What's the greatest secret of the 20th century?
Stephenjaydan
Michael Livsey
I'm reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) Cold War American general who
said, "We have never uncovered anything the Russians have successfully
hidden."
Dale Houstman
"Stephenjaydan" <stephe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020323130400...@mb-cr.aol.com...
I don't have to look, because the answer is obvious: the greatest secret is
the one that is still secret. All the others are not secrets anymore, and
certainly not great secrets.
dmh
Morpheal
> By definition we do not know. I'm reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) Cold War American general who said, "We have never uncovered anything the Russians have successfully hidden."
He lied. Everything during the Cold War was a lie. Even the general
was a lie. He didn't really exist. That was only a Hollywood actor.
M.
Morpheal
> I don't have to look, because the answer is obvious: the greatest secret is the one that is still secret. All the others are not secrets anymore, and certainly not great secrets.
You might consider the premise that all of western culture is a
sham facade meant to cover up immense, dark, deadly, secrets. Everything
around you, that you can see, hear, touch, know about, is camouflage.
Start from that premise and work down from there, because that is as
far as anyone goes.
M.
Dale Houstman
"Morpheal" <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C9F0BBB...@sympatico.ca...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > I don't have to look, because the answer is obvious: the greatest secret
is the one that is still secret. All the others are not secrets anymore, and
certainly not great secrets.
>
> You might consider the premise that all of western culture is a
> sham facade meant to cover up immense, dark, deadly, secrets. Everything
> around you, that you can see, hear, touch, know about, is camouflage.
I might, but I'm not as psychotic as you. At any rate, your reply misses the
entire point: I am NOT denying that there ARE secrets, only that if someone
is about to SHOW us the "greatest secret of the 20th" it is - overtly - NOT
a secret and NOT the greatest. Simple. In fact, I assume that there ARE
secrets, only - as secrets - I don't know about them. Your science fiction
premise has nothing to do with much of anything.
>
> Start from that premise and work down from there, because that is as
> far as anyone goes.
A common enough vague absurdity from you.
dmh
>
Nik Maack
Dale Houstman wrote:
> I might, but I'm not as psychotic as you.
More's the pity.
It's always depressing to hear surrealists, of all people, still using
"You're crazy!" as an insult. Aren't we supposed to be destroying the
line that separates sane and insane? Shouldn't we encourage each other
to behave "oddly" -- to at least investigate those delirious impulses we
are taught from birth to repress and ignore?
Damn it, Dale -- be crazy.
PS.
I am totally rewriting my website. Whee!
john adams
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3C9F5FDE...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> > I might, but I'm not as psychotic as you.
>
> More's the pity.
>
> It's always depressing to hear surrealists, of all people, still using
> "You're crazy!" as an insult.
It's really more of a description than any kind of insult, insults being
the usual source of discussion around here.
>Aren't we supposed to be destroying the
> line that separates sane and insane?
Yes. But do we want to tear one barrier down only
to throw another up - incoherency.
Nikolaus Maack
> It's really more of a description than any kind of insult, insults being
> the usual source of discussion around here.
Alas.
>>Aren't we supposed to be destroying the
>> line that separates sane and insane?
>
> Yes. But do we want to tear one barrier down only
> to throw another up - incoherency.
The truly insane have a coherent pattern to their madness. Jung talked
about this, as do others -- the "mythology" of madness, a sort of "dream
logic" to insane thinking. What appears random and incoherent -- mad
gibbering -- has a different kind of sense to it.
I always felt this was one of the major tenets of surrealist theory.
One book on schizophrenia I read suggested that schizophrenia is an
attempt at compensation. The man who feels powerless believes he is
Napoleon. The woman who always feels she has to take sides in an
argument, but doesn't want to, declares that she is (literally)
"Switzerland".
What seems like random madness gains a sort of "sense" when you understand
the "intent" behind it.
john adams
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > Yes. But do we want to tear one barrier down only
> > to throw another up - incoherency.
>
> The truly insane have a coherent pattern to their madness. Jung talked
> about this, as do others -- the "mythology" of madness, a sort of "dream
> logic" to insane thinking. What appears random and incoherent -- mad
> gibbering -- has a different kind of sense to it.
>
> I always felt this was one of the major tenets of surrealist theory.
>
> One book on schizophrenia I read suggested that schizophrenia is an
> attempt at compensation. The man who feels powerless believes he is
> Napoleon. The woman who always feels she has to take sides in an
> argument, but doesn't want to, declares that she is (literally)
> "Switzerland".
>
> What seems like random madness gains a sort of "sense" when you understand
> the "intent" behind it.
There may be a coherent pattern with the truly insane, but by definition the insane
person is "clinically" out of touch with reality. It is a problem, or sickness...something
undesirable to the person's own social or mental health, or at any rate indicative
of a mental dilemma wishing to be resolved.
We all have some mental dilemmas or crisis in our life. We might therefore
consider these differences against the spectrum of their varying degrees:
the psychotic's situation may be amplified and distored by trauma, some prenatal
factor, or a combination of: sensitivies, diet, or factors in the environment, like
pollution or biological health.
But the characteristic of psychosis - a loss of touch with reality - isn't necessarily interesting as a
"tenet of surrealism" as much as increasing the personal experience of
it, or atleast an enhancement of the human experience and in addition our understanding
of it.
In the face of an immediate personal crisis the schizophrenic's experience
can produce informative, even consctructive personal breakthroughs through uncoventional, seemingly
disorganizationed thought, not to mention notable
creative output. Sometimes, as Karl Menninger described, the person recovers
and is a more effective person than before.
Anyway, something Menninger wrote:
" Life is more than permutations in the DNA molecule as the Fifrth Symphony
is more than vibrating air. And mental illness is more than an aggregate of
errors in body physics and chemistry. It is a universal human experience
which has a vital function in maintaining the vital balance."
Brandon Freels
> But the characteristic of psychosis - a loss of touch with reality -
isn't necessarily interesting as a
> "tenet of surrealism" as much as increasing the personal experience of
> it, or atleast an enhancement of the human experience and in addition our
understanding
> of it.
I would be willing to say that to "lose touch with reality" is to stand in
opposition to what I see as the main surrealist tenet: to come to terms with
reality, and enhance it (surreality). In other words, to "lose touch with
reality" is an aggressive act of repression. Not a tenet of surrealism, but
something we might want to take notice of as an oppositional force (such as
patriotism).
Dale Houstman
> > I might, but I'm not as psychotic as you.
>
> More's the pity.
>
> It's always depressing to hear surrealists, of all people, still using
> "You're crazy!" as an insult. Aren't we supposed to be destroying the
> line that separates sane and insane? Shouldn't we encourage each other
> to behave "oddly" -- to at least investigate those delirious impulses we
> are taught from birth to repress and ignore?
>
> Damn it, Dale -- be crazy.
Well - besides the fact I was just joking - I've seen and known people who
are actually psychotic (as defined by society) and I don't romanticize their
condition. At any rate, since you are (once again ineptly) attempting to
talk about surrealism, you must recall that Breton - in his book Nadja -
himself comes to understand the difference between flights of imagination
and psychosis, which represents a disease of the cognitive functions. You
are correct that society too often makes a too definite line (often an
inaccurate one at that) between "normal" and "diseased" mentalities, but all
the schizophrenics I have come in contact with are unhappy with their
situation, not because they are taught to be unhappy, but because the
imagination - once it is set free to be its own master - causes untold cases
of alienation, inability to function at even the most basic levels, pain to
others (especically loved ones), and - sometimes - physical violence against
oneself and others. It is also frightening. But -as I said - I was merely
joking. To invesitgate one's deliriums is an entirely different matter than
to be a slave to them, and that- if anything - is what constitutes the
anguish of psychosis. It is one thing to be able to imagine a city full of
fish-headed people, and another to be unable to imagine anything else.
dmh
Morpheal
> I might, but I'm not as psychotic as you. At any rate,
You don't work for a living, do you ? Seems not.
M.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.02032...@posting.google.com...
> "Brandon Freels" <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
news:<a7oaq4$ftg$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
> surrealists and others involved in the French Resistance were "patriots"?
> That they unreservedly supported, (or saw as perfected), the system --
> patriarchy -- which was in place prior to the Nazi invasion?
>
> Or rather that they sought to preserve certain freedoms that the flawed
> system had both provided and allowed.
I don't think it would be correct, as a general statement. Of course, some
individuals of all the groups could be seen as such, but merely to have seen
National Socialism as the greater and more aggressive (at the moment) form
of power isn't to say they supported the same elements in their own system.
(The racism and drive for power existed in France as well as in Germany and
Italy). No more than it could be stated that one is a great lover of men
simply because one defended a man against a bear attack. One can have
dislike in degrees, and act on those degrees. But while I can (as you
sometimes seem unable to) see the the 9/11 attacks as totally reprehensible,
I can also see that such acts are a part of a greater process which the U.S.
supports and encourages. It's all of a piece, and to take up the bloody
banner merely because some victims of the overall system (or their
self-appointed proxies) decided to committ their own crime is only to defend
the status quo at the expense of the deeper contemplation and more
efficacious actions.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > I might, but I'm not as psychotic as you. At any rate,
>
> You don't work for a living, do you ? Seems not.
>
weeks). But I would be happier if I didn't have to. Jobs are jails. But I
wouldn't expect a trustee to know that.
dmh
john adams
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:sGNn8.5464.
>
> But the characteristic of psychosis - a loss of touch with reality - isn't necessarily interesting as a
> "tenet of surrealism" as much as increasing the personal experience of
> it, or atleast an enhancement of the human experience and in addition our understanding
> of it.
By the way, I think I was going to use, or should have used, the postscript to this
somewhere: "(like Dale commented on before, but where we slightly diverged on')
if it weren't for a little laziness, or being tired. I know this was probably burning his
shorts up until this point (not really) since we'd already had some discussion on it.
I believe I felt the idea, in describing surreality, that it is essentially an increase in
reality (more reality) might be a little misleading to ourselves. Maybe it would be
better to say an increase in the quality of experienced reality. (Counting all the marbles
in the world for instance might be said to somehow increase our experienced reality,
but what use is that, except to help maybe account for some of the lost glass eyeballs
out there).
john
Brandon Freels
the most complete (non-repressive) state of consciousness, which contrasts
with the consciousness promoted by the existing culture -- an intensely
repressive alternate state. This isn't to say that all
consciousness-altering states are as repressive as the promoted sham and
some might even be liberating, but none are as liberating -- as pure -- as
surreality.
"john adams" wrote
Dale Houstman
>
>
> By the way, I think I was going to use, or should have used, the
postscript to this
> somewhere: "(like Dale commented on before, but where we slightly
diverged on')
> if it weren't for a little laziness, or being tired. I know this was
probably burning his
> shorts up until this point (not really) since we'd already had some
discussion on it.
> I believe I felt the idea, in describing surreality, that it is
essentially an increase in
> reality (more reality) might be a little misleading to ourselves. Maybe it
would be
> better to say an increase in the quality of experienced reality. (Counting
all the marbles
> in the world for instance might be said to somehow increase our
experienced reality,
> but what use is that, except to help maybe account for some of the lost
glass eyeballs
> out there).
>
surrealism (when I'm looking at it) is not so much as an "increased" amount
of reality, but as a reclaiming of some total(and pre-existing) reality
hidden by social control so as to make slavery more likely. And it might be
best to avoid valuations based on a process's "usefulness" as it is
imperative (in the struggle against the slavery of the practical) to
ballyhoo the "merely" pleasurable, and the liberating force inherent in
play. In this regard, I was first attracted to poetry precisely because I
knew that - for most of the working world - it IS useless. I would not be
the one who chose to count all the marbles (which would- at any rate - be
increased by the ones I lost during the ordeal), but I would support that as
an activity over countless other, more "efficacious" pursuits, such as
devising bomb triggers and neuro-toxins.
Mainly, us girls just wanna have fun maybe.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Perhaps, "enhance" and "increase" are misleading words. I see surreality as
> the most complete (non-repressive) state of consciousness
Enlightenment?
> which contrasts
> with the consciousness promoted by the existing culture -- an intensely
> repressive alternate state. This isn't to say that all
> consciousness-altering states are as repressive as the promoted sham and
> some might even be liberating, but none are as liberating -- as pure -- as
> surreality.
You sound like someone I know -- he's a Scientologist. Strangely, he's
not promoting surrealism as the ultimate liberation of mind. What ever
can it mean?
Brandon Freels
"Nikolaus Maack" wrote
> "Brandon Freels" (brandon...@aaahawk.com) writes:
> > Perhaps, "enhance" and "increase" are misleading words. I see surreality
as
> > the most complete (non-repressive) state of consciousness
>
> Enlightenment?
Hell no.
Nikolaus Maack
> Perhaps, "enhance" and "increase" are misleading words. I see surreality
> as
> the most complete (non-repressive) state of consciousness
Nik asked:
>> Enlightenment?
Brandon answered:
> Hell no.
What's the difference? Can you describe the difference? A lot of the
texts I've read describe "enlightenment" in a similar fashion as you've
desribed "surreality".
To put the question in a slightly different fashion -- how do you,
personally, know there's any difference in these two states of mind?
In my personal experience, "surreality" leads to experiences that I would
call "small satori" -- little pleasant flashes of in intuitive
understanding that transcend reason and logic. This is a state of mind
well-mapped by Buddhists and Taoists and all them folks.
Please resist the urge to tell me that organized religion (be it
Christianity or Buddhism) is inherently stupid. I would agree with that
statement. But I might say (just to irk you?) that organized surrealism
looks a lot like organized religion to me.
Brandon Freels
I feel it is just as misleading -- if not more so due to it religious
connotations -- as "enhance" and "increase".
"Nikolaus Maack" wrote
> Brandon said:
> > Perhaps, "enhance" and "increase" are misleading words. I see surreality
> > as
> > the most complete (non-repressive) state of consciousness
>
> Nik asked:
> >> Enlightenment?
>
> Brandon answered:
> > Hell no.
>
> What's the ...
[snip]
Morpheal
> Seems irrelevant to the point, but yes I do. Just not lately (the last two weeks). But I would be happier if I didn't have to. Jobs are jails. But I wouldn't expect a trustee to know that.
I disagree, but on the proviso that someone has the chance to choose in
terms of their own talents, abilities, becuase who knows those best,
other than an experienced individual self ? Jobs become jails when
people are not utilized properly, and their work is not satisfying, pays
too little, or does not allow them to use their real talents to best
advantage. Jobs can be liberating in many ways, but only if there is
enough money paid for the work, and real talents can be utilized rather
than making people do what they are not really built for, or talented
to, simply to make their lives miserable. Maybe you had the latter
experience ? Wrong job, not enough money, and you are capable of doing
more and better work in another area or for another employer ????
Tell us, prisoner, why you would rather be in the prison of joblessness
rather than in the liberation of satisfying work ?
My biggest difficulty, sometimes, has been that the work I most enjoy or
would be best at, I had to do for too little (below scale), or for
nothign at all rather than for pay. Also that I sometimes could not
choose, and had to take first offerings, or perish. Not enough money to
hold out for a better, more suitable, situation. It can ruin a lifetime,
in some instances.... and it certainly frightens me.
M.
john adams
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message news:a7rm6r$lnk$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> Perhaps, "enhance" and "increase" are misleading words.
I don't think I was being misleading in the way i used the terms. One could say
"increase reality", but to me it is misleading because reality is ever-changing,
ever-evolving alongside the innate desire of the universe to create, unfold. So it
would be meaningful to me to use the term enhance reality, because although it
sounds vague, atleast it could be used in a general sense to cover such things as
liberating one's desire, imagination, presonal liberty, or conversely "increasing"
understanding of oneself or so-called reality. In effect, I would mean to say enhance
the human experience.
>I see surreality as
> the most complete (non-repressive) state of consciousness,
Isn't "complete state" a little repressive or misleading though?
>which contrasts
> with the consciousness promoted by the existing culture -- an intensely
> repressive alternate state. This isn't to say that all
> consciousness-altering states are as repressive as the promoted sham and
> some might even be liberating, but none are as liberating -- as pure -- as
> surreality.
I'm not sure the state you offer is possible, although it may be. Anyway,
a "moment of surreality", so to speak, could fall into the category of
an altered state, such as trance state. It's a moment of transcending
normal habit, logic, or expectancy, and these can take place in hypnogic,
trance (or hallucinogenic even) states.
john
john adams
----- Original Message -----
> >
> These are all matters of mere semantics perhaps, but the way I see
> surrealism (when I'm looking at it) is not so much as an "increased" amount
> of reality, but as a reclaiming of some total(and pre-existing) reality
> hidden by social control so as to make slavery more likely.
This is the way you had phrased it before, so I think therein lied some of the
felt disagreement. But I wuold certainly agree with the other part and below
and say I think we are on the same page if not the same paragraph of the
same chapter sharing the same bookends.
>And it might be
> best to avoid valuations based on a process's "usefulness" as it is
> imperative (in the struggle against the slavery of the practical) to
> ballyhoo the "merely" pleasurable, and the liberating force inherent in
> play. In this regard, I was first attracted to poetry precisely because I
> knew that - for most of the working world - it IS useless.
>I would not be the one who chose to count all the marbles (which would- at any rate - be
> increased by the ones I lost during the ordeal), but I would support that as
> an activity over countless other, more "efficacious" pursuits, such as
> devising bomb triggers and neuro-toxins.
Absolutely. Who knows what futuristic slave labor camps they're busy
designing in Washington, or the latest technological trend in subverting
human spontaneity.
> Mainly, us girls just wanna have fun maybe.
>
Well - put on your dancing dress, Darlita.
Brandon Freels
> Isn't "complete state" a little repressive or misleading though?
How so? Perhaps the phrase "complete state" sounds too idealistic?
> I'm not sure the state you offer is possible, although it may be. Anyway,
> a "moment of surreality", so to speak, could fall into the category of
> an altered state, such as trance state. It's a moment of transcending
> normal habit, logic, or expectancy, and these can take place in hypnogic,
> trance (or hallucinogenic even) states.
I think its possible to achieve this state -- a completely liberated,
non-repressive, natural state -- and hold it. I see surreality as the "base"
state, which for me distinguishes it from other "altered" states.
[p.s. got the package]
Brandon Freels
> I think its possible to achieve this state -- a completely liberated,
> non-repressive, natural state -- and hold it. I see surreality as the
"base"
> state, which for me distinguishes it from other "altered" states.
I went for a walk, thought about this, and wanted to add something. Its
important for me to note that the whole project of surrealism, as I see it,
is to "restore" the mind to its natural state (which is surreality). I think
the word "restoration" is important here. I have a problem with the words
"enhance" or "increase" because I don't see surreality as an addition, but
as a return to what was already there. In other words, I see surreality as
taking off your clothes and getting to your body, not putting more on.*
Trance states, hypnogogic states, and other ASCs, can only get to the part
of ourselves that is repressed. Ironically, in return they also repress --
they withold our ability to function naturally, to live in everyday life, or
hinder some other part of living.
*A side note to Nik: The biggest problem I have with eastern traditions is
that they DO preach that you should not only eliminate your clothes, but
also your body. I find this action equally as equally repressive as the
opposite: a man covered in metal.
john adams
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message news:a7tum5$hmh$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> "john adams" wrote
> > Isn't "complete state" a little repressive or misleading though?
> How so? Perhaps the phrase "complete state" sounds too idealistic?
No it sounds too finite. As if the freest quality of consciousness could be
designated as such and such, or as if consciousness could be considered
in its completed state. But maybe we're confusing ourselves with terms.
> > I'm not sure the state you offer is possible, although it may be. Anyway,
> > a "moment of surreality", so to speak, could fall into the category of
> > an altered state, such as trance state. It's a moment of transcending
> > normal habit, logic, or expectancy, and these can take place in hypnogic,
> > trance (or hallucinogenic even) states.
>
> I think its possible to achieve this state -- a completely liberated,
> non-repressive, natural state -- and hold it. I see surreality as the "base"
> state, which for me distinguishes it from other "altered" states.
The problem is in what you would define natural and completely
liberated as. We know concretely some of the limitations placed
upon us by ourselves, other individuals and institutions of activity,
our daily conditions of existence. But for every one we might take
away, there may be a new challenge to press against. And as
'natural human consciousness' evolves (constantly), so does its
state - or quality of being - in the way of new sensitivies, perceptions,
feelings, understandings, and so on.
> [p.s. got the package]
Ok. I wonder if the stars and stripes kangaroo drawing helped get it there any
faster.
Brandon Freels
> The problem is in what you would define natural and completely
> liberated as. We know concretely some of the limitations placed
> upon us by ourselves, other individuals and institutions of activity,
> our daily conditions of existence. But for every one we might take
> away, there may be a new challenge to press against. And as
> 'natural human consciousness' evolves (constantly), so does its
> state - or quality of being - in the way of new sensitivies, perceptions,
> feelings, understandings, and so on.
Well, I can't really argue with the idea that surreality is a state where
the mind is not only void of repression, but also a zone where the mind
changes and evolves. I don't see how such a flux couldn't be part of such a
state of mind.
Morpheal
> > I think its possible to achieve this state -- a completely liberated, non-repressive, natural state -- and hold it. I see surreality as the "base" state, which for me distinguishes it from other "altered" states.
I don't think the above has quite got it right. Too fallen into the
eastern meditative error. That has a purpose, but only as an attempted
purgative of the mind. Becomes excessively valued, despite its limited
and specific usefulness.
> I went for a walk, thought about this, and wanted to add something. Its important for me to note that the whole project of surrealism, as I see it, is to "restore" the mind to its natural state (which is surreality). I think the word "restoration" is important here. I have a problem with the words "enhance" or "increase" because I don't see surreality as an addition, but as a return to what was already there. In other words, I see surreality as taking off your clothes and getting to your body, not putting more on.* Trance states, hypnogogic states, and other ASCs, can only get to the part of ourselves that is repressed.
I am not sure I would concur as to "natural" state. There is something
of value in what you say, nevertheless.
What surrealism was initially was an absorption of late 19th and early
20th century scientific psychology into the arts. However that, as a
reaction to the new technologies exerted as social leverage and
controls. The human psyche was being messed with in new ways, and the
conflicts arrising from that such as dictatorship and individual free
will were the catalyst for attempts to free the individual psyche as in
the psychology of Carl Jung, and reflected in the artistic expressions
of the surrealists. Surrealism is about how art can be liberating within
itself as production and involvement in the arts, but also about how art
can be a catalyst for liberation to human freedom contra such influences
as stalinism and fascism, both of which relied upon technological means
to enslave, bend, and control the human mind.
Is the enslaved mind, as in the mind of a collectivized insect, more
natural or is the liberated mind of a godlike creative being, rather
than a subservient creaturehood, more natural ? You would have to delve
into the satanic depths of a lot of theology and early philosophy,
concerning good and evil, to find the roots of fascism and stalinism. To
the right wing mentality that seeks a maximum of deterministic social
controls surrealism is a devil. It depends on what you consider natural.
Their view of natural is not your view, or Carl Jung's view either.
One of the main contributions of surrealist efforts in the invisible
battleground against enslavements of the human mind, and against the
bending of the human mind to what free human beings consider harshly
evil purposes (such as genocide in Europe in the 20th century), is
surrealisms finding ways to bring the otherwise subconscious or
previously unconscious elements of the mind more fully to consciousness,
including subliminal influences. That is essential to the war effort
within the invisible war, and essential to self knowledge that a warrior
in the war must have in order to survive as anything more than being
reduced to the status of a zombie or automaton, ie. defeated and only a
receptable for external inputs, operating consistent solely to external,
commands, no longer freely volitional or individual.
Morpheal
Dale Houstman
> Surrealism is about how art can be liberating within
> itself as production and involvement in the arts, but also about how art
> can be a catalyst for liberation to human freedom contra such influences
> as stalinism and fascism, both of which relied upon technological means
> to enslave, bend, and control the human mind.
Although art is certainly of interest to the surrealist (among a sackload of
other things), it is not accurate to start a definition of surrealism with
"Surrealism is about art..." no matter where it wanders from there. To a
surrealist art is a tool (albeit one of abiding interest), and is no more
important than polemic and social action. It's maybe a small distinction,
but - because of decades of misunderstanding of surrealism as an art
movement - it is still an important one. In fact, the visual arts were
initially considered (along with music) to be problematical when it came to
incorporating surreal concepts, as the "founders" could not see their way to
realizing any viable way to produce art via automatism which was of
overriding importance in the early days. Certain "innovations"
(decalcomania, frottage, collage, etc.) paved the way for the merger, and
imagination took over from there. But surrealism is NOT "about art."
>
>To the right wing mentality that seeks a maximum of deterministic social
> controls surrealism is a devil.
I would rather think that - today - surrealism is not a "devil" to either
wing, but more of a vaguely-recalled nonentity. This may be to surrealism's
credit.
> One of the main contributions of surrealist efforts in the invisible
> battleground against enslavements of the human mind, and against the
> bending of the human mind to what free human beings consider harshly
> evil purposes (such as genocide in Europe in the 20th century), is
> surrealisms finding ways to bring the otherwise subconscious or
> previously unconscious elements of the mind more fully to consciousness,
> including subliminal influences. That is essential to the war effort
> within the invisible war, and essential to self knowledge that a warrior
> in the war must have in order to survive as anything more than being
> reduced to the status of a zombie or automaton, ie. defeated and only a
> receptable for external inputs, operating consistent solely to external,
> commands, no longer freely volitional or individual.
>
This may be true enough, but it still doesn't explain the enslaved (if
inept) conventionalism of your poetry. I suspect - like the truly enslaved -
you are neuroologically incapable of ascertaining your own debasement.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > Seems irrelevant to the point, but yes I do. Just not lately (the last
two weeks). But I would be happier if I didn't have to. Jobs are jails. But
I wouldn't expect a trustee to know that.
>
> I disagree, but on the proviso that someone has the chance to choose in
> terms of their own talents, abilities, becuase who knows those best,
> other than an experienced individual self ?
How many people actually get to choose the job that suits their desires? And
what if one's "talents" are not only unmarketable, but purposely so? What
job - for instance - suits the desires of one who wishes only to do their
own work at their own time and not be forced to suit the desires of others
who hold the pursestrings and the schedules?
>Jobs become jails when
> people are not utilized properly, and their work is not satisfying, pays
> too little, or does not allow them to use their real talents to best
> advantage. Jobs can be liberating in many ways, but only if there is
> enough money paid for the work, and real talents can be utilized rather
> than making people do what they are not really built for, or talented
> to, simply to make their lives miserable. Maybe you had the latter
> experience ? Wrong job, not enough money, and you are capable of doing
> more and better work in another area or for another employer ????
You seem to think most people are truly desirous of a position mandated by
the needs of some other, an other who is usually invisible and distant.
Anyone who has been in the working world for any time at all (as I have all
my adult life) realizes that - despite the little satisfactions people will
find (for their own sanity's sake) in almost any job - most people resent
having to work. As for "too little pay" even the most cursory understanding
of economics will prove to you that - in fact - the actual take home
reimbursement for the vast majority of workers has dropped since 1968. My
"other area" would be staying at home and working on my own projects (or
not - as I see fit) and following my desires as I please, not as manated by
even the most benificent employer. Jobs are jails.
>
> Tell us, prisoner, why you would rather be in the prison of joblessness
> rather than in the liberation of satisfying work ?
A typical case of the dubious dichotomy syndrome. No - ideal or not - I
would RATHER not have to work for others AT ALL. I must say that my recent
unemployment - despite a small anxiety over the usual financial
obligations - feels nothing like prison. I have plenty of satisfying work to
do, and it is not my fault that commerce finds it unmarketable, even if I
were particularly concerned about marketability as a measure of anything
truly valuable.
>
> My biggest difficulty, sometimes, has been that the work I most enjoy or
> would be best at, I had to do for too little (below scale), or for
> nothign at all rather than for pay. Also that I sometimes could not
> choose, and had to take first offerings, or perish. Not enough money to
> hold out for a better, more suitable, situation. It can ruin a lifetime,
> in some instances.... and it certainly frightens me.
And this is precisely why jobs are jails. One is forced to do those things
one has little interest in - and for far too many hours a week, and for
people who little appreciate your efforts - by dint of the fact that there
is a definite limit to satisfaction to be found in almost all of what
capitalism deems "useful." No doubt, if prisons were more amiable places to
be, with better food, companions, opportunities, reimbursement, and so on,
even jails wouldn't be jails. But they are, and so are jobs.
>
dmh
Morpheal
> Although art is certainly of interest
Stop right there.
Surrealist art is what Surrealism is about. Surrealist art has numerous
purposes, some of which it shares with all other art and some of which
are unique to Surrealism and its successors.
M.
Morpheal
> How many people actually get to choose the job that suits their desires? And what if one's "talents" are not only unmarketable, but purposely so?
I've never had the privilege of actually having a CHOICE of jobs.
Never in my life. So you do have a valid point in that. I have tried to
have a choice, even within the limits of what I have HAD TO learn to do
for money, but even then I have never had a CHOICE of jobs. I always had
to do whatever else I was given to do, that I could do for money, within
the confines of what skills and experience I had been given. Everything
meant, in saying this, within those confines.
Not to even begin to mention anything I acquired in the way of skills
and experience OUTSIDE of those given confines. The latter I was never
able to choose as a gainful occupation. Not so far, anyway. And I have a
few skills and some experience that falls within a very elite category.
Most never get to learn any of that, or to gain the experience. It takes
some peculiar talents to get that far. Can I choose any of that as a
basis for a gainful enough occupation ? Didn't happen.
> You seem to think most people are truly desirous of a position mandated by the needs of some other,
Oh, I had some skills, abilities, talents, for that too, and sought
after that, differently, but found that I had no real choice as to whom
the other would be who's needs I would end up meeting. Forget that
avenue of approach. No good that way. So I don't worry about that
question anymore. It does not pay well enough in any instance, if there
is no free and mutual choice in it.
> A typical case of the dubious dichotomy syndrome. No - ideal or not - I would RATHER not have to work for others AT ALL.
I don't feel that way, but I always wanted to be able to choose whom I
work for or with. I never had that choice.
> despite a small anxiety over the usual financial obligations - feels nothing like prison.
I never found anything satisfying or contenting about being out of work.
There was never any money to invest in myself, or a lifestyle with
someone whom I would want to invest in life with, so as to make it a
meaningful opportunity. One has to turn a profit from that too, so as to
pay the bills, or eventually perish... and without enough money it is
simply dead time, no progress, nothing accomplished, no success
possible, and that is eventually fatal in this society.
> be, with better food, companions, opportunities, reimbursement, and so on, even jails wouldn't be jails. But they are, and so are jobs.
I have never had the privilege of an occupation I could enjoy for its
own sake, and make enough money from it. Almost, even once working for a
company, but they spoiled it soon enough, by lack of job security, lack
of paid vacations, lack of benefits, lack of enough pay to replace my
car which was falling apart on the longish commutes.... but it was the
best job I ever had anywhere and the most agreeable environment, despite
some unfortunate conflicts someone set me up into (so as to avoid them
himself). Best job I ever had, and years later I still cannot replace it
with anything even half as good as what it was. Then again, the lack of
money in it would eventually have wiped me out. No profit.
M.
john adams
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message news:a7u4b2$nmv$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> I wrote:
> > I think its possible to achieve this state -- a completely liberated,
> > non-repressive, natural state -- and hold it. I see surreality as the
> "base"
> > state, which for me distinguishes it from other "altered" states.
>
> I went for a walk, thought about this, and wanted to add something. Its
> important for me to note that the whole project of surrealism, as I see it,
> is to "restore" the mind to its natural state (which is surreality). I think
> the word "restoration" is important here. I have a problem with the words
> "enhance" or "increase" because I don't see surreality as an addition, but
> as a return to what was already there. In other words, I see surreality as
> taking off your clothes and getting to your body, not putting more on.*
> Trance states, hypnogogic states, and other ASCs, can only get to the part
> of ourselves that is repressed. Ironically, in return they also repress --
> they withold our ability to function naturally, to live in everyday life, or
> hinder some other part of living.
But your use of "surreality", though importantly describes freeing up of
repressive states of being, leaves out such things as uniting the unconcious
with conscious, and in this respect this could be seen to "enhance" conscious
reality. All merely words of convience of course. I haven't come up with
a better one yet to throw out. How about: tintilate the chords of existence?
Excite the underlying nerves of latent reality? Deep probe the ass of
interior melodies? I don't know really.
> *A side note to Nik: The biggest problem I have with eastern traditions is
> that they DO preach that you should not only eliminate your clothes, but
> also your body. I find this action equally as equally repressive as the
> opposite: a man covered in metal.
I Think that is a little extreme, and there are quite a bit of variations on the
eastern traditions. To be fair, one might say they often seek a balance between
need and desire in the 'physical world'. One doesn't see too many buddhists
running through the streets naked, attempting to eliminate their own bodies,
unless you mean to say eliminate their own feces, which is no less odd-
sounding. They do tend to preach of a spiritual world that exists, which hasn't
been disproved, but is nonetheless pretty hard to prove (where the religious
faith comes in i guess), and that seems to be the biggest stump in their system
of thought. I guess we've been down this road before though.
john
Brandon Freels
> But your use of "surreality", though importantly describes freeing up of
> repressive states of being, leaves out such things as uniting the
unconcious
> with conscious
A non-repressive state WOULD include the uniting of unconscious and
conscious, and this would probably be its primary feature. Afterall, what
would be left to stop the unconscious from stomping out into the world if
there were no repressive superego?
> I Think that is a little extreme, and there are quite a bit of variations
on the
> eastern traditions.
[snip]
But, really, variations don't change the core of the Eastern traditions.
There's a Krishna I know who lifestyle doesn't do much for the pleasure
principle. I would like to find a religion that does. My biggest annoyance
is when people (mainly western hippies) glamorize the Eastern traditions and
hold them up over the Jewish-Christian-Islamic tradition as some sort of
liberative force, when in reality both traditions are equally as repressive.
Nik Maack
Brandon Freels wrote:
> My biggest annoyance
> is when people (mainly western hippies) glamorize the Eastern traditions and
> hold them up over the Jewish-Christian-Islamic tradition as some sort of
> liberative force, when in reality both traditions are equally as repressive.
I agree, but one of the reason westerners tend to like them is because
there's no institutionalized, repressive force in the western world that
forces them to adopt all aspects of the eastern package. I imagine
Christianity would seem interesting and fun if it was a matter of
personal choice and personal exploration, as opposed to listening to
Father Bob ramble on endlessly at the front of the room.
Presumably this is why protestant religions are so popular in the USA --
lots and lots of individual variation, allowing the "user" to choose
what suits them best.
john adams
> conscious, and this would probably be its primary feature. Afterall, what
> would be left to stop the unconscious from stomping out into the world if
> there were no repressive superego?
>
I suppose I just don't believe in a perfect-like unadulterated "base state",
like you appear to describe, nor that the unconcious might stomp out into the
world, free of all shackles, without some conscious guidance or
feedback occuring. When you say stomping out, I picture you meaning
emerging to the world unbound.
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <onion...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:2s5p8.157368$702.27695@sccrnsc02...
I don't much believe in an unadulterated "state of grace" either: it sounds
entirely too much like the earlier "Noble Savage" fallacy. I do believe
(have to believe) that we could do better than we are doing, and primarily
by allowing more liberty at all stages (by which I mean NOT the simplistic
notion of suddenly releasing all the murderers from jail so as to allow them
more roaming room, but a liberation of a variety of desires throughout
society and at all ages, so as to limit the necessity for the development of
compensating violences, frustrations, etc.). I also think that the
surrealist were not particularly interested in destroying conscious controls
altogether, but in allowing a greater conversation between the rational and
the irrational, so as to form a more complete (and more satisfying) reality.
Breton - as I've said before - was quite dismayed by the sight of Nadja's
"total liberation" from the rational, and it is obvious from all sorts of
accounts that he never meant for unbound delirium to be trhe one standard of
existence: he was much too much of a control freak for that. On the simplest
level, a better balance between the requirements of capitalism (40 hour
weeks on a fairly rigid schedule) and the actual desires of workers would be
quite welcome. Saner drug laws and a more representative government would be
neat steps also. It's really - in these material matters - another way of
saying "control of the means of production" and - thus - a spreading of
control. Even these processes (seemingly external to an individuals'
relationship with their own "subconscious") would begin to allow us a sort
of breathing space into which our imaginations could leap without censure.
Beyond that, a more comlex realignment of what constitutes value is in
order: what sort of personal labor IS wanted, and which are considered
useless and thus pointless? And so on: possibly a fruitless wish at this
point. So we must continue to "do it ourselves" and to remind ourselves
(while attempting to tell others) that the world we find ourselves in is not
the only alternative; that it didn't HAVE to be this way, and that
capitalism is not - by any stretch - a natural condition of makind, but one
choice amongst many, albeit it one in great power at the moment.
Or words to that effect...
dmh
Brandon Freels
> I suppose I just don't believe in a perfect-like unadulterated "base
state",
> like you appear to describe, nor that the unconcious might stomp out into
the
> world, free of all shackles, without some conscious guidance or
> feedback occuring. When you say stomping out, I picture you meaning
> emerging to the world unbound.
I'm saying that the natural state of the mind is the ego-id formation minus
the superego. Surreality is not a "state of grace" but state of mind devoid
of cultural programming, an everyday state of interior-exterior
communication and "receptivity."
Dale Houstman
there are cultures less noisey than ours, providing more "down time" and
room for "free-trade" in imagination, but I am not certain I can visualize a
mind "devoid" of cultural programming. I admit this might be a failing on my
part, due to a lifetime of such programming (much of which - I hope - I have
had the wits and nerve to question). An infant is instantly "programmed" by
their parents' culture, which - in most respects - will echo a large part of
their own cultural programming. A specific language is cultural programming,
amongst numberlous other things and processes. Even animals - in effect -
receive cultural programming almost instantly, although perhaps none of that
is as aggravating as Ted Koppel, Britney Spears, and so on. I am not at all
certain there is such a thing as an individual that is not - to some
degree - inculcated into a larger cultural framework. It is impossible - at
any rate - to isolate entirely a newborn from any cultural influence, since
they depend on others for survival, and thus are open to "contamination." If
you are merely saying that surreality encourages investigation and - at
times - rejection of many aspects of a culture, I wouldn't demure on the
point, but even "receptivity" will have its limits given the context of
survival need. I knew at any early age that I was going to have to act "like
others" if I expected to get to adulthood relatively intact as an
individual, but even that response is a cultural game, albeit one the
government - for one - would like to seek out and destroy. It strikes me
that the best ploy is to learn as much about the culture one is expected to
be a "good member" of as is possible, so as to avoid the snares and
potholes.
But then again, maybe I am misunderstanding the question under examination?
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CA49D4A...@sympatico.ca...
(it was - after all - settled by dissenters and other "criminals") and I
think this has something to do with it. If Christianity (or at least
Catholicism) were a matter of personal choice and personal exploration it
would - of course - no longer be Catholicism, and so there isn't much of a
point there. And while it is true Buddhism has a lot of variations, for the
most part the sterner varieties were foisted on the peasants (mostly
educating them in the ways of bearing their lot with quiet dignity) and the
more intellectual and exotic varieties (with their word games and poetry)
were practiced by the upper classes, often after a life of bureaucratic
mayhem. There is a long history of Japanese "statesmen" and petty
bourgeoisie retiring to their perfect little Buddhist hut to spend their
declining years writing endless haiku and trying to grasp "aware" - that
poignant sense of impermanence. So the story isn't quite as liberated as it
seems from a mere textual viewpoint. I'm not particularly down on Buddhism
as religions go: it has a more benign character all around than the bloody
Church, but its incorporation into the arsenal of New Age mysticism as often
serves the usual purpose of assuaging guilt without actually performing any
social function worth mentioning. Again, not a great crime, but not a very
laudable or interesting process either, as far as I can tell from the
examples I have observed.
But maybe they all are better than that sect started by a con artist,
Mormonism. A stupid religion based on a proven scam, and all revolving about
a very graceless text of abysmal prose.
dmh
Brandon Freels
> I wonder what form a mind devoid of cultural programming might be? ... It
is impossible - at
> any rate - to isolate entirely a newborn from any cultural influence,
since
> they depend on others for survival, and thus are open to "contamination."
If
> you are merely saying that surreality encourages investigation and - at
> times - rejection of many aspects of a culture, I wouldn't demure on the
I think this is more along the lines of what I meant. I think I'm speaking
of eliminating the "surplus repressions" (to use Marcuse's term) that this
culture and others provide, promote, and push.
Dale Houstman
Right. As I said, one of the processes I used (quite intuitively) to avoid
over-socialization when I was young, was simply to realize that to avoid
being absorbed I was going to have to use masks in combination with solitude
to escape being "found out." I am certain I didn't think about it in these
terms (or any terms at all) then, but I often joke about being in a "coma"
until I was eighteen, at which point I began "blooming" (to use a charmingly
outdated term for young womanhood!). For those who didn't do this (or some
other protective process) the entire journey to surreality (or whatever one
wishes to call liberation and integrity and individulization, etc.) is going
to be much more difficult I would think. I must admit hitting my eighteenth
year in the midst of the "hippie revolution" (or - as we called ourselves
rather proudly - freaks) made this re-emergence easier. I felt then (as I
did when I finally ran into Rimbaud and then the surrealists) that I was
just coming home for the first time, that these ideas and actions were
already latent in me, as I suppose they are in everyone not beaten into wage
slavery and nationalistic "fervor." So I understand what you are saying
here.
But it is a difficult row-to-hoe once the socialization is complete, and the
neurological patterns have been set. And I do think that infants already
have different personalities at birth (and so different neurological
responses) and many are liable to be "crushed" rather more easily than
others. Which isn't to say I haven't been in ways I might not recognize even
now. But it is startling (and depressing) to ask a person of twenty (as I
did) if he really thinks people who have more money are better and smarter
than him and to have him answer in the positive. This is a strange (but not
so strange) sort of silent serfdom.
dmh
>
>
Morpheal
"I knew the secret of the universe,... but I forgot."
- Matt Johnson
"Everything is what it isn't."
- John Lennon
Enough said.
M.
Dale Houstman
still received knowledge, and hardly constitute the entirety of a
discussion, no matter how choice the words, or how celebrated the creator.
But I notice that you do have a tendency to settle for the vague or merely
clever, although - as pertains to clever - you seem incapable of producing
it yourself.
john adams
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
>
> I don't much believe in an unadulterated "state of grace" either: it sounds
> entirely too much like the earlier "Noble Savage" fallacy. I do believe
> (have to believe) that we could do better than we are doing, and primarily
> by allowing more liberty at all stages (by which I mean NOT the simplistic
> notion of suddenly releasing all the murderers from jail so as to allow them
> more roaming room, but a liberation of a variety of desires throughout
> society and at all ages, so as to limit the necessity for the development of
> compensating violences, frustrations, etc.).
The difficult thing about it though is that with such systems of governance
and control, always being prone to its corruption, it is fair to say perhaps
the underlying ills are only impossible to cure: the improvements you mention
would be nice, but would be possible only with the accompanied change to
the structure of controls, its inequality. Any instantaneous changes - like
freeing all people from the ("authorized") monopolies of power - might bring
more sweeping torments of struggle and fighting in the short term, but a society
left free to align itself towards individual freedoms and a more evolved social
structure would inevitably thrive, if not probably for the monopolies of power
and interest either in other countries or inner factions of congealed, self-directed
interests the society would not be prepared for.
But anyway, it's hard to come to terms with the trade off of consequences
with one kind of immediate change and its expected/unexpected effects, in
constrast to that of the longer, slower struggle towards bringing about change
to the already present design, the products of which are always death and misery
somewhere - whether it is warfare waged abroad or corrosion within. One
would hope that education - the one truly necessary key I guess - could be a
more tenable immediate answer, but which the monopolies of power and
self-protective interests tend heavily to work against.
>I also think that the
> surrealist were not particularly interested in destroying conscious controls
> altogether, but in allowing a greater conversation between the rational and
> the irrational, so as to form a more complete (and more satisfying) reality.
> Breton - as I've said before - was quite dismayed by the sight of Nadja's
> "total liberation" from the rational, and it is obvious from all sorts of
> accounts that he never meant for unbound delirium to be trhe one standard of
> existence: he was much too much of a control freak for that. On the simplest
> level, a better balance between the requirements of capitalism (40 hour
> weeks on a fairly rigid schedule) and the actual desires of workers would be
> quite welcome. Saner drug laws and a more representative government would be
> neat steps also. It's really - in these material matters - another way of
> saying "control of the means of production" and - thus - a spreading of
> control. Even these processes (seemingly external to an individuals'
> relationship with their own "subconscious") would begin to allow us a sort
> of breathing space into which our imaginations could leap without censure.
> Beyond that, a more comlex realignment of what constitutes value is in
> order: what sort of personal labor IS wanted, and which are considered
> useless and thus pointless? And so on: possibly a fruitless wish at this
> point. So we must continue to "do it ourselves" and to remind ourselves
> (while attempting to tell others) that the world we find ourselves in is not
> the only alternative; that it didn't HAVE to be this way, and that
> capitalism is not - by any stretch - a natural condition of makind, but one
> choice amongst many, albeit it one in great power at the moment.
>
This is all we can do, and hopefully the better alternatives will win out
before the deleterious effects of the pre-existing order of things catch
up to us.
john
p.s. I tried to send an email today but your server was rejecting my
address all over the place.
Morpheal
> Not really. Although quotes from the famous are often interesting, they are still received knowledge, and hardly constitute the entirety of a discussion, no matter how choice the words, or how celebrated the creator. But I notice that you do have a tendency to settle for the vague or merely clever, although - as pertains to clever - you seem incapable of producing it yourself.
Yes, Mister Computerhead.
Similar to Mister Potatohead, but more erudite sounding. Nevertheless,
put together from various pieces that are stuck into a kind of
vegetation. Cerebral vegetation, no doubt, but nevertheless green, dead,
and actually starting to rot.
Morpheal
PS. I really did know the secret of the universe and I really have
forgotten it. I won't ever remember it again. I can assure you of
that. It's a survival skill.
M.
Morpheal
> before the deleterious effects of the pre-existing order of things
Well, I don't know about that.
It all exists to create challenges.
It makes you butt heads with it until you eventually die.
A game that must necessarily be played, but that one can never really
win. Nevertheless it is the only game in town.
M.