personal experience has value, perhaps more value than
>so-called "social truths" and "social laws"?
Yes, that is what I was getting at.
>Surrealism has the unfortunate side-effect of making us egocentric loons.
>On the path of exploring self, we tend to get a tad self-absorbed.
>Sometimes we trust ourselves TOO much, I think.
>
> Nik
Loons indeed :)
Aeon
>mine, trying to explain my "emotivist" standpoint, and she just wasn't
>understanding it. after getting frustrated with me, she said:
>
>"you've been reading too many of those damn philosophy books."
>"you read them too."
>"they're just books."
>
>not famous enough to think for myself, mike
sorry for the big snip mike.
My reaction to your post was "YES YES YES!!!"
What is it with people in general? When they walk into a gallery, they put
on their special "art observer" suit, and "hmmm" and "ahhhh" and "oh I like
this one".
When they remove the suit, that's it.
They don't seem to absorb the meaning behind anything, even in the most
blatent works of art. Do they leave thinking about the meaning? Or do
they still just think "ooh, I like it" or "ohh, it sucked"?
You can put up a poster in an art show that simply says "ABORTION IS
GREAT!" and the only reaction you'll get is "that isn't art.. that's just
a poster". They won't even consider what they are reading...
arg.
Brandon J. Freels
> But how did surrealism show you that this system is bullshit?
Perhaps it only re-inforced what I was already thinking. Its been so long
that I can't seem to track my political and social understandings now...
> Did you see it by reading about surrealism?
There's also the factor of playing with Surrealist techniques to make art
that greatly put me on the side of freedom at all costs. Perhaps, by do
these techniques I had a taste of the freedom I would like in everyday
life... but like I said, it was so long ago...
Brandon J. Freels
> What you are quick to label mystical bullshit is an integral part of the
human
> quest. The religious impulse has been one of the most compelling forces
> driving human history and culture.
I simply disagree. I've never had a religious impulse. Does that mean I'm
not human?
> The imagination can be enhanced by the positive aspects
> of world religion/spiritual systems, just as it can be with the positive
> aspects of a scientific framework.
The imagination freezes in the religious context. Just look at the Mormons.
They defrost the Christian religion and come up with this very imaginative
theory of "Jesus in America" and every other Christian church thinks they're
nuts! Of course, now even their theory is frozen in time. Science, on the
other hand, is not so frozen for science yesterday is much different then
science today.
> Then there would be an astounding silence. The scientific method is an
amazing
> tool, but it is unable to provide any more "truth" than religion
concerning
> metaphysical inquiries.
I would argue differently. I don't know about Dale or Barrett, but I am not
interested in metaphysics. I do see emperical evidence as an important and
immovable part to understanding "truth." Besides, silence is golden.
> Does it make any more sense to say that the universe exploded into being
15
> billion years ago from a singularity, than saying a divine intelligence
created
> humanity, or that life was always in an eternal universe with energy and
> matter, or that there is re-incarnation? Each system of thought is ripe
with
> "problems".
Never said I believed in the big bang. Never said I believed in evolution. I
would rather let the door swing open for what emperical evidence can
provide. Science doesn't force answers in that it offers possibilities. This
is very different from the accept or perish theory of most religions. They
all have them, even Buddhism. If you don't follow the 4 Noble Truths [the
Buddhism morals list] you are stuck being reincarnated until you do.
Fascinan
>I simply disagree. I've never had a religious impulse. Does that mean I'm
>not human?
No, but in a general sense, you can't tell me that you've never pondered about
origin, or evolution, or purpose, meaning, possibilities of soul, afterlife,
rebirth, etc...Obviously, you do. I understand the locus of religion as
connection to the non-human. Of course, the rituals and mythologies vary
across the board, but I refuse to believe that you have never felt ANY
mystical/spiritual/religious impulse?
>[about the Mormons] Of course, now even their theory is frozen in time.
Science, on the
>other hand, is not so frozen for science yesterday is much different then
>science today.
I agree here in the sense that the rigidity of some belief systems is dreadful
for the imagination -- conformity suffocates the creative, authentic, and an
open perspective. The scientific method is "healthy" in the way that it
promotes revision. But, I think, with closer examintion, you will see cultural
belief systems change as a whole (this includes religion) with assimilation.
There *are* dynamic systems. Teilhard de Chardin broke ground earlier this
century as a Jesuit paleotologist. I think to abnegate a belief system because
it is inconsistent with your own conceptions of the universe overlooks a wealth
of information -- connections that have been overlooked by ignorance and the
socialized duality between science and religion.
>Science doesn't force answers in that it offers possibilities. This
>is very different from the accept or perish theory of most religions.
I'd like to know more about the "accept or perish" religions. Your perception
of religion is very fire and brimstone, as if you read mythologies literally.
I have a feeling that you've encountered many a bible thumper in your day.
Fas
Nikolaus Maack
> they listen to
> radiohead and think, "yeh, things would be much better that way." and then
> trudge off to work. it's like we've been conditioned to take everything as
> "just entertainment."
A friend of mine -- who, it would be safe to say, lives in a bubble with
walls twice as thick as mine -- managed to see the movie "The Truman
Show". It amazed him. Here was a Hollywood flick the promoted thought,
that challenged a bunch of notions.
Many people walk through life as though they are being watched on TV, and
are trying to live up to TV expectations. Truman fights that, breaks
free, escapes his particular trap. What a goddamn noble film. The end.
My friend was delighted with this, and it stuck in his head like a thorn.
So recently, he mentioned the film in some IRC channel as an example of
profound thought from Hollywood. Reactions went pretty much as follows:
"The Truman show? yeah, I think I saw that last year. It was pretty
good. Don't remember much of it though. Jim Carey's pretty fuckin'
funny. Did you see that movie with the black guy who isn't a cop, but
pretends to be one? Ha! It was good!"
People don't hear or see the messages anymore. They get into the story,
but don't register it. Entertainment glides over their brains, taking
them away for an hour or two -- or as long as a song on the radio -- and
then they're off to the next bit of fluff. Nothing STICKS.
> "you've been reading too many of those damn philosophy books."
> "you read them too."
> "they're just books."
They're not just books! They're not just movies! They're not just
ENTERTAINMENT! GRR!! GRRRRR!!!!
I'll be all right. No, really.
Brandon J. Freels
> >But, HOW, Brandon? HOW, specifically, did the tools of surrealism teach
> >you to see that bullshit is bullshit? Did it help you form critical
> >thinking? Did it teach you to question everything? Did it help you
> >realize that personal experience has value, perhaps more value than
> >so-called "social truths" and "social laws"?
I have answered this in another post.
> >Surrealism has the unfortunate side-effect of making us egocentric loons.
> >On the path of exploring self, we tend to get a tad self-absorbed.
> >Sometimes we trust ourselves TOO much, I think.
Maybe you are trusting yourself to much with this "god-puppet theory" which
I can't see as being more than a way to for you to "cover up" the
existential void you feel in the face of randomness.
Brandon J. Freels
Fascinan wrote
> I refuse to believe that you have never felt ANY
> mystical/spiritual/religious impulse?
Things get labelled according to how someone interprets them. If someone
tries to rationalize a "surreal" experience with god, then it becomes a
mystical experience.
> I'd like to know more about the "accept or perish" religions. Your
perception
> of religion is very fire and brimstone, as if you read mythologies
literally.
> I have a feeling that you've encountered many a bible thumper in your day.
Too often.
Nikolaus Maack
>[and in doing this, it encourages the acceptance of social
>hierarchies and serves to stabilize the existing order.]
Your praise of science and your hatred for religion is slightly misguided.
You have to admit that science is just as prone to setting up social
hierarchies, and they love nothing more than to serve the existing order.
From the lowliest doctor who won't tell his patient anything beyond the
conclusion, to the scientist who chases only the flashy, new, and trendy
areas of research -- all of them serve the existing system, all of them
work in a social hierarchy.
"Publish or perish" means having to suck up to the right journals, having
an "IN" with the right peers, being on top of the grant money, etc. All
of this shapes scientific thought, no matter how "objective" the boys in
the lab can be.
Sure, there are a respected few who study outside the scope of making a
better margarine or a VCR that won't eat tapes. Just like there are
religious people who don't preach on streetcorners and who don't seek to
oppress other's minds.
You're the one who is so big on labelling false dichotomies -- isn't it
possible that the split between "science" and "religion" is just another
error in thinking?
Nikolaus Maack
> I can't see as being more than a way to for you to "cover up" the
> existential void you feel in the face of randomness.
Anything is possible. I know that when I went out into the woods and
stayed in a cabin for a week, I was so freaked out at the thought of being
alone that I begged my girlfriend to come up every night, after work, and
stay with me. For some reason she said yes. That sounds like an
existential hole to me.
But another problem with all this talk of the "puppet-god-theory" -- I
don't actually do it that often or take it that seriously. It's just a
game, really, but that doesn't mean it's not serious or important. It's
play, and play is important.
In many ways, Brandon, you take religion far more seriously than I do. I
defend it, sure, but that's because I feel like you're trying to take away
one of my toys. In truth, it's just a toy, but I can't stand anyone who
tells me I have to sit in the dirt of the sandbox WITHOUT my plastic
pail and shovel.
Leo Sgouros
--
"The seed is spilled the bed defiled
for you, a virgin bride
hide yourself in someone else
don't find yourself in me"
U2
www.mkshadows.net
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000301101949...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> Brandon:
>
> >I see both Nik and psuedo-religions [i.e. mystical bullshit] as
representing
> >counter-revolutionary activities.
>
> What you are quick to label mystical bullshit is an integral part of the
human
> quest. The religious impulse has been one of the most compelling forces
> driving human history and culture. In spite of the myriad distortions and
> maladaptive expressions of religiosity, it reflects a very fundamental
aspect
> of humanity -- a connection to the non-human.
<snip>
Just as a side note here, I am not surprised why people are turned off to
Christianity, at least.
In looking over some of the christian newsgroups I discovered an appalling
lack of intelligence on the part of the fundamentalists.
I understand what the atheists react to, but I see them play out the same
mistakes with responses that are just as silly.
They seem to be trapped in their own version of what they believe others
believe.
This is an interesting situation, where people reaffirm their own confused
interpretations of "the enemy" to suit their agenda.A very human reaction
especially on usenet.
I see both sides guilty.
Me too!!111!!
Fascinan
>"Publish or perish" means having to suck up to the right journals, having
>an "IN" with the right peers, being on top of the grant money, etc. All
>of this shapes scientific thought, no matter how "objective" the boys in
>the lab can be.
I had a cosmology professor who experienced just that. He is very brilliant,
and being such a bright thinker, he was "guided" along by some of his peers who
were in positions of influence. He came to teach at the small, rather obscure,
graduate school I attended because he wanted to teach the things he loved
without compromising his style, and his own beliefs. Early in his career he
was lauded for his keen intellect and abilities as a mathematical scientist,
but had to repress his personal/spiritual beliefs. He chose to leave the big
money, leave the esteemed universities, the grants, etc....in order to teach
cosmology the way he felt impelled to do so: empowering the hard facts with a
sense of creative urgency, spirit, poetry, joy, etc.
Fascinan
>Things get labelled according to how someone interprets them. If someone
>tries to rationalize a "surreal" experience with god, then it becomes a
>mystical experience.
I think I'm beginning to understand where you are coming from. Personally, I
need to learn more about Surrealism and historical surrealists; as such, I
will more readily ascertain philosophical positions like the above.
>> I'd like to know more about the "accept or perish" religions. Your
>perception
>> of religion is very fire and brimstone, as if you read mythologies
>literally.
>> I have a feeling that you've encountered many a bible thumper in your day.
>
>Too often.
I figured. I've argued from both sides of the coin and a few inbetween.
Nothing is more frustrating than someone who tries to convert. Encountering
someone who believes in a philosophy/religion/system of thought so strongly
that s/he begins to vehemently denounce everything else is incredibly
frustrating.
I see a little of that concerning a few adherents of Surrealism. In the
extreme, something along the lines of: Religion blinds the imagination; the
following set of arbitrarily assigned rules is THE way to liberate the
imagination. Please note: Often, it's not the actual content that I disagree
with. I like alot of what Barrett and Dale and Brandon has to say, and I
concur with alot of it. What makes me tend to disagree is the seeming
inflexibility of thought in a project that denounces inflexibility -- it's the
attitude of assuming correctness that tends to ....ahhh....get my soft dander
up.
Fas
Brandon J. Freels
> I think I'm beginning to understand where you are coming from.
Personally, I
> need to learn more about Surrealism and historical surrealists; as such, I
> will more readily ascertain philosophical positions like the above.
I've been trying to workout the differences between mysticism, the
Marvelous, the Uncanny and the Absurd for some time. I've written of this
before but maybe I should clarify what I seem to be concluding:
Surreality is often referred to by Surrealists as the Marvelous or
Convulsive Beauty, but tends to avoid being defined. Peret went so far as to
state that he will never define it. But despite this, in the opening chapter
of Mad Love Breton speaks of it as "fixed-explosive" or
"magic-circumstantial" and examines its features. Basically, what he seems
to be getting at is that the Marvelous is simply those moments when
rationalism takes a back seat and the irrationalism of the world takes the
wheel. What happens to someone when something doesn't work according to
their supposed rational view of the world can vary, and this is how we get
the four different response:
1. A Surrealist celebrates the irrational, and accepts the event purely for
the event itself.
2. A Rationalist, such as Freud, will be confused and frightened by this
breech of rationalism and will feel the chill of "the Uncanny" [read Freud's
article on this topic].
3. A Theologist may have two reactions:
3a. The Absurd, as spoken about by Camus, where they see the breaking of
their
rational complex as a dive into the terrible world of meaninglessness,
and the
existential void.
3b. The Mystical, as they subvert the Absurd with a false blanked of
theological rationalism, by claiming the "irrational" is only
the product of the supernatural world.
The point here is actually simple: Surrealists have no fear for the
irrational, only compassion. They don't run from it, or hide it. When Nik
tries to blame those "magical" acts on his "imaginary friend" he is only
covering the truth that it is a chance event, and unexplainable. He seems to
have trouble leaving the chance event alone in its beauty. It exists by
itself and doesn't need to be justified.
Parry
> I'm simply trying to get a feel for how surrealism itself helped you to
> see the wrongs of the system.
There is an under-discussed political dimension to surrealism. Art and
the imagination are not things that exist independently of social and
political relationships. It became quickly apparent to the surrealists
that talk of poetry and freedom was hollow if these things were only to
dangle like jewelry from the body of an unjust society. At first, the
surrealists embraced Marxism as being the most potent analytical tool.
Later, surrealist political theory became de-centralized, though it must
necessarily gravitate around leftist or radical ideas, such as those of
Marxism and anarchism, i.e. those ideas which allow people to exercise
real control over their working lives.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Brandon J. Freels
> What bothers me more is that those same people really think shows like
> Scream or whatever are "great!" and so on. It's shit.
The first one wasn't, but the rest sucked.
Nikolaus Maack
> The point here is actually simple: Surrealists have no fear for the
> irrational, only compassion. They don't run from it, or hide it. When Nik
> tries to blame those "magical" acts on his "imaginary friend" he is only
> covering the truth that it is a chance event, and unexplainable. He seems to
> have trouble leaving the chance event alone in its beauty. It exists by
> itself and doesn't need to be justified.
The "imaginary friend" doesn't justify the random act. It gives it shape.
Maybe this goes against the pure random that you seem to enjoy so much,
but I find it helps to "contextualize" the random.
"What was that? Something weird just happened. What does it mean?"
Brandon: "It means nothing. It is a chance event and that, in itself, is
beautiful."
Nik: "It means everything. It is not a chance event, but a message from
the universe -- my subconscious. It is also very beautiful."
So long as we can agree that it's beautiful, I don't see that we have that
much of a disagreement.
Aeon
>> But how did surrealism show you that this system is bullshit?
>
>Perhaps it only re-inforced what I was already thinking. Its been so long
>that I can't seem to track my political and social understandings now...
Yes.. it could be. I'm the same way... I often am not truly certain what
started the flow of thought.
>> Did you see it by reading about surrealism?
>
>There's also the factor of playing with Surrealist techniques to make art
>that greatly put me on the side of freedom at all costs. Perhaps, by do
>these techniques I had a taste of the freedom I would like in everyday
>life... but like I said, it was so long ago...
What surrealist techniques do you use?
Aeon
>A friend of mine -- who, it would be safe to say, lives in a bubble with
>walls twice as thick as mine -- managed to see the movie "The Truman
>Show". It amazed him. Here was a Hollywood flick the promoted thought,
>that challenged a bunch of notions.
The Truman show kicks ass!
>People don't hear or see the messages anymore. They get into the story,
>but don't register it. Entertainment glides over their brains, taking
>them away for an hour or two -- or as long as a song on the radio -- and
>then they're off to the next bit of fluff. Nothing STICKS.
Exactly.
What bothers me more is that those same people really think shows like
Scream or whatever are "great!" and so on. It's shit.
orlan
Aeon
>the imagination are not things that exist independently of social and
>political relationships. It became quickly apparent to the surrealists
>that talk of poetry and freedom was hollow if these things were only to
>dangle like jewelry from the body of an unjust society. At first, the
>surrealists embraced Marxism as being the most potent analytical tool.
>Later, surrealist political theory became de-centralized, though it must
>necessarily gravitate around leftist or radical ideas, such as those of
>Marxism and anarchism, i.e. those ideas which allow people to exercise
>real control over their working lives.
>
>-- Parry
Yet was it that they chose those particular political leanings to be
a vital part of surrealism, or was it that people who have those particular
political leanings happen to be attracted to surrealism?
Aeon
>extreme, something along the lines of: Religion blinds the imagination; the
>following set of arbitrarily assigned rules is THE way to liberate the
>imagination. Please note: Often, it's not the actual content that I disagree
>with. I like alot of what Barrett and Dale and Brandon has to say, and I
>concur with alot of it. What makes me tend to disagree is the seeming
>inflexibility of thought in a project that denounces inflexibility -- it's the
>attitude of assuming correctness that tends to ....ahhh....get my soft dander
>up.
>
>Fas
"the seeming inflexibility of thought in a project that denounces
inflexibility"
now that's exactly what bugs me...
Brandon J. Freels
> Yet was it that they chose those particular political leanings to be
> a vital part of surrealism, or was it that people who have those
particular
> political leanings happen to be attracted to surrealism?
Probably a little of both.
Brandon J. Freels
> What surrealist techniques do you use?
In the past I've used collage, word-games, poetry remixes, etc. I've tried
to do automatic writing, but it doesn't seem to suit me. I usually develop
stories by doing word-collages, and then slapping those onto some recent
dreams, and then letting them flow together from there, along with maybe an
obsessive fantasy or two. I was supposed to have a new book of stories out
this year, but the guy who published my chapbook is running out of money.
We've put it off till next year [here's his site:
http://www.teleport.com/~futuret/futuret/home1.html ]. I don't paint any
more, but when I did it was something along the lines of automatic painting
(Miro, Masson-like). I stopped about three years ago because I had this
nazi-bitch of a painting teacher who took away all the fun.
barrett john erickson
news:slrn8bpd7...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
>
> Yet was it that they chose those particular political leanings
to be
> a vital part of surrealism, or was it that people who have those
particular
> political leanings happen to be attracted to surrealism?
neither.
the political dimension of "surrealism" is integral to the
surrealist perspective (which isn't to say it doesn't evolve).
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
barrett john erickson
news:89jthq$332$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Barrett:
> >[and in doing this, it encourages the acceptance of social
> >hierarchies and serves to stabilize the existing order.]
>
> Your praise of science and your hatred for religion is slightly
misguided.
but i'm not praising science. i merely contend that it has
revealed a convergence on surrealist themes in ways that (by my
analysis) allow the resolution of most of the paradoxes that have
led to such absurdities as the "many worlds" interpretation of
quantum reality as well as the kind of philosophical problems that
Fas refers to.
and do so while leaving _no_ justification for those who try to
crawl back into the mystical womb.
> You have to admit that science is just as prone to setting up
social
> hierarchies, and they love nothing more than to serve the
existing order.
> From the lowliest doctor who won't tell his patient anything
beyond the
> conclusion, to the scientist who chases only the flashy, new,
and trendy
> areas of research -- all of them serve the existing system, all
of them
> work in a social hierarchy.
the problem i've always had with science (at least since i was 19
and first seriously thought about it) is that i sensed that there
was a very flawed fundamental assumption lurking somewhere behind
its "objectivity". it is only since i've understood enactive
cognition (just a few years now) that i've been able to articulate
that fundamental flaw: scientists have always assumed the
stimulus/response model of cognition (and most still do).
i now think this is a very significant error.
> You're the one who is so big on labelling false dichotomies --
isn't it
> possible that the split between "science" and "religion" is just
another
> error in thinking?
certainly, if that was what i was doing. but as i try to explain
above, what i'm actually saying is that science continues to
converge on the unified surrealist perspective, while mysticism
and religion detours into an abyss of unanswerable, unjustifiable
and escapist assumptions that only serve to swallow further
inquiry.
barrett john erickson
> Brandon:
>
> >I simply disagree. I've never had a religious impulse. Does
that mean I'm
> >not human?
>
> No, but in a general sense, you can't tell me that you've never
pondered about
> origin, or evolution, or purpose, meaning, possibilities of
soul, afterlife,
> rebirth, etc...Obviously, you do. I understand the locus of
religion as
> connection to the non-human. Of course, the rituals and
mythologies vary
felt ANY
> mystical/spiritual/religious impulse?
but there's no reason to attribute the desire to _understand_ our
situation -- which i think is the consequence of the natural
evolution of greater cognitive complexity -- to some kind of
impulse toward a particular explanation (especially one that has
been thoroughly discredited in my opinion).
in fact, i think it's escapist to do so.
rigid stagnation this isn't a characteristic of "some belief
systems" it's a characteristic of _all_ belief systems -- by
definition.
barrett john erickson
>
> I figured. I've argued from both sides of the coin and a few
inbetween.
> Nothing is more frustrating than someone who tries to convert.
Encountering
> someone who believes in a philosophy/religion/system of thought
so strongly
> that s/he begins to vehemently denounce everything else is
incredibly
> frustrating.
>
> I see a little of that concerning a few adherents of Surrealism.
In the
> extreme, something along the lines of: Religion blinds the
imagination; the
> following set of arbitrarily assigned rules is THE way to
liberate the
> imagination. Please note: Often, it's not the actual content
that I disagree
> with. I like alot of what Barrett and Dale and Brandon has to
say, and I
> concur with alot of it. What makes me tend to disagree is the
seeming
> inflexibility of thought in a project that denounces
inflexibility -- it's the
> attitude of assuming correctness that tends to ....ahhh....get
my soft dander
> up.
but this all comes from the fact that you are mistakenly thinking
of conclusions reached via investigation and exploration as
inflexible. i'm sure dale, and i assume brandon, would join me in
saying we don't hold _any_ position that we consider
unchallengable, or that we haven't arrived at through that very
process of challenge.
and remember, we're talking here about something we've observed,
thought about, and participated in for some time. i don't think
there's any way a surrealist could _not_ have positions on the
topics we comment on.
but you seem to think (as do the many others who often make the
same kind of accusations) that "flexibility" is some kind of
primary virtue, and having _any_ position is being "inflexible".
Nikolaus Maack
> and do so while leaving _no_ justification for those who try to
> crawl back into the mystical womb.
Even the scientist who discovers that objectivity is king, and crowns it,
does so to impress vaguely sexual memories of mother and father. Welcome
to life -- everything bleeds into everything else. Your blood is tainted
too. May I have a cup of it? I already do.
Sometimes poetry is the only answer. The rest of this postwill be more
straightforward.
> scientists have always assumed the
> stimulus/response model of cognition (and most still do).
> i now think this is a very significant error.
Me too. But the depressing thing is that the S->R model seems to work
fairly well in most cases. It seems to get the best results, or at least,
the most tangible, quantifiable results.
Behaviorism is the most respected of the psychologies because it is the
most "science" like. People are pigeons in boxes. Stimulus leads to
response, with nothing in between. Everyone seems to sneer at
psychologies that say there's something between the two. Oddly enough,
these other theories are looked on by behaviorists and scientists as
mystical nonsense.
How can we possibly access the black box in people's heads using
scientific methods? Self reports are flawed, and anyone watching with
some "empathy" is going to be biased. It seems there is no scientific
way to examine the process. So focus on Stimulus - Response, and brain
structure, and call it a day. Leave the rest for the poets.
In my opinion, we poets get all the good stuff.
> certainly, if that was what i was doing. but as i try to explain
> above, what i'm actually saying is that science continues to
> converge on the unified surrealist perspective, while mysticism
> and religion detours into an abyss of unanswerable, unjustifiable
> and escapist assumptions that only serve to swallow further
> inquiry.
I still think you're looking at the wrong religions. Or, more accurately,
maybe you're looking at religions and not individual religious people.
The Pope says, "Don't use condoms. This is the law I am laying down."
Most of the world says, "You say what you wanna say. We aren't
listening."
You assume that religious people are fed religious answers, and then never
look at another menu their entire lives. That's not what happens, in my
experience. Sure, some people act that way -- but some people watch
"Friends" on TV and laugh at it.
Nikolaus Maack
> same kind of accusations) that "flexibility" is some kind of
> primary virtue, and having _any_ position is being "inflexible".
You are evidently unaware of the style of which you fab four (Dale, you,
Brandon, and Kristina) present yourselves. It has nothing to do with the
fact that you have taken positions. It's how you present those positions.
Typical example:
Person A: "I believe X."
Barrett: "You are wrong. Y is the truth. All surrealists of any real
calibre know this."
Person A: "Well, I believe X anyway. Here's some reasons why."
Barrett: "You're still wrong. I have done careful research into this. Y
is true. Dale, Brandon, and I, who are all real surrealists, know this.
You haven't given this a lot of thought, and you haven't read the right
books."
Person A: "Fuck you, asshole!"
Barrett, fails to respond, but his silence says: "Now you descend into
emotional nonsense, so I will cease to discuss this matter with you
further."
Note how person A presents their "facts" as opinions. Note how you
present your opinions as "facts". They're just some person. You label
yourself as the "authoratitive surrealist", and immediately allie yourself
with the other people you consider to be authorities.
All of this makes you seem aloof, pretentious, and somehow "untouchable".
It also makes you seem inhuman. While other people have mere opinions,
you KNOW the truth, and other right thinking people like you know it.
Unfortunately, you can't describe WHY, or HOW you reached this truth. You
just have it, is all.
Dale does the same thing as you, except he occasionally throws in a few
other choice phrases, like:
"Bullshit!"
"You little bedbug, you know nothing."
"Twaddle."
Etc.
Which doesn't exactly promote an exchange. But hey, it just occurs to me
-- you don't want an exchange. For the most part you lot come across like
you already have all the answers you want, thanks. It's not that you have
an opinion, but you have a fortress of ideas, and if anyone wants to make
contact with you in any serious way, they're going to have to smash down
the fortress walls, in order to get access to you.
So far no one has smashed down a wall. You take this to be a sign that no
one can question your beliefs. I take this as a sign that you're so
isolated in your castle, you can't make contact with "mere mortals"
anymore.
Dale has said as much, in regards to his communication pattern. The
reason he follows up to my posts, he says, is that he doesn't want people
to get the wrong ideas about surrealism. My posts are inaccuracies in
regards to the surrealist "truth". What he's saying is that my opinions
are mere opinions. His opinions are surrealist truth that must
be defended.
"Raise the drawbridge! Nik is back for another attack."
Actually, I just came here to talk.
All of this is slightly more insulting than I intend it to be. But if you
really want to know why people think you, Dale, Brandon, and Kristina are
"inflexible", these are the reasons.
Fascinan
>but this all comes from the fact that you are mistakenly thinking
>of conclusions reached via investigation and exploration as
>inflexible. i'm sure dale, and i assume brandon, would join me in
>saying we don't hold _any_ position that we consider
>unchallengable, or that we haven't arrived at through that very process of
challenge.
Okay, good.
>and remember, we're talking here about something we've observed,
>thought about, and participated in for some time. i don't think
>there's any way a surrealist could _not_ have positions on the
>topics we comment on.
This is interesting. Let me ask you this: Certainly, there are philosophical
differences (probably minor ones) between your contingent and international
groups? Just like anything else, there are different schools of thought,
different focuses, different doctrines, even within the Chagal blue gates of
Surrealism.
>but you seem to think (as do the many others who often make the
>same kind of accusations) that "flexibility" is some kind of
>primary virtue, and having _any_ position is being "inflexible".
No. Just the attitude, the assumption of correctness, is what I was
"accusing". Of course, you have your positions, and that's great; but the
sense of inclusivity/exclusivity I feel with your contingency is odd.
It's strange. But somehow we all ended up on either one side or the other.
And I've noticed that people have either supported the Axis or the Allies.
Perhaps Elag or John is neutral, but clear delineations are forming lines in
the philosophical sands.
I suppose it's why I support more flexibility.
I don't think there has ever been a synthesis of thought between the
Dale/Barrett/Brandon/Kristina faction and the Nik/Andrea/Leo/Fas side -- not a
single
commingle!
Would anyone like to comment on how this has occured, and if there is any hope
in the future for Hegel's ghost to be roused?
Fas
Leo Sgouros
> Would anyone like to comment on how this has occured, and if there is any
hope
> in the future for Hegel's ghost to be roused?
>
> Fas
This in itself is a helluva brewhaha.
Partly due to strong opinions, partly due to the medium.
Just because we can view the world through new eyes, blue eyes, or screw
eyes, shorely dont mean we are going to hold hands with the insinuated and
propagated "enemies of the state".
partly this, the various propagation methods of the accused, the real grunt
grunt grunt of the nasty fuckover post, the refusal to admit being a sorry
excuse for a human, blah blah blah.
Actually, this would probably remain the same even if we all got together
and got wasted for a week.
Each would slouch back to bethlehem into the eager arms of the throne, the
comfortable, and the lighning bolt.
Or not.
Beats me d00d.
I need some feedback first, consider this a broken condom.
barrett john erickson
> This is interesting. Let me ask you this: Certainly, there are
philosophical
> differences (probably minor ones) between your contingent and
international
> groups? Just like anything else, there are different schools of
thought,
> different focuses, different doctrines, even within the Chagal
blue gates of
> Surrealism.
sure there are. mostly matters of emphasis and focus (and the
occasional misunderstanding due to translation difficulties).
this sometimes results in very real battles over collective
endeavors. but at the core there always remains a consensus
understanding of what that "surrealist attractor" is -- even if
most never attempt to articulate it.
> >but you seem to think (as do the many others who often make the
> >same kind of accusations) that "flexibility" is some kind of
> >primary virtue, and having _any_ position is being
"inflexible".
>
> No. Just the attitude, the assumption of correctness, is what I
was
> "accusing". Of course, you have your positions, and that's
great; but the
> sense of inclusivity/exclusivity I feel with your contingency is
odd.
i understand that, but this is something that has evolved over a
long period of time from numerous dreary encounters with arrogant
ignorance (think "andrea") and attempts at discussion that seem to
leave no residue of increased understanding among people like nik.
it's difficult to avoid a critical "us vs. them" stance when the
evidence is that such people prefer their counterfeit versions of
"surrealism" that degrade the original and are uninterested or
incapable of moving past the common misunderstandings and
misrepresentations.
> It's strange. But somehow we all ended up on either one side or
the other.
> And I've noticed that people have either supported the Axis or
the Allies.
> Perhaps Elag or John is neutral, but clear delineations are
forming lines in
> the philosophical sands.
> I suppose it's why I support more flexibility.
> I don't think there has ever been a synthesis of thought between
the
> Dale/Barrett/Brandon/Kristina faction and the
Nik/Andrea/Leo/Fas side -- not a
> single
> commingle!
there's simply no synthesis of thought possible with those who
(like Nik and "andrea") take the position that "surrealism" can be
whatever they decide it is, regardless of the reality of
"surrealism" as it exists among surrealists. it is _their
disinterest_ in understanding the global movement that leaves them
outside. it is _their insistence_ that they can usurp the global
movement that renders them hostile.
they attempt not only to hijack the reality of "surrealism", but
to reduce it to something as hollow and lifeless as they are.
as for "andrea"...
as we see all around us now, when she is challenged she retreats
and tries to gather her flies for a maggot infestation -- which of
course has the effect of making alt.surrealism even more
irrelevant.
is that the kind of "surrealism" you want to identify with?
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:H2wv4.2985$%A3.6...@ptah.visi.com...
>
>i'm sure dale, and i assume brandon, would join me in
> saying we don't hold _any_ position that we consider
> unchallengable
Except that I look pretty good in blue jeans and a nice black shirt.
Oh - and that Andrea is a Bitch.
DMH
Parry
middle-class background who resolved to bite the hand that moulds them,
and gnaw it off at the wrist. This resolve is linked to the Great War,
an incredible catastrophe orchestrated by the ruling classes. The notion
of revolution became a vital part of surrealism, another inflexible.
Grasping for a revolutionary political theory, Marxism was attractive
because of its roots in Hegelian dialectics, and so provided much fuel
for surrealist thought.
-- Parry
barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> "Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn8bpd7...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
>
> >
> > Yet was it that they chose those particular political leanings
> to be
> > a vital part of surrealism, or was it that people who have those
> particular
> > political leanings happen to be attracted to surrealism?
>
> neither.
>
> the political dimension of "surrealism" is integral to the
> surrealist perspective (which isn't to say it doesn't evolve).
>
> -- barrett
Parry
> Just as a side note here, I am not surprised why people are turned off to
> Christianity, at least.
> In looking over some of the christian newsgroups I discovered an appalling
> lack of intelligence on the part of the fundamentalists.
> I understand what the atheists react to, but I see them play out the same
> mistakes with responses that are just as silly.
> They seem to be trapped in their own version of what they believe others
> believe.
> This is an interesting situation, where people reaffirm their own confused
> interpretations of "the enemy" to suit their agenda.A very human reaction
> especially on usenet.
> I see both sides guilty.
> Me too!!111!!
Just because there are two sides to a heated debate doesn’t mean both
sides are equally wrong. What’s the appropriate response to god-talk? I
consider surrealism’s atheism to be non-negotiable. If someone comes
knocking at surrealism’s house wanting to talk about god, the only
sensible response is to kick him in the gnads and tell him to fuck off.
Yes to fanaticism, no to zealotry! Surrealism requires men and women who
can still tell the difference.
-- Parry
elag
> It's strange. But somehow we all ended up on either one side or the other.
> And I've noticed that people have either supported the Axis or the Allies.
> Perhaps Elag or John is neutral, but clear delineations are forming lines in
> the philosophical sands.
You may consider me neutral... but more of a slate grey... not beige! I
learn alot from reading the various points of view in this NG. I don't
always have time to comment, but I read it all. The formation of an
opposition (even as a "devil's advocate") is vital to the process of
debating an issue. I don't learn much from back-patting... I welcome
the opportunity to see ideas which I have accepted held up to scrutiny.
Except for the personal flames, I have found most of the exchanges in
this group valuable.
Brandon J. Freels
> If someone comes knocking at surrealism's house wanting to talk about god,
the only
> sensible response is to kick him in the gnads and tell him to fuck off.
For some reason I can't help but agree. Often, as I have spoken before, I
enjoy a nice walk through the park blocks so that I can yell profanities at
the born-agains while their preaching their bullshit.
kristina
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:yppv4.29943$yn3.2...@news1.teleport.com...
> Aeon wrote
> > What surrealist techniques do you use?
What do you mean by that? I'd be more interested in hearing what everyone
thinks about this, and even more interested in knowing if anyone out there
calls any of what they do as falling under the category of "surreal
techniques". Not being a shit here, seriously very intrigued by this
question and other points of view -- that is if anyone finds it interesting
enough to explore this basic of areas (which no doubt has the potential of
being complex). Okay... that's me done for the day.
Kristina.
Leo Sgouros
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:38BEF3...@zxOMITmail.com...
> Leo Sgouros wrote:
> > Just as a side note here, I am not surprised why people are turned off
to
> > Christianity, at least.
> > In looking over some of the christian newsgroups I discovered an
appalling
> > lack of intelligence on the part of the fundamentalists.
> > I understand what the atheists react to, but I see them play out the
same
> > mistakes with responses that are just as silly.
> > They seem to be trapped in their own version of what they believe others
> > believe.
> > This is an interesting situation, where people reaffirm their own
confused
> > interpretations of "the enemy" to suit their agenda.A very human
reaction
> > especially on usenet.
> > I see both sides guilty.
> > Me too!!111!!
>
> Just because there are two sides to a heated debate doesn't mean both
> sides are equally wrong. What's the appropriate response to god-talk? I
> knocking at surrealism's house wanting to talk about god, the only
> sensible response is to kick him in the gnads and tell him to fuck off.
> can still tell the difference.
>
> -- Parry
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
yup-
but those nasty atheists wouldnt stop!
They made me do it!!!
I agree though, surrealism IS dog, and much healthier too.
tastes great, more filling, blah blah blah
mink head is never dead until it declares its intentions to
GET AHEAD
and then
POW smears mustard on its own glassy eye in order for it to go down smoother
SMOOTH UP IN YA
IN YA!!
Sheesh, I remember them, the band the bullet boyz, la band.
Whew
Nikolaus Maack
> enjoy a nice walk through the park blocks so that I can yell profanities at
And we yell at you, Brandon, while you preach your bullshit. It's the
cycle of life, m'boy. Karma and kismet and the wheel of fortune and shit.
Fuck yew, fuck yew, fuck yew up da ass
wiff a brokin beer boddle,
vinigar drippin from da glass.
Blood becomes ya, cretin,
red's definitely yer culler.
And if'n you'se won't fight back,
it's becuzz yer yuller.
My fists pummels ya at random.
Your balls is on my dinner plate.
I dearly loves you, Brandon.
It's just yer mouf I hate.
Aeon
>long period of time from numerous dreary encounters with arrogant
>ignorance (think "andrea") and attempts at discussion that seem to
>leave no residue of increased understanding among people like nik.
>it's difficult to avoid a critical "us vs. them" stance when the
>evidence is that such people prefer their counterfeit versions of
>"surrealism" that degrade the original and are uninterested or
>incapable of moving past the common misunderstandings and
>misrepresentations.
In my opinion, "the original" surrealism is dead, and has been for
an extremely long time.
I feel it rather pretentious to sit around pretending that any of
us somehow belong to the same group of Breton's time.
Surrealism continues to flourish today, but it is not the original
surrealism, nor will it ever be.
There are many branches of any type of art. Admitably, there must
be linking elements between them all, but there is no
One True Way[tm]
Aeon
>> saying we don't hold _any_ position that we consider
>> unchallengable
>
>Except that I look pretty good in blue jeans and a nice black shirt.
>
>Oh - and that Andrea is a Bitch.
>
>DMH
That was a little more than childish.
(noting that my comment itself is also childishly unresistable)
Dale Houstman
> Parry wrote
> > If someone comes knocking at surrealism's house wanting to talk about
god,
> the only
> > sensible response is to kick him in the gnads and tell him to fuck off.
>
> enjoy a nice walk through the park blocks so that I can yell profanities
at
>
I am basically non-confrontational, although I've had my moments. Personally
I would rather avoid these scenes, not that they don't "deserve" it. But I
have seen enough of impermeable thought systems to realize that all one is
really doing while abusing these brimstoners (besides amusing yourself) is
adding to their sense of martyred accomplishment. It strikes me as losing
position. The ultimate end of that would simply be to shoot arrows into
their breasts. It's all milk and honey to them, since they started
worshipping Mr. HangMeUp.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> In my opinion, "the original" surrealism is dead, and has been for
> an extremely long time.
> I feel it rather pretentious to sit around pretending that any of
> us somehow belong to the same group of Breton's time.
Heretic! Now we must nail you to a cross. You're just lucky it'll take a
week and a half to determine just what shape this cross should take.
Obviously it cannot be a traditional cross, otherwise this gives rise to
religious beliefs, which is unacceptable in surrealism.
I'd like to see a round, soft cross, with a sort of leather sofa
puffiness. I suspect the others will want something different. Why
nails, when we can use clothespins, for example?
You wait here while we sort this all out. By the way, you should be very
honoured to be the four-hundred and thirty-seventh surrealist martyr.
(Breton used to line the streets of Paris with crucified surrealism
exiles.)
If you are not feeling honoured, you are doubly damned, and we'll have to
crucify you twice. Which means two crosses. Making the entire process
all the more difficult to determine.
Damn it.
barrett john erickson
> >i understand that, but this is something that has evolved over
a
> >long period of time from numerous dreary encounters with
arrogant
> >ignorance (think "andrea") and attempts at discussion that seem
to
> >leave no residue of increased understanding among people like
nik.
> >it's difficult to avoid a critical "us vs. them" stance when
the
> >evidence is that such people prefer their counterfeit versions
of
> >"surrealism" that degrade the original and are uninterested or
> >incapable of moving past the common misunderstandings and
> >misrepresentations.
>
for
> an extremely long time.
>
> I feel it rather pretentious to sit around pretending that any
of
> us somehow belong to the same group of Breton's time.
>
original
> surrealism, nor will it ever be.
>
> There are many branches of any type of art. Admitably, there
must
> be linking elements between them all, but there is no
> One True Way[tm]
the most obvious first objection to your post is in the last
paragraph. like so many, you confuse "surrealism" with a "type of
art". regardless of how important it is to its evolution,
surrealism is not _about_ art (in the context you use the term).
but using a term like "'original' surrealism" can only make me
wonder what you think distinguishes "'original' surrealism" from
"surrealism" as it exists among surrealists today?
on one sense, you are quite right in saying that no one belongs to
the same group of Breton's time. not just because Breton is dead,
but because the interests of surrealists and the themes explored
have continued to evolve. "surrealism" is always "of its time".
but the "original" surrealist project (the "surrealist attractor")
is fundamentally the same as it was in 1919 -- because
"surrealism" is an ongoing and unbroken _process_ based in
exploratory experimentation and investigation that can be
identified independent of any specific manifestation -- and there
are still many surrealists alive in many cities who worked
directly with Breton who have met and collaborated regularly with
other surrealists on various projects without interruption.
so it would be quite wrong to imply that there isn't a very real
and traceable continuity of surrealist activity that forms the
context that any valid discussion of "surrealism" must
acknowledge. there is a reality here and your statement appears
to contradict that reality.
[of course, i may be misinterpreting what you are saying -- there
is certainly room for more complex interpretations that would be
worthy of a more complex response. i'd be delighted to be
corrected if this is the case.]
i repost my comments from 1995 when i first encountered this kind
of declaration of "surrealism" passing:
>>> quote >>>
date: 3july95b
subj: re: "new" surrealism
there are no "new" surrealists.
there are anti-surrealists and false surrealists and former
surrealists and
dead surrealists and surrealists who prefer to avoid a chronically
misused
label...
and, yes, there are living surrealists, old and young.
but to refer to "new" surrealism is like referring to "new"
weather. it can
only seem "new" if you stand too still and small, too stuck in
place to see
the larger context. it's only "new" if you mistake the perpetual
change and
development of a single complex life form, as it passes by, for a
series of
deaths and rebirths of something much simpler.
nevertheless, be certain that your disgust with the abuse of this
space is
shared by many. it _is_ time to bring relevant discussion to this
group.
engage.
~~barrett
<<< end quote <<<
Nikolaus Maack
> is fundamentally the same as it was in 1919 -- because
> "surrealism" is an ongoing and unbroken _process_ based in
> exploratory experimentation and investigation that can be
> identified independent of any specific manifestation -- and there
> are still many surrealists alive in many cities who worked
> directly with Breton who have met and collaborated regularly with
> other surrealists on various projects without interruption.
This, of course, assumes that Breton had a consistent vision of what
surrealism was throughout his lifetime, which is a matter up for debate.
What with all the people he kicked out of the group, and those who left in
disgust, it seems the ONLY person who had a "consistent vision" of what
surrealism was, was Breton. Vary from that vision, you were buried under
ten tons of angry Breton ire.
That Breton's vision changed daily, and people were expected to keep up,
only makes things more complicated. I think it's safe to say that the
only person who believed Breton was following one single thread was
Breton.
And maybe you, Barrett.
It's not surprising that there are surrealists who met and worked with
Breton alive and working today, given that in the end the only people who
would put up with him were teenagers and kids in their early twenties. In
other words, people who were willing to put up with a braying patriarch.
Breton didn't like equals -- not for very long, anyway.
Also, the original vision of surrealism was quite clear -- make the
subconscious material of the world conscious through personal exploration.
Given that you no longer believe in a thing called the "subconscious", how
can you have the gonads to claim you're still the official voice of
surrealism? Because now the exploration is taking place somewhere else?
That strikes me as a little thin.
I would argue that surrealism was never entirely about Andre Breton,
despite Breton's tyrannical attempts to make his hobbies of the week
surrealist dogma. It was and is mostly about the people who came and
went, and the various methods of exploration they developed. Picasso,
though never an official member of the surrealist group, was often held up
as an example of a surrealist ideal. Dali, Duchamp, Miro, and many others
all had interesting perspectives of their own.
Clinging to Breton -- a single man -- now that he's dead is certainly a
safe hobby for you to take up. He can't thwack you on the head with a
rolled-up newspaper and tell you how wrong you are -- like he used to with
so many disciples. Also, saying you're following in the great man's
footsteps certainly lends you an air of authority. Even if what you
currently believe is so distant from Breton's vision that he would almost
definitely give you a sound thrashing.
Reminds me of how some Freudians will only speak the Great Master's name
-- "Sigmund Freud!" -- in hushed tones of awe. Any deviance from Freud's
doctrine is met with outrage -- even though Freud was inconsistent
himself. He was human, after all.
It seems a lot of people are looking for a surrogate father to love.
Freud encouraged this kind of behavior in his lifetime, as did Breton.
Now we have generations of thinkers who choose dead men as their leaders,
as their would-be fathers. A dead father is definitely not going to fail
you.
And what, one might ask, is the difference between worshipping "a great
dead man" and worshipping a "God"? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Both
are entirely open to your own personal interpretation. Just as some will
say that they know God personally, and will beat you if you get it wrong,
you claim to know Breton "personally", and verbally beat us should we not
see that he laid his hands open your forehead and declared you his direct,
intellectual descendent.
All rather silly, isn't it?
> [of course, i may be misinterpreting what you are saying -- there
> is certainly room for more complex interpretations that would be
> worthy of a more complex response. i'd be delighted to be
> corrected if this is the case.]
Yes, we all know how much you delight in being corrected. You thought you
made a mistake once, but it turned out you were wrong. An old joke, but
it applies to you -- and Breton, and Freud.
> i repost my comments from 1995 when i first encountered this kind
> of declaration of "surrealism" passing
Nothing has changed in five years? I guess that's what happens when you
worship a dead man, be he Christ, Breton, Freud, or whomever.
That your ideas have varied from the source to the point where they are a
vastly new thing doesn't change the fact that you need a dead father in
order to maintain respectability and authority. Why not cut loose,
Barrett, from your father's apron strings? Must you keep that same cursed
Breton quote in your signature file forever, like some over-polished
sheriff's badge?
reddad...@hotmail.com
these conclusions. American Atheist magazine or any number of radical
anarchist or left wing groups could just as easily have led you to
critique american culture or god or religion. How do YOU see
SURREALISM as liberating?
In article <UC3v4.27923$yn3.2...@news1.teleport.com>,
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Aeon wrote
> > But precisely how has surrealism helped you to see through the
bullshit?
>
> Simply by showing me that I was not crazy in believing that the
American
> system is bullshit. This cultural mistake we call a country tries and
tries
> to tell us we must work, feel pain, and suffer. On top of that most
> Americans seem to be Christians, and have to deal with being
"sinners!" I am
> now able to see through this bullshit of negativity. I try to focus
mainly
> on what comes natural. I know that the concept of sin is not natural,
but I
> am led to believe that empathy is. It doesn't have to be taught.
>
> I see no religion as being natural. The oldest depiction of "gods"
must date
> to the Sumerian period or Pre-Dynastic Egypt. The two oldest cities
in the
> world, Jericho and Catal Huyuk, have no "gods" but do have cult
icons. They
> dated to 8000 bc. For all we know the theory of gods is only 8000
years old.
> Man as he exists today has been around for 3 MILLION YEARS! There are
no
> deities at Lascaux, or any other Paleolithic rock painting sites. Some
> portable art can be interpreted as a "Venus" but really they are just
"sex
> dolls" [as one prof. put it]. I'm rambling and I don't think you
asked about
> religion.
>
> > I've watched myself going through a process over the years of
discovering
> > just how much society has controlled my life, and how silly many of
the
> > unwritten laws are.
>
> Then you understand where I'm coming from...
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
reddad...@hotmail.com
world, apart from being a human system or construct. "Having leaves is
inherent to trees" "Politics is inherent to surrealism". Surrealism,
as you said, evolved over time, having been created, envisioned,
birthed, by a group of artists. Elements of art and culture may have
been building and leading toward an inevitability of a surrealist
outlook, but Surrealism itself did not exist until people came together
to explore and agree upon what it meant to be surreal.
In article <IIvv4.2978$%A3.6...@ptah.visi.com>,
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> "Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn8bpd7...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
>
> >
> > Yet was it that they chose those particular political leanings
> to be
> > a vital part of surrealism, or was it that people who have those
> particular
> > political leanings happen to be attracted to surrealism?
>
> neither.
>
> the political dimension of "surrealism" is integral to the
> surrealist perspective (which isn't to say it doesn't evolve).
>
> -- barrett
>
> BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
> surrealists in minnesota
> Sur...@MagneticFields.org
>
> ==============================================
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
> certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
> the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
> incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
> contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
>
> ==============================================
>
>
Brandon J. Freels
days ago. Why don't you read my response?
<reddad...@hotmail.com> wrote
reddad...@hotmail.com
> rigid stagnation this isn't a characteristic of "some belief
> systems" it's a characteristic of _all_ belief systems -- by
> definition.
>
even surrealism? If surrealism is not about art, then is it a belief
system? you appear to talk about it as if it were.
I get the impression from your posts that one could be a surrealist
without being an artist at all. But of course, despite his admiration
for Freud and Trotsky, among others, the people Breton consdiered to be
part of his surrealist cache were, ultimately, artists of some sort.
Since I'm new to this group, maybe you have addressed this, in which
case I apologize, but do you write? draw? I've heard several other
people refer to their poetry or their art. (Or rather, read them
referring to it.)
Fascinan
>but Surrealism itself did not exist until people came together
>to explore and agree upon what it meant to be surreal.
This is simply not correct. Apparently, you are unaware of the latest
empirical evidence gathered by Tok Smitchet and Claude Garner-Horkins, whose
work in advanced, sub-quantum, stringular dynamics has shown what I've thought
all along: Guaranteeeed personally by the cajun man, the "surrealist
attractor" is an inherent force in the universe: gravity, matter, energy,
strong and weak nuclear, and surrealist attractivity.
Surrealism was there around 10to the -42 power of the first second of the
universe -- this is clear to those who know.
Fas
reddad...@hotmail.com
I love going to Dada and surrealist exhibits and events (read MUSUEM
PIECES) and watching people squint at things and try to act serious. I
went to an evening of Dada (read SILENT) films and people gave me dirty
looks for whispering to someone next to me or GOD FORBID laughing
because THIS IS ART--A LITTLE RESPECT, PLEASE.
>
> What is it with people in general? When they walk into a gallery,
they put
> on their special "art observer" suit, and "hmmm" and "ahhhh" and "oh
I like
> this one".
>
> When they remove the suit, that's it.
>
> They don't seem to absorb the meaning behind anything, even in the
most
> blatent works of art. Do they leave thinking about the meaning? Or
do
> they still just think "ooh, I like it" or "ohh, it sucked"?
>
> You can put up a poster in an art show that simply says "ABORTION IS
> GREAT!" and the only reaction you'll get is "that isn't art.. that's
just
> a poster". They won't even consider what they are reading...
>
> arg.
>
> orlan
>
> --
>
> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>
> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
>
Nikolaus Maack
>> Yes, but none of that explains how SURREALISM helped you to come to
>> these conclusions.
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> Aren't you running a little late? I responded to Aeon's post at least two
> days ago. Why don't you read my response?
Your response amounted to -- it was long ago, the ideas were flying fast
and furious, I don't know what led me here, but here I am. To sum it up,
"I don't know."
You'll disagree of course, and say I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that
a number of us are left with this vague sense that you're not talking.
Wheels spinning on the beach -- I am a surrealist because I'm a surrealist
and hence I am a surrealist.
How about this -- where did you first come across surrealism? In what
form did you encounter it: poetry, painting, philosophy, politics? When
did you first get into it? Did some person introduce you to it?
It occurs to me that I'm probably in your killfile again, so you won't see
this. Damn. And I was being so reasonable.
reddad...@hotmail.com
never did subsequently find anything that you said that answered my
question. Why is SURREALISM any more liberating to you than any other
path? What is so SPECIAL about surrealism? Any number of things could
have freed your mind. So saying that surrealism freed your mind
doesn't answer my question. If you are a writer, I expect that you
should be able to ground your experience and position in specific
examples. If you are an artist, then draw me a picture. Even a
disjointed one. I was never much of a fan of the blank canvas hung in
a gallery. Duchamp took the time out from playing chess to at least
rip a urinal out of the wall.
In article <QhUv4.32803$yn3.2...@news1.teleport.com>,
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Aren't you running a little late? I responded to Aeon's post at least
two
> days ago. Why don't you read my response?
>
> <reddad...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Yes, but none of that explains how SURREALISM helped you to come to
Aeon
>is certainly room for more complex interpretations that would be
>worthy of a more complex response. i'd be delighted to be
>corrected if this is the case.]
>-- barrett
You brought up some very valid points. I shouldn't have narrowed
the term surrealism to just art, since it exists as a movment in
which art plays only one part.
I think the main point of my post is that there is a lot of
"my way is the only True Way" going on, and I feel that it's wrong.
If there was only one true way, we'd all be doing it the same way.
To top it all off, I have the unfortunate problem of forgetting
exactly what my point is from time to time... so I'm afraid I cannot
elaborate further.
:)
Aeon
>subconscious material of the world conscious through personal exploration.
And this is where I begin to have problems with the arguments over what
is and is not surreal. In exploring my own subconcious, I may find that
certain techniques work well... like therapy, dream exploration,
automatic art/writing/whatever, spontaneous acts of lewd behavior,
exposure to new/wonderful/ugly/uncomfortable/etc situations, and so on.
But maybe none of my techniques would work for someone else.... I feel
it's extremely personal.
barrett john erickson
news:89p3nj$tp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You say that as if surrealism were an object that always existed
in the
> world, apart from being a human system or construct. "Having
leaves is
> inherent to trees" "Politics is inherent to surrealism".
Surrealism,
> as you said, evolved over time, having been created, envisioned,
> birthed, by a group of artists. Elements of art and culture may
have
> been building and leading toward an inevitability of a
surrealist
together
> to explore and agree upon what it meant to be surreal.
on the contrary, if you'd been around longer you'd know that
resisting the objectification of "surrealism" -- i.e., thinking of
"surrealism" as a thing or a style or an ideology or an attribute
that can be found in these --is something i take quite seriously.
"surrealism" is a human process.
barrett john erickson
news:89p67d$vu1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > rigid stagnation this isn't a characteristic of "some belief
> > systems" it's a characteristic of _all_ belief systems -- by
> > definition.
> >
> even surrealism? If surrealism is not about art, then is it a
belief
> system? you appear to talk about it as if it were.
certainly there is no need to compartmentalize our actions into
one of two categories: "art" or "belief"?
[I have no "beliefs".]
> I get the impression from your posts that one could be a
surrealist
> without being an artist at all. But of course, despite his
admiration
> for Freud and Trotsky, among others, the people Breton
considered to be
> part of his surrealist cache were, ultimately, artists of some
sort.
but all of those Breton welcomed into the group were _not_ artists
of some sort (in the way you are using the word).
you are exactly correct: I _am_ saying one can be a surrealist
without being an "artist" as the word is commonly applied (there
are examples).
a physicist can be a surrealist even if he/she admits to
absolutely no interest in producing a painting or poem or film or
any other etc. and makes absolutely no claim to the title
"artist".
> Since I'm new to this group, maybe you have addressed this, in
which
> case I apologize, but do you write? draw? I've heard several
other
> people refer to their poetry or their art. (Or rather, read
them
> referring to it.)
yes (but i consider the remnants of my explorations and
experiments to be "artifacts" rather than "art"). you can find
some such at:
http://www.magneticfields.org/barrett
[and certainly no need to apologize. everyone is new at some
point.]
-- Barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in Minnesota
barrett john erickson
news:89oov8$jbm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
what you never seem to understand, Nik, is that "surrealism" is a
process, the surrealist project is an "attractor" that can be
discovered at the center of a surrealist's actions. it isn't a
template and it isn't about Breton's approval.
> And maybe you, Barrett.
>
> It's not surprising that there are surrealists who met and
worked with
> Breton alive and working today, given that in the end the only
people who
> would put up with him were teenagers and kids in their early
twenties. In
> other words, people who were willing to put up with a braying
patriarch.
> Breton didn't like equals -- not for very long, anyway.
>
> Also, the original vision of surrealism was quite clear -- make
the
it is. but you still don't understand it.
> subconscious material of the world conscious through personal
exploration.
> Given that you no longer believe in a thing called the
"subconscious", how
> can you have the gonads to claim you're still the official voice
of
> surrealism? Because now the exploration is taking place
somewhere else?
> That strikes me as a little thin.
>
> I would argue that surrealism was never entirely about Andre
Breton,
this is a revelation?
i can't think of a single person i know who has ever argued or
even implied accidentally in a drunken stupor that surrealism was
(even "mostly") about Breton. even friends who know nothing about
surrealism wouldn't make such a stupid claim.
[and you'd have been just as unlikely to find a surrealist in the
20's who thought it was.]
the rest of your post goes off yet another silly condemnation of
Breton worship, and since none of it applies to me, or anyone else
i'm aware of, these comments are (as they always have been)
irrelevant misrepresentations. and no matter how often you are
told that, you purposefully disregard reality and continue making
the charge (i should probably be calling them "lies" by now).
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
barrett john erickson
> I think the main point of my post is that there is a lot of
> "my way is the only True Way" going on, and I feel that it's
wrong.
understood, and it's not difficult to understand how such a first
impression might form.
but the points being argued have been argued for some time.
basically, my position is that the surrealist movement is _real_,
it has a present and a history that can be easily researched by
even the laziest of web trolls. "surrealism" can, therefore, be
described accurately or inaccurately by observers and
participants. some here (nik and "andrea" to name two) think that
reality can be ignored (they have both offered versions of
"surrealism is anything i say it is") and anyone who tries to
correct their inaccuracies is saying "my way is the only True
Way".
[this is so obvious an orwellian inversion that i can't believe
anyone lets them get away with it.]
"surrealism" does not ignore reality, it aims to enhance reality.
there just isn't any "other way" on this point -- it is probably
the most fundamental consensus among all surrealists.
if you look at the record -- you'll see that my descriptions of
the surrealist project in no way deny the complexity, or diversity
of its expression. i only argue that "surrealism" can be
distinguished from "not surrealism" (the word does mean something
after all), and that the ones who determine the boundaries of that
distinction are surrealists, not nik and "andrea".
they can't seem to accept this.
> If there was only one true way, we'd all be doing it the same
way.
but in a very real sense all surrealists _are_ "doing it the same
way" when you think of that "way" as continuous exploration and
experiment in quest of the full integration of the liberated
imagination into every day living.
sounds pretty damned open ended to me. does that seem like a
restriction to you?
can you explain how nik and "andrea" (and i guess fas too) find
this limiting in any way except that it doesn't leave room for
some kind of shadow surrealist who refuses to explore or
experiment and who doesn't want to integrate the fully liberated
imagination into his/her daily living?
i remain baffled.
can there be a surrealist who doesn't explore? experiment? who
doesn't seek the full integration of the liberated imagination
into every day living?
no. not because _i_ say so, but because that is what all
surrealists expect of each other at the very least.
Nikolaus Maack
> process, the surrealist project is an "attractor" that can be
> discovered at the center of a surrealist's actions. it isn't a
> template and it isn't about Breton's approval.
Perhaps the reason I don't understand the above is because it's gibberish,
Barrett. It doesn't mean a thing to me. Are you trying to communicate,
or are you trying to demonstrate your bizarre lingo once more? You say
the above over and over like it means something, but it DOESN'T.
Surrealism is a process, the surrealist project is an "attractor", and at
the centre we see surrealists actions? I think Andrea Chen has summarized
what this looks like to someone who doesn't speak your tortured language
-- surrealism is what surrealists do. You're engaged in the surrealist
project if you're a surrealist exploring surrealism. Surrealists do
surrealism. The surrealist project attracts surrealists.
Hamster on a wheel, Barrett. You seem utterly incapable of speaking your
mind in English. What gives?
And for someone who isn't looking for Breton's approval, you sure do name
drop a lot, don't you? Am I mistaken? Do we hear you speak the name of
any of the other surrealist saints? I think not. Judge a man by his
actions, not his protests of innocence. Correct me if I'm wrong, here.
>> I would argue that surrealism was never entirely about Andre
>> Breton,
>
> this is a revelation?
It would be to you, if you could actually see yourself. Which it seems
you can't. You have all the empathy and communication skills of a deaf
and blind mule at the edge of a precipice. You are a frustration. Your
wealth of knowledge is inaccessable to all, and -- like Andrea -- I wonder
if there is any knowledge to access. More and more, I wonder if under
this cloak of rhetoric there simply lies empty space.
> the rest of your post goes off yet another silly condemnation of
> Breton worship, and since none of it applies to me, or anyone else
> i'm aware of, these comments are (as they always have been)
> irrelevant misrepresentations. and no matter how often you are
> told that, you purposefully disregard reality and continue making
> the charge (i should probably be calling them "lies" by now).
You pompous old goat -- do you have any children? Do they remember you on
father's day? If they do, do they send a card, or pelt your windows with
wet toilet paper?
One of the only times you and I have ever managed to communicate, you
explained to me what you meant by "authentic" and "inauthentic desire".
As I recall, these terms could actually be simplified in the extreme --
follow your inner desires, ignore the desires thrust upon you by the
outside world. Follow your heart, trust your instincts, and don't let
people force you to love anything you don't love. My instincts --
authentic desire. The world's pressures -- inauthentic desire.
For some reason, you insisted that the usage of these terms was vital. To
simplify it -- the way I just did in the above -- was to demean it.
Ridiculous. Your love of jargon is strangling your senses. Using big
terms to describe simple concepts does not increase your IQ. Learn this,
goddamn it. You insist on speaking in this pompous manner, and then roll
your eyes when I fail to understand you.
"Poor Nik. He just doesn't get it."
Roll your eyes in your own direction once in a while, Barrett. Poor you.
You just cannot express yourself in a manner that anyone -- other than
your butt-slurping cronies -- can understand.
Confess. You're an android made out of earwax, aren't you?
Simmering with frustration,
Dale Houstman
> >>i'm sure dale, and i assume brandon, would join me in
> >> saying we don't hold _any_ position that we consider
> >> unchallengable
> >
> >Except that I look pretty good in blue jeans and a nice black shirt.
> >
> >Oh - and that Andrea is a Bitch.
> >
> >DMH
>
> That was a little more than childish.
But it's always that "little more" that's important.
>
DMH
Dale Houstman
>
> I'm simply trying to get a feel for how surrealism itself helped you to
> see the wrongs of the system.
>
From my point of view this ISN'T exactly what happened: as I explained
before, I felt myself to be in a social "coma" until I was eighteen or so,
unable to precisely (or even roughly) express - to myself - the position I
sensed that people were in vis a vis the power structures of the world.
Surrealism was the language that gave voice to an already existing entity
within. A version of this occurred in the 60s when - beneath the duress of
the military draft and the continued deadness of each day - my "discovery"
of the counterculture frred me up to new expressions of old and - until
then - inchoate desires. This is what I think we refer to when we say
"people are born surrealist." A few years later, the chancing upon the
poetry and life of Rimbaud led me through the writings of the Dadaists and
Surrealists, which language ignited an already prepared torch.
Just as Freud did not invent the consciousness (whatever it is) or the
subconscious (whatever it is), but gave word to the preexistence of a set of
phenomena (and thus drew them together in a new nomenclature), Surrealists
did not invent surrealism but merely gave an observed set of phenomena a
name. The phenomena has always been accessible, although scattered under
varying ideas and names: this (not mysticism) is why Breton and the others
were intrigued by alchemy and the like: they found - in alchemy - the desire
for metamorphosis and the birthing of new forms. This is the attraction. In
tarot and spiritualism they saw the desire for reaching out beyond the
"offered aspects" via the aleatory and playful.
Surrealism didn't make it possible for me to see the "wrongs of the system,"
but gave me the language to express an already living (if subdued)
disassociation from the mandated social pathways.
DMH
Aeon
>way" when you think of that "way" as continuous exploration and
>experiment in quest of the full integration of the liberated
>imagination into every day living.
>
>sounds pretty damned open ended to me. does that seem like a
>restriction to you?
No, and that's exactly what I felt surrealism was about.
>can you explain how nik and "andrea" (and i guess fas too) find
>this limiting in any way except that it doesn't leave room for
>some kind of shadow surrealist who refuses to explore or
>experiment and who doesn't want to integrate the fully liberated
>imagination into his/her daily living?
I have not read Andrea's posts... so who knows.
As far as Nik goes, I do not get the feeling that he refuses to
explore or experiment. I get the feeling that others are
trying to tell him that his particular explorations and experiments
are somehow not "right" and and not part of the true way to
explore surrealism.
>can there be a surrealist who doesn't explore? experiment? who
>doesn't seek the full integration of the liberated imagination
>into every day living?
Maybe you can tell me why you feel Nik doesn't explore or
experiment?
Judging by his diary entries sometimes posted here, I would come
to the conclusion that he is choosing to explore his reality
and his imagination in at least one way. I would say that his
paintings explore his imagination, because you certainly can't
tell me people actually walk around looking exactly like his
portraits portray them. In a sense, I feel that some of his
posts seem to explore his own imagination.
Aeon
>experiments to be "artifacts" rather than "art"). you can find
>some such at:
>
>http://www.magneticfields.org/barrett
>
>[and certainly no need to apologize. everyone is new at some
>point.]
I like the images on this particular page. I'm still poking
around the rest.
Aeon
>
>But it's always that "little more" that's important.
>>
>DMH
indeed.
kristina
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:NKXv4.76$F7....@ptah.visi.com...
> <reddad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:89p3nj$tp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > You say that as if surrealism were an object that always existed
> in the
> > world, apart from being a human system or construct. "Having
> leaves is
> > inherent to trees" "Politics is inherent to surrealism".
> Surrealism,
> > as you said, evolved over time, having been created, envisioned,
> > birthed, by a group of artists. Elements of art and culture may
> have
> > been building and leading toward an inevitability of a
> surrealist
> > outlook, but Surrealism itself did not exist until people came
> together
> > to explore and agree upon what it meant to be surreal.
>
> on the contrary, if you'd been around longer you'd know that
> resisting the objectification of "surrealism" -- i.e., thinking of
> "surrealism" as a thing or a style or an ideology or an attribute
> that can be found in these --is something i take quite seriously.
>
> "surrealism" is a human process.
I wonder what part of this is too hard for people to understand?!
Kristina.
kristina
> > process, the surrealist project is an "attractor" that can be
> > discovered at the center of a surrealist's actions. it isn't a
> > template and it isn't about Breton's approval.
>
> Perhaps the reason I don't understand the above is because it's gibberish,
> Barrett. It doesn't mean a thing to me. Are you trying to communicate,
> or are you trying to demonstrate your bizarre lingo once more? You say
> the above over and over like it means something, but it DOESN'T.
Bizarre lingo? You have a problem understanding what Barrett is saying and
you claim to have two fucking degrees? Must be the weather you were
refering to! So sorry, I thought you were some hot shot with a psychology
degree and something else that I've missed... I would have assumed studying
would have involved a thing called "reading" not to mention processing of
information -- you can't do either, it would appear.
>
> Surrealism is a process, the surrealist project is an "attractor", and at
> the centre we see surrealists actions? I think Andrea Chen has summarized
> what this looks like to someone who doesn't speak your tortured language
> -- surrealism is what surrealists do. You're engaged in the surrealist
> project if you're a surrealist exploring surrealism. Surrealists do
> surrealism. The surrealist project attracts surrealists.
>
> Hamster on a wheel, Barrett. You seem utterly incapable of speaking your
> mind in English. What gives?
>
> And for someone who isn't looking for Breton's approval, you sure do name
> drop a lot, don't you? Am I mistaken? Do we hear you speak the name of
> any of the other surrealist saints? I think not. Judge a man by his
> actions, not his protests of innocence. Correct me if I'm wrong, here.
>
> >> I would argue that surrealism was never entirely about Andre
> >> Breton,
> >
> > this is a revelation?
>
> It would be to you, if you could actually see yourself. Which it seems
> you can't. You have all the empathy and communication skills of a deaf
> and blind mule at the edge of a precipice. You are a frustration. Your
> wealth of knowledge is inaccessable to all, and -- like Andrea -- I wonder
> if there is any knowledge to access. More and more, I wonder if under
> this cloak of rhetoric there simply lies empty space.
You are laughable -- your ignorance has finally depleted all of what remined
of the feeble little mind you possessed Nik! You know what I think... you
are so far from anything surreal it is somewhat amusing that you even
contribute to this group. This excercise of yours can only be explained as
some form of feeding a loneliness.
Your time spent studying has brought you absolutely nothing. You make me
think of some big baffoon who rebel from something, yet you don't even know
what that is. You never know what YOU are talking about, let alone anyone
else -- this is understandable. You have no convictions, you have no
pereferences, you have no integrity or artistic merit, you have no fucking
IMAGINATION....
but you insist on rebellion! (you remind me of a mindless airhead, trying
to grunge down in life and relate to the "real" people).
You are indeed THE saddest person I have EVER come across. I didn't think
it possible that someone like you exist.
>
> > the rest of your post goes off yet another silly condemnation of
> > Breton worship, and since none of it applies to me, or anyone else
> > i'm aware of, these comments are (as they always have been)
> > irrelevant misrepresentations. and no matter how often you are
> > told that, you purposefully disregard reality and continue making
> > the charge (i should probably be calling them "lies" by now).
>
> You pompous old goat -- do you have any children? Do they remember you on
> father's day? If they do, do they send a card, or pelt your windows with
> wet toilet paper?
You claim to attempt "communication" yet here is a perfect example of your
arrogant rudeness -- why are you surprised when people like me respond in
kind? Don't be, you deserve nothing more.
>
> One of the only times you and I have ever managed to communicate, you
> explained to me what you meant by "authentic" and "inauthentic desire".
> As I recall, these terms could actually be simplified in the extreme --
> follow your inner desires, ignore the desires thrust upon you by the
> outside world. Follow your heart, trust your instincts, and don't let
> people force you to love anything you don't love. My instincts --
> authentic desire. The world's pressures -- inauthentic desire.
>
> For some reason, you insisted that the usage of these terms was vital. To
> simplify it -- the way I just did in the above -- was to demean it.
> Ridiculous. Your love of jargon is strangling your senses. Using big
> terms to describe simple concepts does not increase your IQ. Learn this,
> goddamn it. You insist on speaking in this pompous manner, and then roll
> your eyes when I fail to understand you.
Yeah, it is shocking that you lack a love of language... and the fact you
can't get around the most basic of communications. Have you ever heard of a
thing called a "dictionary" or have you ever thought it would be EXCITING to
look something up yourself? Why do you always expect everything on a plate?
WE ALL KNOW that no matter how basically someone expresses something to
you, you STILL don't understand. I have no problem understanding anyone's
posts here.... what is YOUR excuse?
>
> "Poor Nik. He just doesn't get it."
>
> Roll your eyes in your own direction once in a while, Barrett. Poor you.
> You just cannot express yourself in a manner that anyone -- other than
> your butt-slurping cronies -- can understand.
As mnetioned, I can understand Barrett perfectly... and everyone else also.
I think the verdict is clear that you are retarded, and interestingly, you
CHOOSE to remain so. What a laugh!!! ha ha ha.
>
> Confess. You're an android made out of earwax, aren't you?
You describe yourself so well here... I doubt you will realise just how
ironic that statement you have made is, and how laughable it is to everyone
here.
>
> Simmering with frustration,
I'm shimmering and "well fucked" glowing.
Kristina.
barrett john erickson
> >but in a very real sense all surrealists _are_ "doing it the
same
> >way" when you think of that "way" as continuous exploration and
> >experiment in quest of the full integration of the liberated
> >imagination into every day living.
> >
> >sounds pretty damned open ended to me. does that seem like a
> >restriction to you?
>
> No, and that's exactly what I felt surrealism was about.
good, i had that impression.
> >can you explain how nik and "andrea" (and i guess fas too) find
> >this limiting in any way except that it doesn't leave room for
> >some kind of shadow surrealist who refuses to explore or
> >experiment and who doesn't want to integrate the fully
liberated
> >imagination into his/her daily living?
>
> I have not read Andrea's posts... so who knows.
>
> As far as Nik goes, I do not get the feeling that he refuses to
> explore or experiment. I get the feeling that others are
> trying to tell him that his particular explorations and
experiments
> are somehow not "right" and and not part of the true way to
> explore surrealism.
if it seems to you that we are aiming at the wrong target, i
can only say that the reason nik remains the subject and
target in this thread is because he has a long history
of defending such ontological masquerades and claiming
them to be surrealist, even though he clearly fails to
understand "surrealism".
[basically, his epistemological position is that everything is
equally true and equally false so there's no reason why
someone shouldn't adopt _any_ attitude, or subjugate
their liberty to _any_ belief as an experiment.]
many times we have tried to explain the essential emptiness
we find at the core of nik's activities. it's not that we think
he's
not "doing it right", it's that we find the things he does and
the arguments and explanations he offers as justifications,
reveal an utter disregard for _enhancing reality_ -- but
instead show him content with simply playing of another
game of "shock and manipulate" others.
you might argue this is dada, but it is not "surrealism".
same goes for "andrea" only with greater exaggeration.
> >can there be a surrealist who doesn't explore? experiment?
who
> >doesn't seek the full integration of the liberated imagination
> >into every day living?
>
> Maybe you can tell me why you feel Nik doesn't explore or
> experiment?
i didn't mean to say that.
only that nik and "andrea" find my description of the surrealist
project to be limiting, and i find that most bizarre.
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:38BEF3...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > Yes to fanaticism, no to zealotry! Surrealism requires men and women who
> > can still tell the difference.
> >
> yup-
> but those nasty atheists wouldnt stop!
> They made me do it!!!
> I agree though, surrealism IS dog, and much healthier too.
> tastes great, more filling, blah blah blah
>
> mink head is never dead until it declares its intentions to
> GET AHEAD
>
> and then
>
> POW smears mustard on its own glassy eye in order for it to go down smoother
>
> SMOOTH UP IN YA
>
> IN YA!!
>
> Sheesh, I remember them, the band the bullet boyz, la band.
> Whew
Then we’re in agreement, then?
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
>
> > rigid stagnation this isn't a characteristic of "some belief
> > systems" it's a characteristic of _all_ belief systems -- by
> > definition.
> >
> even surrealism? If surrealism is not about art, then is it a belief
> system? you appear to talk about it as if it were.
It’s often said that one needs to believe in *something*. Don’t you
believe it. Like Charles Fort, I maintain a distrust of all beliefs.
> I get the impression from your posts that one could be a surrealist
> without being an artist at all. But of course, despite his admiration
> for Freud and Trotsky, among others, the people Breton consdiered to be
> part of his surrealist cache were, ultimately, artists of some sort.
Yes but, more importantly, no. To call someone like Benjamin Peret an
“artist” is to reduce him to a label that applies to anyone who cares to
act on their creative urge.
Aeon
>
>only that nik and "andrea" find my description of the surrealist
>project to be limiting, and i find that most bizarre.
barrett,
I'm going to leave this thread about Nik now.
Due to a comment you've made here though, would you care to join
me in the thread titled "Surrealism: shocking?" ?
I'd like to discuss some of the issues touched upon here, but
without the whole Nik slant now.
orlan
Leo Sgouros
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> Leo Sgouros wrote:
> >
> > "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:38BEF3...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > > Yes to fanaticism, no to zealotry! Surrealism requires men and women
who
> > > can still tell the difference.
> > >
> > yup-
> > but those nasty atheists wouldnt stop!
> > They made me do it!!!
> > I agree though, surrealism IS dog, and much healthier too.
> > tastes great, more filling, blah blah blah
> >
> > mink head is never dead until it declares its intentions to
> > GET AHEAD
> >
> > and then
> >
> > POW smears mustard on its own glassy eye in order for it to go down
smoother
> >
> > SMOOTH UP IN YA
> >
> > IN YA!!
> >
> > Sheesh, I remember them, the band the bullet boyz, la band.
> > Whew
>
> Then we're in agreement, then?
>
> -- Parry
>
>
If the question is that god is outside the scope of this project,
absolutely.Zealotry and fanatacism are problems unto themselves.
Aeon
>> > What surrealist techniques do you use?
>
>What do you mean by that? I'd be more interested in hearing what everyone
>thinks about this, and even more interested in knowing if anyone out there
>calls any of what they do as falling under the category of "surreal
>techniques". Not being a shit here, seriously very intrigued by this
>question and other points of view -- that is if anyone finds it interesting
>enough to explore this basic of areas (which no doubt has the potential of
>being complex). Okay... that's me done for the day.
>
>Kristina.
Laugh... oh man... I never knew my horrible lack of vocabulary would lead
anyone into a place where they wanted to discuss it.
I feel I was stumbling because I was attempting to find out how someone else
experiments, how they play, how they explore, and just what it is that they
do that makes them feel they should call themselves a surrealist. Because
surrealists are not just about art, I couldn't just ask what type of art
they do, but I was very uncertain just how to express what I was asking.
hope I make sense now.
Aeon
>Although I don't walk around introducing myself as such: " Hi, my name's
>Kristina, and I'm a Surrealist"...
>
>But, surrealism is important to me...(I'm not going to bore everyone with
>"WHY" and "HOW"). I guess considering where I am coming from, the process
>of creation for me is surreal -- but it's nothing to speak of here, or
>particularly relevant to share. More to the point, my everyday life is
>surreal... this is how this mind of mine seems to lean... anyway, enough
>from me.
>
>Kristina.
Thanks Kristina.
I don't imagine many people would call themselves "surrealists", and the ones
that do probably don't do so when they are first introduced to someone.
I was just curious as to the goings on with people like Dale and Barrett
in that I had never seen their work, and it appeared they were artists or
writers of some sort...