for Officer Brandy
Brandon Freels
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01101...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.nowsurreal.co.uk/
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lq8A7.146467$W8.37...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I thought you weren't reading my posts?
>
She's correct: she is "misreading" them. This is the one remaining ability
that distinguishes her from the cows and couches. Apres moi, les davenports.
dmh
Morpheal
Perhaps she needs an interpreter. Surrealism has its own language,
symbollism, icons, and manners of usage.
That doesn't mean that Officer Freels throwing the FAQ at her is going
to make any positive difference.
M.
Parry
>From what place did this “Officer” business originate, I wonder? A.s.’s
one-dimensional heckler?
If M. resents being directed to the faq, he shouldn’t. A faq is supposed
to supply basic information about a subject, and this one was
appropriately posted as a response to his somewhat clueless comments
about war as a pressing topic in a forum about surrealism.
-- 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! =-----
Nik Maack
Parry wrote:
> If M. resents being directed to the faq, he shouldn’t. A faq is supposed
> to supply basic information about a subject, and this one was
> appropriately posted as a response to his somewhat clueless comments
> about war as a pressing topic in a forum about surrealism.
I believe Morpheal's complaint regarding the surrealism FAQ is that it
lacks the required spontaneity necessary, and is the emotional
equivalent of a parking ticket. I can understand where he's coming
from. The last time a user came in here and asked, "What is
surrealism?" I was tempted to drag out the definition I wrote a while
back. I started to post it, but it felt wrong and dirty and not very
surreal.
So instead, I wrote a new definition on the spot. (Butterflies and
taoists and all that.) Oddly enough, the definition wrote on the fly
was one that even Brandon approved of.
Just so we understand each other, I believe there is room in the world
for the calculated surrealism -- here is the faq -- and spontaneous
surrealism -- here is my latest attempt to define the motherfucker.
Nik
Dr. Anthony G. Lawrence
> Parry wrote:
> > If M. resents being directed to the faq, he shouldn’t. A faq is supposed
> > to supply basic information about a subject,
> ... The last time a user came in here and asked, "What is
> surrealism?" I was tempted to drag out the definition I wrote a while
> back. I started to post it, but it felt wrong and dirty and not very
> surreal.
>
> So instead, I wrote a new definition on the spot. (Butterflies and
> taoists and all that.) Oddly enough, the definition wrote on the fly
> was one that even Brandon approved of.
>
> Just so we understand each other, I believe there is room in the world
> for the calculated surrealism -- here is the faq -- and spontaneous
> surrealism -- here is my latest attempt to define the motherfucker.
>
> Nik
What is surrealism? I don't think that is any more or less meaningful
than a question like, "What is beauty?" It's known by experience.
Surely a lot of Dali's work works to produce the experience. So do
some of my dreams; especially if rendered as paintings. So do
occasional events.
Recently, a friend sent me the url from Brandon's FAQ; my friend had
correctly surmised that I was new to newsgroups and inferred that I
may be unfamiliar with surrealism. Regarding the latter, I have
appreciated surrealism all my adult life. However, I was unfamiliar
with it as an academic subject. Brandon's FAQ is useful in the latter
regard. Nevertheless, it is useless as an experiential guide. It's
informative rather analogously to a gross anatomy class informing a
student about life.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=L%25Ud7.7662%24Ki1.644136%40bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
I think some examples are experientially definitive for surrealism, as
I understand it:
Scene: At John Brown's Grave, May 1961, standing about ten yards from
the bronze statue of the great bearded martyr hugging the shoulder of
the small Negro boy. I was talking with the new caretaker, a retired
Lt Col of the Army, Colonel Briggs. Briggs is showing me his Samurai
sword and seppuku knife; explaining that the latter was engraved with
Japanese characters saying, "cut two bugs", as a satire on the
engravings on swords that referred to the number of prisoners bisected
as a test of the weapon. Nothing surreal yet: Then Briggs starts
complaining about all the niggers coming to see Brown's grave, for his
161 st birthday. And he goes on to volunteer that Brown was a raving
lunatic and murderer. ... Some Caretaker!
Scene: Late autumn 1989, Washington DC. Yesterday a new red awning
went up on the western entrance of the Commerce Department, covering
about 400 square feet of the sidewalk. Today, I watch as Madame
Mosbacher, ex beauty queen and cosmetics producer, arrives to lunch
with Robert, her oil baron husband. Across the street, 15 th Street,
three or four homeless bodies lie in the dripping mists, sheltered
from the wind by scraps of the Washington Post and City Paper, warmed
by the steam escaping the Federal Triangle's ducts.. Democracy in
action!
Scene: Baghdad, January 29, 1991. Large mural of Saddam Hussein
dressed as a Kuwaiti Sheik sitting cross-legged with a can of Pepsi in
his hand. (Pepsi was not sold in Iraq; probably because neither James
Brown nor Richard Nixon ever visited there.) Saddam -- what a piece
of work, what a comedian!
Scene: Gulf Peace Team peace camp, January 25, 1991, a two-acre,
chain-link and barbed-wire enclosed Hajj camp, used to imprison Kurds
in the 1980s, located in Iraq about three kilometers from Saudi
Arabia. Eleventh day of enclosure; tenth day of massive bombing on
the northeastern horizon. Peggy, a vegan hag of about 50 who was an
aficionado of the Green party and Oxfam, is unhappy with me. Since
day three, I've been jogging about the perimeter, inside the wire,
beside the Iraqi army; a children's crusade armed with sneakers and
rags. She threatens me with democratic group sanctions. I must stop
running, she insists. I'm burning too many calories. Am I unaware of
the food shortage? Soon no more undercooked lentils. A veritable
crisis! (Next day, Peggy joins the sit-down strike as the Iraqis
begin to evacuate the camp.)
Morpheal
> If M. resents being directed to the faq, he shouldn’t. A faq is supposed to supply basic information about a subject,...
I didn't say I resent it.
I was simply commenting on there being yet another big faq attack.
M.
Morpheal
> I believe Morpheal's complaint regarding the surrealism FAQ is that it
> lacks the required spontaneity necessary, and is the emotional
> equivalent of a parking ticket.
Hey, that's good.
The equivalent of a parking ticket.
Officer Freels demoted to meter maid. That is surreal.
M.
Morpheal
> What is surrealism? I don't think that is any more or less meaningful
> than a question like, "What is beauty?" It's known by experience.
Doctor, doctor, we have a doctor in the house !
Now can the good doctor cure us ? Perhaps. By what prescription of
philters, lotions, potions, powders, or supernatural means ? We shall
see what the good doctor can do.
Though I assure you doc, we have different experiences of beauty, of
meaning, and of surrealism. I don't doubt there is an overlap providing
some common ground, but nevertheless, it is highly subjective.
Do you think, doc, there is anything even remotely resembling truly
universal, fully objective, experience of such things as beauty ? Or
surrealism, for that matter ?
M.
Parry
> than a question like, "What is beauty?" It's known by experience.
> Surely a lot of Dali's work works to produce the experience. So do
> some of my dreams; especially if rendered as paintings. So do
> occasional events.
>
> Recently, a friend sent me the url from Brandon's FAQ; my friend had
> correctly surmised that I was new to newsgroups and inferred that I
> may be unfamiliar with surrealism. Regarding the latter, I have
> appreciated surrealism all my adult life. However, I was unfamiliar
> with it as an academic subject. Brandon's FAQ is useful in the latter
> regard. Nevertheless, it is useless as an experiential guide. It's
> informative rather analogously to a gross anatomy class informing a
> student about life.
Of course a faq can’t provide a guide to one’s personal history, but
hopefully this faq won’t be seen as simply a dead academic exercise. On
the contrary, the purpose of providing solid information about
surrealism is to ensure its continued health. The experiential
defintions you supply below are informative, but are they suitable for
the format of a faq?
> I think some examples are experientially definitive for surrealism, as
> I understand it:
[snip]
Surrealism experienced on the personal level is the beginning of
surrealism, but not its totality. A contentious issue of the faq was how
to delineate between surrealism (automatism) and the surrealist
movement. The word “surrealism” denotes both. Everyone experiences
surrealism long before they ever hear of Breton and company, for
instance in dreams, love, defiance of arbitrary authority, the
attraction to the fantastic, etc. -- i.e. the sort of raw experience
that is eventually suppressed or yoked by such institutions as religion
and rationalism. The surrealist movement took as a revolutionary cause
the return of these instances of “life most directly experienced” from
the margins of thought back to the core. Surreal experiences may be read
as indications of what existence could be, in opposition to the
authoritative voices which say this is the best of all possible worlds.
To understand what surrealism has to do with freedom, one must be aware
of these things.
But there are persistent mis-characterizations of surrealism: that it is
a synonym for “weird” or “quirky”; that it is an art movement (or worse
an art movement that ended with WWII or maybe Breton’s death); that it
is a style (popular culture is filled with stylistic gimmicks which
could be mistaken for surrealism); that it wishes to destroy reason;
that it means whatever one wishes it to mean; and so on. The faq is
another tool to counteract these characterizations, to impart to the
usenet hordes that there is a set of principles which guide surrealist
thought, to understand the potential of surrealism in the context of its
history.
-- Parry
PS Glad to see you posting here again. Hope you stick around.
Nik Maack
"Dr. Anthony G. Lawrence" wrote:
> It's
> informative rather analogously to a gross anatomy class informing a
> student about life.
When I was a young boy, living with my parents, I lay in bed, unable to
sleep. I was tormented by all the typical thoughts adolescents have.
There was a poster on my wall. I stared at it intensely. I said, in my mind:
Okay. If there really is a God, I want Him to make that poster fall off
the wall. Right... NOW!
The poster fell of the wall. I was completely terrified. I tried to
convince myself it never happened. But it had happened! What did it
mean? Was there a God? If there was, and he could answer stupid
requests like this one, I wished he didn't exist. It was too scary to
believe in such a being.
I think that's the point God was trying to drive home, at the time.
This story, in my mind, explains surrealism perfectly. I could be wrong.
Nik
Dr. Anthony G. Lawrence
> "Dr. Anthony G. Lawrence" wrote:
>
> > What is surrealism? I don't think that is any more or less meaningful
> > than a question like, "What is beauty?" It's known by experience.
>
> Doctor, doctor, we have a doctor in the house !
>
Timbuktu.
> Now can the good doctor cure us ? Perhaps. By what prescription of
> philters, lotions, potions, powders, or supernatural means ? We shall
> see what the good doctor can do.
If you're sufferin' from an idempotent matrixes, or heteroskedastic
variances then I'm your guru; just send me yer data and I'll return ya
a model, complete with Student's T (T for Taliban) stats, and tests o'
significance.
>
> Though I assure you doc, we have different experiences of beauty, of
> meaning, and of surrealism. I don't doubt there is an overlap providing
> some common ground, but nevertheless, it is highly subjective.
>
For sure, highly subjective. Not far from here is the hamlet of
Onchiota. As you enter this winkyville you'll see a sign that says
something like, "Population 67 & Two Sore Heads"; now that's an odd
number, undoubtedly verified by the US Census Bureau. So in Onchiota
there's a grove of Balsam Poplar Trees, one of the few in the
Adirondacks as far as I can tell. These trees look identical to the
well-known Aspen, the quaking aspen ubiquitous to Colorado. Now all
67 of the agreeable citizens of Onchiota think that these trees are
indeed Balsam Poplars because when you squish their twig tips between
your fingers you smell the Balm of Gilead, or something akin to the
smell of the balsam fir. However, even if you extracted their
fingernails with pliers, the two soreheads of Onchiota would never
admit that these trees are other than "Popples." All popples are
created equal: there are no aspen, there are no balsam poplars. What
there is are effete intellectual snobs, "who keep coming here to
bother us all and try to tell us that these trees is something that
they ain't."
Now I submit to you that the "objective" is nothing more nor less than
some belief that has widespread, but not necessarily universal,
agreement. I think, that it is an objective fact that there is a
grove of balsam poplars in Onchiota. And as evidence, I'd offer the
testimony of the 67 non sorehead residents, plus the experiential
evidence that when you squish the twig tips of those trees you'll
visit heaven momentarily, plus my professional judgment.
Dr. Anthony G. Lawrence
> Dr. Anthony G. Lawrence wrote:
> > What is surrealism? I don't think that is any more or less meaningful
> > than a question like, "What is beauty?" It's known by experience.
> > ... Brandon's FAQ is ...
> > informative rather analogously to a gross anatomy class informing a
> > student about life.
>
> Of course a faq can 't provide a guide to one 's personal history, but
> hopefully this faq won 't be seen as simply a dead academic exercise. On
> the contrary, the purpose of providing solid information about
> surrealism is to ensure its continued health. The experiential
> defintions you supply below are informative, but are they suitable for
> the format of a faq?
>
> > I think some examples are experientially definitive for surrealism, as
> > I understand it:
>
> [snip]
>
> Surrealism experienced on the personal level is the beginning of
> surrealism, but not its totality. A contentious issue of the faq was how
> to delineate between surrealism (automatism) and the surrealist
> movement. The word "surrealism " denotes both. Everyone experiences
> surrealism long before they ever hear of Breton and company, for
> instance in dreams, love, defiance of arbitrary authority, the
> attraction to the fantastic, etc. -- i.e. the sort of raw experience
> that is eventually suppressed or yoked by such institutions as religion
> and rationalism. The surrealist movement took as a revolutionary cause
> the return of these instances of "life most directly experienced " from
> the margins of thought back to the core.
and Gaia. For humans life is some kind of interaction between the two
spheres (if you'll let me grab a label). Life is and ought to be an
iterative process. In the metaphor of my profession, it's an
algorithm iterating between the model or hypothesis and the event or
experience. One must more-or-less fit the other, and vice-versa; else
we experience cognitive dissonance--a surreal and uncomfortable
feeling.
We all know the type of person who gets stuck with the unevolving
model. This sort of person is well illustrated as a young man
obsessed with Jesus in The Big Kahuna, a superb recent film comedy
starring Danny Devito and Kevin Spacey. If you want to enjoy life
you'd better stare at the world with the eyes of a child or a
simpleton; then go back to your books and embellish your model. Some
say, "Take time to smell the roses". But I never heard anyone say,
"Take thee to a library"; they ought to so say.
No one, I think, thinks of Steinbeck as a surrealist (even though J
Edgar rather surreally thought he was a communist). In The Log From
The Sea Of Cortez, Steinbeck recounts the surreal experience that he
and Doc (the lead character of Cannery Row) had when they found
cold-water species known not to exist at the southerly latitudes of
the sea off Baja. Well, exist they did. All those fat tomes that
Doc, and maybe John, had studied at Stanford were wrong.
I couldn't agree more that surrealism is a "revolutionary cause"; and
I never knew that somewhere some people who cared had treated
Steinbeck's essential cause as a serious subject; and I'm happy to
find out that this is the case. Previously, I have been among those
who took surrealism as merely "a synonym for "weird " or "quirky ";
... an art movement". I will benefit from the Logos introduced by the
FAQ; and, I think, my experiential appreciation of this rather surreal
life will benefit therefrom. Thanks to y'all.
> ... Surreal experiences may be read
Morpheal
> Okay. If there really is a God, I want Him to make that poster fall off the wall. Right... NOW!
> The poster fell of the wall. I was completely terrified.
So you had a poltergeist manifestation.
If you had been a little more unbalanced and unstable you might then
have started up a whole bunch of manifestations.... causing things to
break, move, make noise, and otherwise defy explanation.
What does that prove ?
Quntuam action at a distance.
Nothing more, nothing less. No need to posit another intelligence in the
machine, on that basis. Only you and the poster. Nothing more, nothing
less than that.
M.
Morpheal
> If you're sufferin' from an idempotent matrixes, or heteroskedastic
> variances then I'm your guru; just send me yer data and I'll return ya
> a model, complete with Student's T (T for Taliban) stats, and tests o'
> significance.
You could start up a new cult.
> Now I submit to you that the "objective" is nothing more nor less than
> some belief that has widespread, but not necessarily universal,
> agreement.
Yes, exactly true.
And that too is a belief.
M.